Source: Reid, J.M. 2000. The
Process of Composition (3rd edn.). Longman: USA. PP: 152 - 159
Directions:
Read the following passage. In an organized and detailed essay, summarize its main ideas and then explain why [i.e., analyze why] you agree
or disagree with what the article
says. Support your agreement/ disagreement with specific examples from your
experience or outside reading and/or with an analysis of the essay’s argument.
|
Family
Values in America
Dudley Erskine Devline
In recent months, the political debate
about family values in America has taken center-stage. “Lesser” problems like
crime, the economy, oil spills foreign wars , and global warming have faded
into the background, and the babble of voices haranguing us about ‘family
values’ has increased in frequency and volume. The social critics offer two
very different solutions. One group of family reformers says that we should
return to the days of the traditional family. Another group believes that
it’s too late to restore the old nuclear family structure, instead we need to
fix our culture so everyone in the community helps raise the children,
including aunts and uncles, grandparents, shop owners, and television
producers. In this essay, I will explain both positions and then offer my own
argument, which is that moral values really have nothing to do with family
structures. We just need to back off and give kids some space.
Here are some examples and statistics that the social critics cite to
illustrate the seriousness of the family values problems:
-
In America, more than half of all
marriages end in divorce, and more than one-third of all children are born to
single mothers.
-
In a recent poll, 81% of Americans
thought that TV’s effect on children caused a decline in family values. as if
to illustrate, a five-year old in New York recently watched an episode of a
television program, and then, imitating what he saw on TV, set his own house
afire, resulting in the death of his two year-old sister.
-
In California recently, a six year-old
boy and twin eight year-olds broke into a house to steal a tricycle. In the
process, the burglary turned violent, and these children assaulted and maimed
an infant child.
These examples, the social critics argue, prove that there is a clear
connection between the breakup of the traditional family structure and the
rampant increase in materialistic, self-centered, violent child and adolescent
behavior. Many of these critics think that the decline of the nuclear
family—those families with a father who works and a mother who stays at home
with her 2.5 children – has created a generation of children and teenagers
that thinks nothing of cheating, stealing, or hurting other people to get what
they want. Family values, they believe, have disappeared. These critics
believe that we can trace the problem of the decline to a fragmented family
structure: single parents raising children, “blended’ families with children
from multiple marriages, families where one parent is dating, and families
with workaholic or absentee parents who provide material possessions but
little guidance.
The solution to these problems, according to these social reformers,
is a return to the nuclear family. They exhort men to assume responsibility
for their relationships and to take their rightful place as the patriarch of
the family. Conservative religious speakers such as jerry Falwell argue that
feminists have destroyed family structures and traditional moral values by
leaving their role as mother to work outside the home and by having children
out of wedlock.
The second group of reformers favors a communal or “whole village”
approach. These people argue that family structures have already changed, in
part for some very good reasons. first, women and children need to be able to
leave abusive and hostile relationships. Columnist Barbara Ehrenreich speaks
for this group when she says that ‘domestic violence sends as many women to
emergency rooms as any other form of illness, injury or assault. “Second,
women – and men – need to have more freedom to balance child care with career
demands. since family structures have already changed, we need to think about
a larger, cultural solution. This group argues that children should be raised
by many people in a community: grandparents, babysitters, shopkeepers,
teachers, little league coaches, and friends, as well as television programs
such as ‘Sesame Street” and “Touched by an Angle.” These reformers believe
that we need cultural reform that focuses on forces outside the traditional
family that can teach children “family” values.
This second group reformers, however, faces a daunting task. They too,
want U.S. culture to move back to the horse and buggy days, when children
treated teachers and other community members with respect. Today, however, if
a teacher scolds a student, the student may pull a knife – or at least
initiate legal action. If an older driver chides a teenager who just cut him
off, the teen could shoot him. Today children watch 2,000 hours of TV every
year and see over 6,000 acts of violence a year. Think of the work – not to
mention the censorship problems – required just to reform the media, possibly
by using warning labels, perhaps by installing a V-chip, or even by turning
off the worst of the violent television programs.
My own belief is that social critics have wildly exaggerated the
problem. First, there is, in fact, no demonstrable relationship between a
person’s family structure and their moral values. Some bad kids come from
good homes; some good kids come from bad homes. The family structure itself
does not insure good values. Second, we have to realize that this new
generation is different; we must have faith that kids will grow up fine. They
just need a little time to and space to adapt to the world without the
meddling of a bunch of social reformers. Sure, there are a few kids who are
out of control, but does that mean we have to go out and start preaching at
everyone to fix their families? And does that mean we should start censoring
television programs? Focusing on rebuilding an older culture will not work.
Time changes, and we must ‘go with the flow.”
Basically, both of these reform groups need to take a deep breath and
calm down. After all, children simply go through stages as they grow up. We
know that by the time they become adults, most of them turn out fine. I think
we just need to relax a bit. Just give kids some space!
|
Summary-analysis Essay (Student 1)
Introduction
In
his article, “Family Values in America, “ Dudley Erskine
responds to the questions,
“What is the solution to declining moral values in today’s society?” Devlin
provides two answers, the first being a return to a time when the traditional
family was the norm, and the second an adjustment to our culture that would
involve the entire community—including television programs—in the raising of
children. Devlin then adds his own solution: “Give kids some space!” I disagree with Devlin’s
assertion; instead, I believe a middle ground can be found where respect for
people and communities is taught from an early age by a child’s family (nuclear
or otherwise) and is reinforced by a child’s environment.
Background
Paragraph
Devlin’s article points out that the
social reformers have noticed a definite connection between the decline in
family values and the decline in traditional family structure. The results have
been an increase of adolescent violence and unacceptable behavior. These
reformers believe that action must be taken to return our society to the days
when the father provided a sturdy, solid, and moral foundation for the family
and the mother stayed “at home with her 2.5 children.” Another group of social
reformers believe that the time has passed for the nuclear family, but that
instead, the entire community should participate actively in raising all the
children in what Hillary Clinton’s book called “the whole village’ approach.
The author disagreed completely with both these groups of reformers; he states
that there is “no demonstrable relationship between a person’s family structure
and their moral values.” He recommends that the children should be left alone
to do what they want, and then they will grow into fine adults.
paragraph 1 of the essay body
Devlin states that critics on the right
claim that the nuclear family was the declining factor in shaping the behavior
of the current generation, and that, with its disintegration; values like
self-responsibility, respect for others, and respect for authority have been
lost. Devlin is wrong in his assessment that a single style of child-rearing is
responsible for the loss. Values can be communicated by any family structure,
so long as care-takers are devoted and conscientious. Whether those characters
are grandparents, foster parents, gay partners, or spread over half a dozen relations
is immaterial, so long as they contribute time and attention. Inattentive
parenting, parents who themselves lack the time for attention or the values to
communicate: these should be the central issues in Devlin’s argument, not the
structure of the family.
paragraph 2 of the essay
Devlin’s argument that the aggressive
and violent behavior he describes in opening paragraphs is just a phase and
that these kids will “grow up fine” is lunacy. If we allowed society to observe
a serial rapist as one who is just letting off steam, then our nation’s fragile
values would indeed collapse under the strain. Research has suggested that many
violent criminals possess a genetic predisposition towards violent acts. Some
scientific experiments are beginning to confirm this idea. For example, studies
show that very young children who are consistently cruel to animals often grow
into violent adults. Of course, if these children are genetically predisposed
toward violence, we should not discriminate against them, but society must
focus on the control of these children.
Conclusion
Neither Mr. Devlin nor I want the horse
and buggy ‘good old days” back in America. Change is essential and inevitable
in time. But, unlike Mr. Devlin’s opinion, I believe it is necessary for some control to be added to
America. We should not raise another generation of children with the sounds of
gunfire singing them to sleep. People need to learn tolerance so that children
will feel safe and secure.
Summary-analysis Essay (Student 2)
Introduction
In Dudley Erskine Devlin’s essay on
family values, he presents the reader with two differing opinions on causes for
the decline of values and morals in America’s families. Some social critics
argue, he says, that America should turn back to the traditional nuclear family
with a mother, a father, and 2.5 kids. Others desire to have entire communities
raising and educating children in the “correct” conservative manner. Indeed,
both ideas are conservative; both want America back in the good old days. Mr.
Devlin takes a more liberal stance: as times change, he says, we should just
‘go with the flow” and let kids be kids. I personally take a more moderate
opinion. Although I believe in letting children explore their environment and
test its boundaries, as Devlin suggests, equally important is giving children a
soild foundation—one that does not reek of daily violence outside their home
and inside their televisions.
Background
paragraph (Optional)
Devlin begins his essay with facts and
examples of divorce rates, negligent one-parent families, and murderous
children. Turning to solutions proposed by groups to deal with the decline of
values, he demonstrates that hose who wish to return to the 1950s traditional
family are just dreaming because ‘focusing on rebuilding an older culture will
not work.’ Similarly, those who believe in ‘the whole village approach’ will
also find that solution impossible because times have changed: if a teacher
scolds a student, the student may pull a gun and shoot that teacher.
Devlin then professes that the issue is
blown out of proportion, that if we give kids ‘a little time and space to adapt
to the world,” they will ‘grow up fine.”
Body Paragraph
The example Devlin chose of the five
year-old who boy imitated a television program and set his house ablaze is a
fine illustration of the impressionability of young kids as well as their
inability to separate fact from fiction, or right or wrong. I agree with the
social reformers: children learn from imitation, and therefore they need good
models to imitate. Research has shown that children or racist families often
adopt their family’s racist ideas, and children who survive an abusive childhood
learn not how to love but to hate, and they will carry these lessons into their
own abusive relationships. In America, where single parenting is the norm and
divorce is more popular than marriage, it is no surprise that what kids today
need is not more freedom, but more stability.
Body paragraph
Devlin admits that “time changes,” and
that we should ‘go with the flow,” but he seems to forget a stronger argument
that I would use to support his idea of “relaxing”: that history often repeats
itself. There have been many times in U.S. history when parents were worried
about their unruly children. In fact, in the 1920s, many parents felt that
their children were unmanageable and running wild. Many young adults turned to
smoking and drinking and to the new dances. Elders were shocked and feared the
future. The 1960s was also a time of turmoil and self-exploration for young
people; they experimented with sex and drugs, and their parents wailed about
the decline in moral values. Mr. Devlin is, therefore, correct; as generations
change, experiences change. Sometimes it is necessary to “go with the flow” and
see what happens.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while I disagree with
Devlin, I support the social critics of our family structures today. A return
to the nuclear family is, I realize, impossible; a single-parent family is much
healthier for a child than an abusive or alcoholic one. Kids are easily
influenced, though, and need to be surrounded by examples of respect and love.
“More space,” which Devlin recommends, means more freedom, and to kids, freedom
is power. But for the very young, power hurts, power destroys, power corrupts,
and as the six year old from California showed, power kills. Mr. Devlin, kids
don’t need space. Kids need stability, respect, and love. I say that teachers,
parents, and everyone else should get as close as they can to their kids.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar