Stability of two-parent household a critical message

THE EDITOR, madam:

In connecting gang violence to family breakdown, Ronnie Thwaites, in his column ‘Origins of our distemper’ published in The Gleaner on October 30, 2023, is on target.

To reverse that pattern, a public and school education campaign with two-parent household stability its primary message, ought to be an immediate and sustained undertaking of the State.

The point of emphasis of the campaign would be that a child’s outcome is built into the design of sex between a man and a woman. It would teach that consequently finding a compatible partner for the permanent relationship that every child deeply needs is also a built-in objective of their sexual intercourse.

I would suggest, however, Ronnie, that casting this in the frame of marriage is not the best approach, and could even be counterproductive. Neither morality (the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage) nor propriety (the middle- and upper-class example) succeeded over nearly two centuries (from after Emancipation) in persuading the public about the concept of marriage, despite its persistent promotion. That crime prevention will be a more effective motive can be doubted.

As anthropologist Barry Chevannes had pointed out, our people prefer to take their time in moving towards marriage. And the frequency of divorce and domestic conflict does suggest wisdom in this cautiousness. This is not to denigrate the value of the public commitment of marriage, but only to suggest how people might still be moved towards an enduring family household without starting with a wedding. For too many, in fact, that is a turn-off.

Preaching marriage will remind of a desired goal, but will not change a culture of too much casual sex and multiple babymothers. Sustained and well-articulated education, along with good housing, has the better chance.

HORACE LEVY