Doug
----
The War Against Parents, which Cornel West co-wrote with Sylvia Ann Hewlett, is basically communitarian in politics. The argument is that our society hates parents and undermines them economically and culturally. It sees "the family" as a unit, with a single set of interests, so there's no discussion of power within the family: ie that women are doing most of the domestic work and are the objects of much brutality and disrespect from husbands. Indeed, if there are victims of the current setup it's men -- who are belittled (dated discussion of old TV sitcoms--no mention of all the new ones where dads raise kids without mom) and who have no "role." (like being an equal spouse and parent could not be their role). West and Hewlett love the Nation of Islam and Promisekeepers, which they see as anguished responses to this male rolelessness -- they buy the whole rationale that husband is boss but since he's a christian servant that's okay. Feminism is not treated sympathetically --not surprising, since Sylvia Ann hewlett rose to fame with a book, A Lesser Life, attacking the women's movement. Nor is "the left," which they accuse of being "anti-child" (no explanation of what this means). Many of the arguments and "facts" come straight out of the men's rights movement.
The book favors parental authority -- there's much fretting about teen rudeness, youth culture, evil TV and rock. So their sympathies are basically with men over women, and parents over kids and over the govt. They discuss govt mishandling of unfounded child abuse claims, for instance, but no substantial discussion of real child abuse.
What got me particularly was the calls to restrict divorce. They quote a Thatcherite cabinet minster on the need to "throw sand into the machinery of divorce" --waiting periods of several years, mandated counselling , return to fault-divorce system (only a few grounds for divorce, which must be proved in court). they like "covenant marriage" (in fact they like religion generally).
I have to say Cornel West seems like quite an anti-feminist to me, quite the conservative family values advocate. It's awfully late in the day for a leftist to be trying to force people to stay married, and to be discussing teen sexuality without ever mentioning contraception or abortion or sex ed etc. The Call to Civil society contains many punitive suggestions -- kick pregnant girls (and their boyfriends, if you can find them) out of extracurricular activities, deny Head Start to out of wedlock kids, etc. All are directed primarily against women and children.
I talked to Cornel for a long time on the phone. he talked as if he had barely read the Call before signing it (David Blankenhorn, he told me, is a personal friend), which raises the question of why he would let his name be associated with it in so careless a fashion. I didn't feel he understood the issues involved very well. for instance, he said he favored fault divorce because it would ensure child support -- but fault divorce has nothing to do with child support, it's about the grounds upon which a divorce can be granted. He did not seem to realize that kicking pregnant girls out of activities, or denying head start to children of unmarrieds, or favoring marrieds for public housing was a form of ILLEGAL discrimination that would violate decades of precedent.
He has not replied to my column in print so far as I know. He did come to the Nation for a seminar and we had an exchange in which he basically denied having written or said what he wrote and said (he claimed for instance that The War against Parents does discuss domestic violence --well, maybe there's a stray sentence in there I and the fact checker missed, but that would be all. My basic point stands: there is no analysis of male dominance in family and its effects). He defended his association with Louis Farrakhan and David Blankenhorn on the grounds that he was influencing them through struggle. Other people also queried the wisdom of these alliances and his devotion to "the family." I think he was a bit taken aback.
Well, you should read the documents and form your own opinion. Then you will have a basis for saying whether I am "harsh" and "ad hominem." Obviously I don't think I was.
Happy New Year, Katha Pollitt