WHAT HAPPENED IN EUROPE?: R.K. Becker

As much as I appreciate Stanley Kurtz's attempts to look at what's happening in Europe now for some sign of what SSM means for the future, I feel that it's way too soon to be able to make any definitive statements of cause and effect. As we have seen, every point Kurtz makes gets vigorously argued by those on the other side, and nobody convinces anyone who is not already on their side of the debate. I fully expect that this will be the case for quite a while yet.

The reason relates to the varying time lag between cause and effect in social policy changes. There is an erroneous belief among many that any effects that will be caused by a policy change should all present themselves within only a few years of when the change takes place.

In fact, often the effect of policy changes takes up to a full generation to be noticed. This is because an effect may not actually become obvious until the message of the social policy change has been internalized by the society, and this may not occur until a generation has grown up with the policy change.

SSM, for instance, will probably not have an immediate effect on most married heterosexuals. Although many won't accept the idea, it won't effect their marriages precisely because their vision of marriage won't change. Regardless of what the law says, many, perhaps most, heterosexuals will still think of marriage as they have since they grew up--as a heterosexual institution. In part out of a defensive denial to avoid changing this image, they will regard gay marriage as merely a separate side category for another segment of society that doesn't really affect them.

This will not cross over to the next generation which internalizes from the beginning a very different idea of marriage--not as two separate-but-equal institutions but as one androgynized one. It is when this group starts growing up, marrying (or not marrying), and having (or not having) children, that we will really begin to see what effects SSM has had. The problem is that by then, if the effects are negative as I predict, it may be too late to do anything to undo them.

At this time, however, and probably for some time to come, sociology, anthropology, and psychology (the 'human nature' sciences) are just not developed to the point that they can even say with certainty just how long it takes for a particular cause to show its effect in the culture. Thus, when analyzing data from Europe, are we dealing with the effects of changes from a mere year ago (direct responses to changes in a law), or five to ten years ago (after the present generation has slowly internalized the change), or thirty or more years ago (changes due to internalization by the new generation)? Probably a mixture of all, making any definitive statements impossible to make. As time goes on, some things should become more evident, and it might be possible to sort out the differing possible causes. Though even then I doubt that there'll be universal agreement.

But a very obvious and massive effect will cry out for an explanation. And if that effect was predicted years earlier as the result of a particular change, the connection will be easier to make and probably easier to examine. Hence, there's no harm in speculating about the possible effects SSM might have, and I will do so as much as I can, and encourage others to do so as well. By doing this, advocates for tradition may be able to slow down or even contain the rush toward SSM. Or they may not, and may just have to wait and see if their predictions come true years down the line.

Examining the data now is fine, and a really discerning sociologist may be able to note many possibly relevant changes. But for now, on both sides, people should lower their expectations and not expect 'proof' for either side to come from statistics. It's just too soon.
posted by Eve at 4:46 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home