Cherlin A J
Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Demography. 1999 Nov;36(4):421-8.
In this article I argue that public discussions of demographic issues are often conducted in a troubling pattern in which one extreme position is debated in relation to the opposite extreme. This pattern impedes our understanding of social problems and is a poor guide to sound public policies. To illustrate this thesis I use the case of social scientific research examining how children are affected by not living with two biological parents while they are growing up. Over the last decade, I maintain, most of the public, and even many social scientists, have been puzzled and poorly informed by this debate. In particular I consider Judith Wallerstein's clinically based claims of the pervasive, profound harm caused by divorce and, at the other extreme, Judith Rich Harris's reading of behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology, which leads her to dismiss the direct effects of divorce. Neither extreme gives a clear picture of the consequences of growing up in a single-parent family or a stepfamily.
在本文中,我认为,关于人口问题的公开讨论往往呈现出一种令人不安的模式,即一种极端立场总是与相反的极端立场进行辩论。这种模式阻碍了我们对社会问题的理解,也不是制定合理公共政策的良好指南。为了说明这一论点,我以社会科学研究为例,该研究探讨了孩子在成长过程中没有与亲生父母双方共同生活所受到的影响。我认为,在过去十年里,大多数公众,甚至许多社会科学家,都对这场辩论感到困惑,且所知甚少。特别是,我考虑了朱迪思·沃勒斯坦基于临床研究提出的关于离婚造成普遍、深远危害的说法,以及在另一个极端,朱迪思·里奇·哈里斯对行为遗传学和进化心理学的解读,这使她否定了离婚的直接影响。这两种极端观点都没有清晰地描绘出在单亲家庭或再婚家庭中成长的后果。