The doctrine of subsidiarity is easily understood. When you
were a little boy or girl and left your room a bit messy, your mother would
sometime invade your personal space and, noticing the socks on the floor, say
something along these lines: “Hey, do you think I’m your personal maid?”
This was a rhetorical question. Even at that young age,
before you were muscled into picking up your own socks, you knew better than to
answer rhetorical questions coming from either your mother or father, the uber-enforcer
in the family whose brawny word you had long since come to respect. You
respected your father’s word because his word to you was his bond with you.
By so instructing you to pick up your own (insert proper
adjective here) socks, your mother was paying tribute to the principle of
subsidiarity, which holds that in any multiform political unit – such as a
federated union of states – the principal actor should be the smallest possible
unit affected by laws and regulations: If you could pick up your own socks, you
should pick up your own socks. The smallest political unit in a society of
competing political units, Aristotle says, is the family: The philosopher’s
“Politics” opens with a discussion of the family as a POLITICAL unit. To better
understand this politically subordinate structure and the principal of
subsidiarity, one might ask the question: Why should Governor Dannel Malloy
pick up your socks, even if he wants to be your maid??
What was true in Aristotle’s day is true in our own: The
family, such as it is in 21st century America, remains a political
unit. That unit among some segments of the population – for instance, black
Americans in urban areas – has been decimated. More than decimated, in many
instances, what used to be called the “nuclear family” has been aborted in what
might be called its formative stage. For reasons most politicians prefer not to
discuss, fathers in urban areas have fled fatherhood, leaving behind in their
wake fatherless children and mothers many of whom are ill equipped to rein in anarchic
boys who join gangs and engage in criminal pursuits.
Virtually every serious study of social pathologies and
fatherless families demonstrates a positive correlation between the absence of
fathers in homes and children’s cognitive development in school as measured by
standardized IQ tests, achievement tests and school performance. The same
studies show there are serious differential effects associated with
fatherlessness. According to one comprehensive American Psychological Association (APA) study, “financial hardship, high levels of anxiety, and, in
particular, low levels of parent–child interaction are causes of poor
performance [in school] among children in single-parent families.”
The "Survey of Youth in Custody" conducted in 1987
found that 70% did not grow up with both parents, and figures often cited from
a 1994 study of Wisconsin juveniles were “even more stark,” according to a piece in The Atlantic: “Only 13% grew up with their married parents. Here's
the conclusion of Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan, the doyenne of researchers
about single parenthood: ‘[C]ontrolling for income and all other factors,
youths in father-absent families (mother only, mother-stepfather, and
relatives/other) still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than
those from mother-father families."
Other reports
indicate that children who live without a biological father in the home
compared with their peers living with their married, biological (or adoptive)
parents are on average at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to
use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems,
to be victims of child abuse and to engage in criminal behavior.
How then does this growing political unit, the fatherless family,
fit in with the federated system operative in the United States? In a federated
system – a political organization that includes, families, neighborhoods,
helping organizations such as churches and schools, municipal governments,
state governments and the federal government – who gets to play the role of the
absent father? And more importantly, will any substitute suffice?
In Chicago, the political nursery bed of President Barrack
Obama and now the murder capital of the United States, the answer to the
question, after fatherlessness has ripened into crime, appears to be lethal gangs,
police and the courts. Gangs are criminal enterprises, and even compassionate
police, judges and educators, remote and further removed in the architecture of
subsidiarity than fathers, are poor substitutes. In the absence of a father in
the family, gangs become a support system and the gateway to criminal activity;
the police and the courts then are expected to mop up the resulting social
dislocations.
There is no indication that “the lords spirituals” in the
United States” -- which certainly includes, in descending subsidiary order,
actors such as the president, the U.S. Congress, governors, state legislatures,
municipal bodies and neighborhood helping organizations – have proposed serious
and effective remedies that would reverse a process of social disintegration
directly related to fatherless families. Like the police and the courts, politicians
seem to be content with bills and measures designed to sponge up the blood on
the streets caused in some part by the hapless legislation they have proposed that
is, to put it in the most civil of terms, heedless of the real-world consequences
of legislative palliatives.
Comments
may be right now. You're so intelligent. You recognize therefore considerably with regards to this matter, made mee individually imagine
it from so many varied angles. Its like women and men are not involved until it's one thing to accomplish with Lady gaga!
Your personal stuffs nice. At all times care for it
up!
Feel free to visit my web blog ... Ricky Salvador