Please read the essay below and respond to the following question with a 1-2  page MLA essay containing at least one quote from “Are Families Dangerous?” Please organize your essay into paragraphs and be sure that it is proofread before submitting. In developing your essay be sure to use specific arguments and illustrations, which you may draw from your personal experience, the experiences of others, and any of your reading.  Question: What reasons does Ehrenreich provide to convince her audience that families are dangerous? How persuasive do you find her assertions and examples?  You may submit your essay either as a text entry or a file upload.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: Barbara Ehrenreich is a widely-published political essayist and social critic. She is the author or co-author of 12 books. She published the essay reprinted here originally in Time magazine under the title “Oh, Those Family Values.” See attached Article for reading and referencing.  No

ARE FAMILIES DANGEROUS?

A disturbing subtext runs through our recent media fixations. Parents abuse sons—allegedly at least, in the Menendez case—who in turn rise up and kill them. A husband torments a wife, who retaliates with a kitchen knife. Love turns into obsession, between the Simpsons anyway, and then perhaps into murderous rage: the family, in other words, becomes personal hell.

This accounts for at least part of our fascination with the Bobbitts and the Simpsons and the rest of them. We live in a culture that fetishes the family as the ideal unit of human community, the perfect container for our lusts and loves. Politicians of both parties are aggressively “pro-family,” even abortion-rights bumper stickers proudly link “pro-family” and “pro-choice.” Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable; that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all—that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence.

But consider the matter of wife battery. We managed to dodge it in the Bobbitt case and downplay it as a force in Tonya Harding’s life. Thanks to O.J., though, we’re caught up in a mass consciousness-raising session, grimly absorbing the fact that in some areas domestic violence sends as many women to emergency rooms as any other form of illness, injury or assault.

Still, we shrink from the obvious inference: for a woman, home is, statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be. Her worst enemies and potential killers are not strangers but lovers, husbands and those who claimed to love her once. Similarly, for every child like Polly Klaas who is killed by a deranged criminal on parole, dozens are abused and murdered by their own relatives. Home is all too often where the small and weak fear to lie down and shut their eyes.

At some deep, queasy, Freudian level, we all know this. Even in the ostensibly “functional,” nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or put-down that violates a child’s shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries. At best, the family teaches the finest things human beings can learn from one another—generosity and love. But it is also, all too often, where we learn nasty things like hate and rage and shame.

Americans act out their ambivalence about the family without ever owning up to it. Millions adhere to creeds that are militantly “pro-family.” But at the same time millions flock to therapy groups that offer to heal the “inner child” from damage inflicted by family life. Legions of women band together to revive the self-esteem they lost in supposedly loving relationships and to learn to love a little less. We are all, it is often said, “in recovery.” And from what? Our families, in most cases.

There is a long and honorable tradition of “anti-family” thought. The French philosopher Charles Fourier taught that the family was a barrier to human progress; early feminists saw a degrading parallel between marriage and prostitution. More recently, the renowned British anthropologist Edmund Leach stated that “far from being the basis of the good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all discontents.” Communes proved harder to sustain than plain old couples, and the conservatism of the 80’s crushed the last vestiges of lifestyle experimentation. Today even gays and lesbians are eager to get married and take up family life. Feminists have learned to couch their concerns as “family issues,” and public figures would sooner advocate free cocaine on demand than criticize the family. Hence our unseemly interest in O.J. and Erik, Lyle and Lorena: they allow us, however gingerly, to break the silence on the hellish side of family life.

But the discussion needs to become a lot more open and forthright. We may be stuck with the family—at least until someone invents a sustainable alternative—but the family, with its deep, impacted tensions and longings, can hardly be expected to be the moral foundation of everything else. In fact, many families could use a lot more outside interference in the form of counseling and policing, and some are so dangerously dysfunctional that they ought to be encouraged to disband right away. Even healthy families need outside sources of moral guidance to keep the internal tensions from imploding—and this means, at the very least, a public philosophy of gender equality and concern for child welfare. When, instead, the larger culture aggrandizes wife beaters, degrades women or nods approvingly at child slappers, the family gets a little more dangerous for everyone, and so, inevitably, does the larger world.

Previous Next