Brookings: Topics - Social Norms

Shame and Teen Pregnancy

Richard V. Reeves — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Does shame perform a useful social function? Is it legitimate for the state to engender feelings of shame to further public goals? Is the answer to either of these questions affirmative, in the case of teen pregnancy?

These are the key questions raised by the decision by New York officials to use controversial advertisements that highlight the impact of teen pregnancy on the life chances of the child. The apparently ‘liberal’ response has been to rail against Mayor Michael Bloomberg for shaming teen parents. The very idea of passing moral judgment makes many people of a liberal orientation queasy, especially in the U.S.

I have argued, by contrast, that there is a liberal case for shame as a form of non-coercive regulation towards better choices – including avoiding teen pregnancy.

So, question 1: does shame ever have any positive role to play in a liberal society? Yes: it is in fact a valuable form of non-coercive regulation of behavior. As a general rule, we hope that illegal activities are also shameful ones. In many cases the shame might do more work than the sheriff. Drunk driving is a case in point.

Shame also helps to regulate activities that are legal, but unwise - either because of their implications for the individual themselves, or, especially, for innocent second parties. Racists and homophobes should be made to feel ashamed of themselves. But surely so should those who hit their child, or surround them with smoke, or drink heavily or smoke when pregnant with them.

The second question is whether official bodies have any business being in the shame game. You might agree that shame can be useful, but disagree with state-sponsored shame. Given that tax dollars are being deployed in a campaign like the current New York one, the decision has to be clearly justified - on the grounds of both efficacy and legitimacy. New York has tested its ads extensively, and is confident that they will have an impact by making teens think harder about choices leading to a risk of pregnancy. Time will tell if they are right, but we certainly not assume they are wrong.

Even if the ads work, the legitimacy question remains. The state should only be using shame to combat a legal activity or choice when there is real, significant harm involved, not for the individual but for other individuals or the broader community.

There is, for instance, no good liberal argument against ads invoking shame to try and stop people hitting their children or smoking while pregnant. Real harm is being done to real people. Government officials should exercise great care when it comes to the use of shame. But they should not rule it out.

The third question is whether shame can legitimately be attached to teen pregnancy, if there is reason to believe (as New York does) that is will help to lower rates. Is teen pregnancy really bad enough to justify such an emotional campaign? The short answer: yes. Not because of the impact on the parent, but on the child. Having kids in your teens actually has a small influence on life chances, as Alex Sanger shows in Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21st Century, albeit for the depressing reason that the youngsters most likely to become teen parents have such narrow life chances anyway.

So the New York campaign focuses on what teen parenthood means for the child. They are not saying, ‘becoming a parent in your teens will be bad for you’; they are saying ‘becoming a parent in your teens will be bad for your child’. And that is not a claim: it is a fact.

One last, vital point: there is no justification for doing less to help teen parents or their their children because they have made bad choices. We need, in fact, to do very much more to improve the life chances of children born to teen parents. Shame legitimately attaches to teen pregnancy. It is also a crying shame that so many kids born to teens are effectively abandoned to their fate.

Authors

Richard V. Reeves

Image Source: © ERIC THAYER / Reuters

In Reducing Teen Pregnancy, Shame Is Not a Four-Letter Word

Richard V. Reeves — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:36:00 -0400

New York is deploying a powerful weapon to reduce teen pregnancy: shame. New advertisements around the city dramatize the truncated life chances of children born to teenagers; in one, a tear-stained toddler stares out, declaring: “I’m twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen.”

Nobody is arguing the facts. But plenty of people are furious at the decision to highlight them. “Hurting and shaming communities is not what’s going to bring teen pregnancy rates down,” declared Haydee Morales, the vice president for education and training at Planned Parenthood of New York City.

This is the allegedly “liberal” response. But liberals should think twice: shame is an essential ingredient of a healthy society, particularly a liberal one. It acts as a form of moral regulation, or social “nudge,” encouraging good behavior while guarding individual freedom.

Read the rest of the op-ed at the New York Times website »

Authors

Richard V. Reeves

Publication: The New York Times

Image Source: © Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Subjective and Objective Indicators of Racial Progress

Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Abstract

Progress in closing differences in many objective outcomes for blacks relative to whites has slowed, and even worsened, over the past three decades. However, over this period the racial gap in wellbeing has shrunk. In the early 1970s data revealed much lower levels of subjective well-being among blacks relative to whites. Investigating various measures of well-being, we find that the well-being of blacks has increased both absolutely and relative to that of whites. While a racial gap in well-being remains, two-fifths of the gap has closed and these gains have occurred despite little progress in closing other racial gaps such as those in income, employment, and education. Much of the current racial gap in well-being can be explained by differences in the objective conditions of the lives of black and white Americans. Thus making further progress will likely require progress in closing racial gaps in objective circumstances.

Downloads

Subjective and Objective Indicators of Racial Progress

Authors

Betsey Stevenson
Justin Wolfers

Image Source: © Mike Blake / Reuters

Restoring Marriage Will Be Difficult

Isabel V. Sawhill — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Editor's Note: The below is a reaction to “The President’s Marriage Agenda for the Forgotten Sixty Percent,” a report featured in this year’s issue of State of Our Unions, an annual journal published by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values.

This report sounds an alarm about marriage trends in middle class America. It is full of important facts and citations to the literature. Indeed, I know of no better source for such information than the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project. As the authors note, marriage is alive and well among the best educated but rapidly disappearing among those with less than a college degree. What we are seeing is alternative living arrangements that have spread from the poor, and especially poor blacks, to the rest of society. The consequences for children and for society have been far from benign.

Against this backdrop, the authors argue for a more muscular response including: ending marriage penalties in tax and benefit programs, providing help to less skilled men so that they can become better marriage partners, more investment in marriage and relationship education, and a more robust effort by civil society to restore a marriage culture.

While I am deeply sympathetic to most of this report’s conclusions and to the wake-up call it embodies, I have three reactions that I believe need to be part of this discussion.

First, I am conflicted. My right brain says that marriage is a good thing for all the reasons enumerated in the report. My left brain says that we can’t put the genie back in the bottle. It may be possible to slow the decline in marriage but I am increasingly doubtful that it can be resurrected in its 20th century form. The interesting question is what form will the much greater diversity of living arrangements take in the future. I suspect marriage as we have known it is not coming back. A combination of greater affluence, more gender equality, and changes in attitudes are conspiring against a restoration.

Second, I am somewhat less optimistic than the authors about the ability of their policy agenda to make much of a difference. In part, this reflects my belief that the trends we are witnessing are deep seated and that the authors’ preferred policies, while perfectly sensible and probably helpful on the margins, are swimming against a tide that is too strong to be reversed. Moreover, the research on what such policies have accomplished to date is not very reassuring.

Third, like the authors, I am concerned about the consequences. However, I put greater faith in policies and messaging that encourage young adults to defer childbearing until they are ready to be parents — or to not become parents at all. If childless adults do not marry, whatever the consequences for them, it does not significantly harm others. The problem for single parents is not that they are single; it is that they are parents as well. Parenting is hard enough for married parents; it is even more difficult for those who must do it alone. I say this realizing that many single parents did not choose this role. But then I am reminded of the fact that 70 percent of pregnancies to single women under 30 are unintended. Something is wrong in an era when many effective forms of contraception are available and often subsidized, yet the vast majority of young adults are still not taking responsibility for the consequences of their sexual encounters. In addition, while the policy hurdles to successfully providing young adults with the motivation and the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and births are high, the task seems to me to be less daunting than an effort to bring back marriage.

In sum, by all means let’s work to restore marriage as the best environment in which to raise children but at the same time let’s stop the epidemic of unplanned childbearing that creates unwed (or temporarily cohabiting) mothers in the first place.

Authors

Isabel V. Sawhill

Publication: Family Scholars

The Connecticut Shootings: Now is the Time for a Debate over Gun Control

Darrell M. West — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:21:00 -0500

I understand and share President Obama’s concerns for the victims of today’s tragic school shootings in Connecticut and their families. But I am troubled by White House spokesman Jay Carney’s contention that today should not be a day to discuss the issue of gun control.

If not now, when?

It is no disservice to the victims to explore public policies that could mitigate the terrible, senseless carnage we have seen again and again across America. Movie-goers in Aurora. A congresswoman in Tucson. High school students in Columbine. And today, elementary school children in Sandy Hook. Innocents all.

Something is terribly wrong when our children are not safe in schools, when none of us is safe in a shopping mall, a cinema, a restaurant, the workplace. I don’t pretend to know the answers, but if ever it was time for a president, especially one fresh from a resounding election victory, to raise the issue for a somber, inclusive and nonpartisan public debate, this should be it. These tragedies cry out for political leadership. They should bring us closer together in resolve, not drive us further apart.

So, Mr. Carney and President Obama, we will take this day to mourn with the victims. Perhaps tomorrow, we can take action.

Editor's Note: After the July 2012 shootings in Aurora, Colorado, Daniel Kauffman examined the connection between stronger gun control laws and decreases in gun violence. Read his analysis here »

Authors

Darrell M. West

Image Source: © Lucas Jackson / Reuters

Integration or Emancipation? (Muslime in Deutschland brauchen Emanzipation)

Jonathan Laurence — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Editor's Note: In his article in Der Tagesspiegel, Jonathan Laurence takes a look at the degree to which Muslims in Europe – many of them immigrants – have become truly emancipated. Emancipation of a minority, he argues, is different from their integration or assimilation. As political situations come and go and change daily attitudes towards Germany’s religious minorities, Germany must be careful to preserve the small steps already taken toward minority emancipation. Read the article in English or German below.

German President Joachim Gauck’s visit to the Sehitlik mosque in Berlin before Eid al Adha earlier this month heartened critics who regretted his earlier hesitation to claim Islam as an integral part of federal republic. The about-face revealed a paradox within the man – just as within the country and perhaps the continent – that is tearing at the fabric of 21st century European Islamic life. Despite enormous progress, European Muslims still do not enjoy what has historically been called “emancipation.”

No mainstream politician denies the permanence of Islam’s presence. But as Islam is more visibly accommodated in the public sphere, it elicits fiercer resistance from nativists, who want proof of loyalty and a higher tribute in exchange for admission to the nation. Islam-critical populism no longer lingers on Germany’s political extremes alone. This reopens a wound that 1999’s historic citizenship reform was intended to heal, leading to “hyphenated” Germans’ frustration with limits on religious liberties and apparent double standards in the fight against political and religious extremism.

Rooting Islamic organizations and religious observance in domestic institutions in Germany and elsewhere in Europe is undeniably underway: the Deutsche Islam Konferenz and other consultations have led to hundreds of new prayer spaces in construction, the availability of religious education, and scores of imams, teachers and theologians who are being locally trained.

The legal and political status of Islam, nonetheless, escapes easy categorization. Two trends are impeding the anchoring of Islam. Within Europe, Islamkritik has slipped from aiming to preserve the “neutrality” of the public sphere or to defend “western human rights,” and towards a basic dubiousness about Islamic religious practices in general. This in turn reinforces the protective instinct within the countries of origin, where new ministries are to maintain religious, political and economic ties with diasporas abroad.

Emancipation in the sense of the way Prussian reformers Stein and Hardenberg used the term, offers a robust and realistic way out: The mass entry of a previously excluded group into the democratic order, based on the rule of law and equal rights and obligations as citizens -- including collective rights, if they choose to join a religious community or certain other types of secondary association. Of course, it has also always implied new duties, including taxation and the possibility of military conscription. Emancipation is a generational process that takes time; France’s Jews received full rights in 1791, whereas it took the 1871 Imperial Constitution (Reichsverfassung) to grant the same across a united Germany. The process has always been characterized by a “dual movement.” With one hand, the state liberates, equalizes and enfranchises, and acknowledges collective identity. While with the other, it forces adaptation and the reform of community structures.

Over the long and winding course of democratization in 19th and early 20th century Europe, Groups who were once absent from the body politic – including Jews, minority Catholics, and the working classes – gradually acquired full citizenship. And they were soon thereafter granted “group” status –in the form of central councils, concordats or trade unions — to administer institutional privileges and to anchor their organizations domestically within a constitutional framework.

But why use this outmoded expression? The word evokes the failures of German democracy, but it might as well point a way to reclaiming some of the brighter spots in the country’s democratization. Twelve years of Third Reich should not be atoned by reneging on earlier progress.

Emancipation also offers a way out of the false dichotomy of integration or assimilation. Integration cannot be the appropriate word for the millions who were born, raised and educated here, and who don’t consider themselves to be foreigners or immigrants. And to them, assimilation sounds like a euphemism for dissolution. In other words: if you uncover your hair, give up your minarets, stop your brutal halal slaughter and cruel circumcision rituals – then we have a deal: Welcome! Emancipation, in contrast, has historically meant becoming subject to the rule of law – and thus winning protection from administrative arbitrariness – and armchair theologians.

Why even bring religion into this discussion? Isn’t the focus on religion divisive and problematic and a contribution to needless communitarianism? There is no reason to pretend or to wish that Islamic identity or piety be the defining trait of the generations born here of immigrant background. Just as with “free markets”, which do not exist suspended in a theoretical space, but are regulated in myriad ways, so too is “universal citizenship” structured with many formal and informal institutions. Citizenship guarantees individual religious rights. But it is group status – usually in the form of public law – that gives meaning to those rights in city halls, government ministries, armed forces, prisons, schools, hospitals and sometimes even in public streets.

While not all European states have immigrant or foreign culture-oriented policies, all have religion offices and maintain some privileges, and often, a formal relationship with faith communities. State-Islam relations have begun to lay the groundwork for German Islam. Muslim students in NRW now have the option of Islam religion classes. Hamburg just concluded a historic state contract with several major Islamic federations. At eight universities, there are now centers of Islamic studies or chairs training future teachers, imams and theologians. This is still at a small scale: the cumulative enrollment is in the low dozens, while there’s an existing need for more than 2,000 imams and religious leaders in Germany.

This new institutional presence has already helped reduce tensions related to the “defense of Islam” in the public sphere and helped manage cyclical religious scandals. The YouTube user who uploaded an anti-Islamic video that went viral in September was a geistiger Brandstifter (intellectual arsonist). But the Muslim communities of Europe proved they are not a tinderbox, waiting to catch fire at the slightest provocation. Images of attacks abroad on schools, consulates, and embassies were dispiriting, yet all of the tragic violence occurred elsewhere. In Europe, the angry responses took the form of lawsuits and small demonstrations.

It’s tempting to think that nothing has changed in the quarter century, since Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. But the reaction to violent extremists should be proportionate to their numbers. The legal complaints filed against authors and magazines illustrate the power of formal institutional access that comes with full emancipation. By registering their offense, by protesting discrimination where they see it, European Muslims have begun to employ their democratic rights.

Another example of this came during last spring’s NRW elections. In the aftermath of a violent Salafist protest against the Prophet cartoons in Bonn, something much more meaningful took place. Federations representing hundreds of thousands of German Muslims condemned the violent protesters and implored constituents to express their dissent by fulfilling the civic duty of voting. As the proportion of Muslims of foreign nationality living here decreases, democratic political institutions are increasingly kicking in.

Nonetheless, the mixed experience of the current Federal Interior Minister reminds Germans of the need for non-partisan (überparteilich) consensus on Islam policy. The NSU murders and revelations of rightwing infiltration of the security apparatus, moreover, in addition to differences in counter-radicalization strategies, has broadened and deepened the sense of mistrust vis-à-vis German institutions.

Perceptions matter, and many German Muslims perceive that their community’s status shifts dramatically from one President to another, and from one coalition government to the next. The communication channels between Islamic organizations and the authorities during these crises never completely broke down, but relations have suffered. This is not unique to Germany, of course – France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the UK all have experienced some form of it. In the absence of that consensus, it pushes the discussion in minority communities back towards the option of dual citizenship, just in case. The loss of confidence in German or European institutions would mean a return to internationalization.

But this is also a genuine opportunity for Germany to push back. The dual citizenship battle shouldn’t be about confiscating foreign passports. It is rather about endowing the German identity card with binding commitments. Without a basic minimum set of guaranteed rights there will always be a market for protection – whether from ancestral homeland governments or transnational political movements.

This is a complex and multi-level interaction between state and religious actors within and across borders. Nonetheless, it is the nation-state that is ultimately responsible for guaranteeing the free exercise of its citizens’ religious rights. Only individual European governments can emancipate Europe’s Muslims, and the longer there is no final status agreement – in whatever form that take, whether it be Religionsgemeinschaft, Körperschaftstatus or something new – then the more fragile and reversible that progress will be. Until then, a real danger exists that the modest early accomplishments of emancipation will be undone before Muslims’ incorporation has even taken place.

Muslime in Deutschland brauchen Emanzipation

Anlässlich des muslimischen Opferfestes hat Bundespräsident Joachim Gauck im Oktober die Berliner Sehitlik-Moschee besucht. Seine Kritiker ließ diese Tatsache Hoffnung schöpfen – jene Kritiker nämlich, die seine frühere Weigerung bedauert hatten, den Islam als integralen Bestandteil Deutschlands anzuerkennen. Diese Kehrtwende legt Gaucks paradoxe Haltung offen, die in Deutschland und vielleicht auf dem ganzen Kontinent vorherrscht und die das muslimische Leben im Europa des 21. Jahrhunderts bestimmt.

Trotz enormer Fortschritte genießen die europäischen Muslime immer noch nicht das, was im historischen Kontext „Emanzipation“ genannt wird.

Kein demokratisch gesinnter Politiker in Deutschland leugnet, dass die Präsenz des Islam in Europa von Dauer sein wird. Aber während der Islam in der Öffentlichkeit demonstrativ willkommen geheißen wird, löst er zunehmend heftigen Widerstand bei den Nativisten aus, die von Muslimen einen Loyalitätsbeweis und mehr Integrationsbemühungen als Gegenleistungen für ihre Zugehörigkeit zur Gesellschaft einfordern. Islamkritischer Populismus ist längst nicht mehr nur an den Rändern des politischen Spektrums zu Hause. Dieser Populismus reißt eine Wunde wieder auf, die 1999 durch die Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts geschlossen werden sollte. Die neuen „Bindestrich-Deutschen“ sind frustriert angesichts der Grenzen, die ihrer Religionsfreiheit gesetzt werden und angesichts der Bigotterie im Kampf gegen den politischen und religiösen Extremismus.

Die Einbindung islamischer Organisationen und auch ihre Einbettung in bestehende gesellschaftliche Strukturen in Deutschland und Europa funktionieren zunehmend besser: Die Deutsche Islamkonferenz und ähnliche Gipfeltreffen von Politikern und Verbänden haben zu Hunderten neuer Gebetsräume und Gotteshäuser geführt, auch wenn viele davon noch im Bau sind. Ebenso positiv anzumerken sind die verbesserten Angebote religiöser Erziehung in Schulen und die immer größere Zahl von Imamen, Lehrern und Theologen, die im Land ausgebildet werden.

Der rechtliche und politische Status des Islam in Europa hingegen entzieht sich trotz aller Bemühungen einer Einordnung. Zwei Entwicklungen behindern seine Verankerung: Die Islamkritik in Europa verschiebt sich von der Betonung der Neutralität des öffentlichen Raumes und der Verteidigung westlicher Menschenrechtsvorstellungen hin zu einem generellen Unbehagen gegenüber allen muslimischen Glaubenspraktiken. Das wiederum ruft in den Herkunftsländern Beschützerinstinkte hervor, Ministerien werden geschaffen, um die religiösen, politischen und wirtschaftlichen Bande mit der Diaspora zu erhalten.

Das ist der Ausweg aus der falschen Dichotomie von Integration und Assimilation

Die Emanzipation in dem aufklärerischen Sinn dieses Wortes, den die preußischen Reformer Stein und Hardenberg meinten, bietet einen sicheren und realistischen Ausweg aus dem Dilemma: Den Eintritt einer zuvor ausgeschlossenen Gruppe in eine demokratische Gesellschaft, basierend auf bestehenden Gesetzen, mit den gleichen Rechten und Pflichten für alle Bürger. Emanzipation umfasst auch Kollektivrechte, falls diese Bürger sich entschließen, einer religiösen oder einer anderen Art von Gemeinschaft beizutreten. Natürlich waren damit immer auch Auflagen verbunden, wie solche zur Steuer- oder zur Wehrpflicht. Emanzipation ist ein ungleichmäßiger Prozess, der sich über mehrere Generationen hinzieht. Die Juden Frankreichs erhielten bereits im Jahr 1791 gleiche Rechte, wohingegen jene in Deutschland bis zur Reichsverfassung 1871 warten mussten. Ihm eigen war dabei schon immer eine Art doppelter Handschlag zwischen Staat und Religionsgemeinschaft: Mit der einen Hand sorgt der Staat für Gleichheit und erteilt Rechte. Mit der anderen erzwingt er Anpassung und eine Reform der Gemeindestrukturen.

Auf dem langen und schwierigen Weg der Demokratisierung im Europa des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts wurde von der politischen Teilhabe ausgeschlossenen Menschen – Juden, Katholiken, die Arbeiterklasse – nach und nach das volle Bürgerrecht gewährt. Ihnen wurde auch der Status „gesellschaftliche Gruppe“ zugestanden, sie konnten sich in Verbänden, Interessengruppen und Gewerkschaften organisieren, um institutionelle Privilegien wahrzunehmen und ihre Interessen innerhalb eines gesetzlich verankerten Rahmens zu vertreten.

Aber warum sollten wir heute noch den überkommenen Begriff „Emanzipation“ verwenden? Das Wort beschwört die Misserfolge der deutschen Demokratie herauf, dabei könnte es auch die lichten Momente des deutschen Demokratisierungsprozesses beleuchten. Zwölf Jahre „Drittes Reich“ sollten nicht die schon zuvor errungenen Fortschritte negieren.

Authors

Jonathan Laurence

Publication: Der Tagesspiegel

Image Source: © Thomas Peter / Reuters

Breakthrough! Gay Marriage Is Now Mainstream

Jonathan Rauch — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:30:00 -0500

On most dimensions, 2012 was a collective shrug: an equivocal status quo election. The voters didn't like the situation, but they also didn't change it. They doubted that either of the presidential candidates could fix it. So they went with divided government and leaving bad enough alone.

Gay Americans are the exception. The big exception. For them the election was the culminating breakthrough of a breakthrough year.

Going into the election, gay marriage supporters had lost every state referendum or initiative on the issue, more than 30 in all. It was the most perfect record of failure in modern American politics. Assuming the preliminary tallies all hold, this year produced perfect success. Three states—Maine, Maryland, and Washington—passed referenda affirmatively enacting same-sex marriage by public plebiscite. One other, Minnesota, rejected a constitutional ban. That’s four for four.

National polls began to show inconsistent pluralities or even majorities for gay marriage a couple of years ago, and moral disapproval of same-sex relationships—the single best indicator of antagonism toward homosexuality—shifted below 50 percent around the same time. But changing public opinion didn't immediately filter into electoral politics, partly because opponents of gay marriage were more passionate on the issue than (nongay) proponents, and partly because the polls tended to overstate real-world support for gay rights.

Now the politics have crossed over to where the polls are. The nation's argument over marriage is not over. But between President Obama's historic endorsement of it in May (he is gay people's LBJ), the Democratic Party's embrace of it in its platform this past summer, and now the electorate's imprimatur in all the states where it was tested, gay marriage is mainstream and will never return to the backwaters.

Politically, Republicans are increasingly in the position of a battallion pinned down by friendly fire. Social conservatives will continue to treat opposition to gay marriage as a litmus test, but that same opposition will be increasingly unattractive to younger and moderate voters that the party needs to attract as its base of white conservatives shrinks. So the party, on gay rights, is where Democrats used to be: torn between two constituencies it can’t afford to lose. Democrats, on the other hand, have come to see gay rights as a political winner and, if anything, will deepen their commitment. Those trends were evident but implicit until November 6. They are quite explicit now.

Authors

Jonathan Rauch

Image Source: © Gary Cameron / Reuters

Aurora and the U.S. Obsession with Guns: Leadership Wanted to Fight Political Capture

Daniel Kaufmann — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:49:00 -0400

The terrifying massacre during last Thursday’s midnight premiere of “Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colorado, is yet another reminder that guns kill many. It is also a reminder that American politicians have failed to act on gun control. Most other industrialized countries as well as emerging ones, and their citizens, understand that guns and semi-automatic assault weapons kill. And unlike the United States, they have passed laws controlling sale and use of these weapons.

Thus, consistent with the importance of evidence-based policy, let me analyze this issue by first presenting the table below on the enormous disparity in gun possession and homicide rates between the U.S. and other countries, then pointing to selected data provided primarily by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and finally offering a concluding thought on political capture.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reminds us that since 1968, when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated, over one million people have been killed with guns in the United States. On average, almost 100,000 people in the United States are shot or killed with a gun annually. Since guns are not ubiquitous in many other industrialized countries, far fewer people die by gunshot than in the United States. In fact, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is about 20 times higher than in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. Unsurprisingly then, they claim that in recent years, among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80 percent of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States.

Further, research they cite by Wiebe (2003) indicates that 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur had no guns been present. Since keeping a firearm at home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of three, it is not surprising that guns are more likely to raise the risk of injury than to confer protection. In fact, they claim that every year there are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens.

In short, there appears to be substantial evidence that removing guns saves lives. Interestingly, while the rates of assault with knives and guns in the United States are similar, there are five times as many deaths from guns. And many of these lethal guns can be obtained in the U.S. without a background check. Close to one-half of gun acquisitions in the U.S. occur on the secondary market, and sales between individuals do not require a background check.

For instance, undercover sting operations found that 94 percent of licensed dealers at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers, and 63 percent of private sellers at those gun shows sold guns to purchasers who stated they probably could not pass a background check. Furthermore, while lethal “assault weapons” (semi-automatic firearms) have no known civilian use benefits whatsoever, the ban on their use in the United States was lifted in 2004.

Police investigating the Aurora massacre have said that James Holmes, the alleged gunman, had three weapons purchased from stores in the Denver area over a span of two months: a Remington shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle, and a Glock 40-caliber handgun. The semi-automatic assault rifle, which is a civilian version of the military’s M-16, is designed to hold large ammunition clips, and can fire 50 to 60 rounds per minute. Apparently, in Colorado, James Holmes was able to purchase online 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for an assault rifle, and 350 shells for a shotgun without raising any suspicion or facing impediments.

Those are just some of the stark facts.

Yet again, there is a failure of leadership on the issue of gun control. Most U.S. politicians, including the presidential candidates, are keeping mum about gun control. At most they are expressing shock and regret about (yet another) senseless killing spree, this time in Aurora, and trying to provide comfort to grieving families.

Money in politics, and the capture of politicians by special interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), continues unabated. The few politicians who dare to speak about the need for stricter gun control laws, such as Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a deranged gunman, and Senator Dianne Feinstein, a longtime advocate of gun restrictions, are painfully aware of the fact that they (and other politicians who speak up) are targeted at re-election time by the NRA.

Another exception is Mayor Bloomberg, who is the co-chair of the coalition, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He also supported New York’s ban on assault weapons and increased the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun in New York City. During his appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday, Bloomberg challenged Republic Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama to explicitly debate the issue and recognize that it is time for the country to do something about gun control. Bloomberg pointed out that in 2004, while Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, he banned assault weapons. However, most recently Romney has opposed all new gun control laws. Bloomberg also called out President Obama for avoiding the issue altogether since entering office, despite vowing three years ago to reinstitute a federal ban on assault weapons.

Leadership on this issue is urgently needed. Presidential candidates should engage in an open debate on this topic even in an election year. Most U.S. citizens are mindful that money will continue to speak loudly, muffling so many politicians that lack courage. This does not justify silence from the U.S. leaders on this paramount challenge.

Authors

Daniel Kaufmann

Image Source: Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Improving The Lives Of Single Moms And Their Kids

Isabel V. Sawhill — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Editor’s note: On NPR’s Talk of the Nation, Isabel Sawhill discussed the societal effects of single motherhood with Neil Conan and Philip Cohen.

NEAL CONAN, HOST: [F]or whatever reason, the number of single mothers is going up. What's the best way to improve the prospects for them and their kids?

SAWHILL: Well, I think that there are certain things we should be doing for single parents. I think their biggest need is child care, because most of them are going to have to work. That's almost inevitable if you're a single parent. And what are you going to with your kids while you're at work? Some of them are in low-wage jobs and thus can't afford decent childcare for their kids. So I would say that's a high priority in my book.

CONAN: We heard a cut of tape at the beginning of the show from a woman who needed to get at least eight credits in a college course so she could qualify for the student discount for the childcare that she needed, otherwise couldn't afford because of her fulltime job. That doesn't leave an awful lot of time for a child.

SAWHILL: It doesn't leave much time, and if you are a low-income worker, a very large proportion of your income has to be set aside just to pay your childcare expenses.

CONAN: And this is - as you look at the statistics, it's becoming the new norm for women under 30.

SAWHILL: It is becoming the new norm. Over half, a little over half, right now, of all babies born in America, are born outside of marriage. And so when I wrote the piece for the Washington Post that you mentioned a moment ago, what was concerning is when this does become the new norm, how do we manage?

It's not as if the taxpayers who are in two-parent families can afford to pay for the other half of taxpayers that are in one-parent families. That isn't going to work.

Listen to the full interview »

Authors

Isabel V. Sawhill

Publication: NPR

Twenty Years Later, It Turns Out Dan Quayle Was Right About Murphy Brown and Unmarried Moms

Isabel V. Sawhill — Fri, 25 May 2012 00:00:00 -0400

On May 19, 1992, as the presidential campaign season was heating up, Vice President Dan Quayle delivered a family-values speech that came to define him nearly as much as his spelling talents. Speaking at the Commonwealth Club of California, he chided Murphy Brown—the fictional 40-something, divorced news anchor played by Candice Bergen on a CBS sitcom—for her decision to have a child outside of marriage.

“Bearing babies irresponsibly is simply wrong,” the vice president said. “Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong. We must be unequivocal about this. It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.”

Quayle’s argument — that Brown was sending the wrong message, that single parenthood should not be encouraged — erupted into a major campaign controversy. And just a few weeks before the ’92 vote, the show aired portions of his speech and had characters react to it.

“Perhaps it’s time for the vice president to expand his definition and recognize that, whether by choice or circumstance, families come in all shapes and sizes,” Bergen’s character said.

Her fictional colleague Frank, meanwhile, echoed some of the national reaction: “It’s Dan Quayle — forget about it!”

Twenty years later, Quayle’s words seem less controversial than prophetic. The number of single parents in America has increased dramatically: The proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from roughly 30 percent in 1992 to 41 percent in 2009. For women under age 30, more than half of babies are born out of wedlock. A lifestyle once associated with poverty has become mainstream. The only group of parents for whom marriage continues to be the norm is the college-educated.

Some argue that these changes are benign. Many children who in the past would have had two married parents could have two cohabiting parents instead. Why should the lack of a legal or religious tie affect anyone’s well-being?

There are three reasons to be concerned about this dramatic shift in family life.

First, marriage is a commitment that cohabitation is not. Taking a vow before friends and family to support another person “until death do us part” signals a mutual sense of shared responsibility that cannot be lightly dismissed. Cohabitation is more fragile — cohabiting parents split up before their fifth anniversary at about twice the rate of married parents. Often, this is because the father moves on, leaving the mother not just with less support but with fewer marriage prospects. For her, marriage requires finding a partner willing to take responsibility for someone else’s kids.

Second, a wealth of research strongly suggests that marriage is good for children. Those who live with their biological parents do better in school and are less likely to get pregnant or arrested. They have lower rates of suicide, achieve higher levels of education and earn more as adults. Meanwhile, children who spend time in single-parent families are more likely to misbehave, get sick, drop out of high school and be unemployed.

It isn’t clear why children who live with their unmarried biological parents don’t do as well as kids who live with married ones. Adults who marry may be different from those who cohabit, divorce or become unwed mothers. Although studies try to adjust for these differences, researchers can’t measure all of them. People in stable marriages may have better relationship skills, for instance, or a greater philosophical or religious commitment to union that improves parenting. Still, raising children is a daunting responsibility. Two committed parents typically have more time and resources to do it well.

Third, marriage brings economic benefits. It usually means two breadwinners, or one breadwinner and a full-time, stay-at-home parent with no significant child-care expenses. Unlike Murphy Brown — who always had the able Eldin by her side — most women do not have the flexibility afforded a presumably highly paid broadcast journalist. And it’s not just a cliche that two can live more cheaply than one; a single set of bills for rent, utilities and other household expenses makes a difference. Though not necessarily better off than a cohabiting couple, a married family is much better off than its single-parent counterpart.

I’ve been studying single mothers since long before “Murphy Brown” was on the air. In a study I co-authored with Adam Thomas, I put them into hypothetical households with demographically similar unmarried men who, in principle, would be good marriage partners. Through this virtual matchmaking, we showed that child poverty rates would fall by as much as 20 percent in an America with more two-parent households.

In later research, Ron Haskins and I learned that if individuals do just three things—finish high school, work full time and marry before they have children—their chances of being poor drop from 15 percent to 2 percent. Mitt Romney has cited this research on the campaign trail, but these issues transcend presidential politics. Stronger public support for single-parent families—such as subsidies or tax credits for child care, and the earned-income tax credit — is needed, but no government program is likely to reduce child poverty as much as bringing back marriage as the preferable way of raising children.

The government has a limited role to play. It can support local programs and nonprofit organizations working to reduce early, unwed childbearing through teen-pregnancy prevention efforts, family planning, greater opportunities for disadvantaged youth or programs to encourage responsible relationships.

But in the end, Dan Quayle was right. Unless the media, parents and other influential leaders celebrate marriage as the best environment for raising children, the new trend—bringing up baby alone—may be irreversible.

Authors

Isabel V. Sawhill

Publication: The Washington Post

Image Source: © Reuters Photographer / Reuters

President Obama’s Stance on Same-Sex Marriage: A Live Web Chat with Jonathan Rauch

Wed, 16 May 2012 12:30:00 -0400

Event Information

May 16, 2012
12:30 PM - 1:00 PM EDT

Online
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage has drawn strong reactions, with some characterizing it as a historic moment of political courage, others deriding it as politically motivated, and still others seeing elements of both politics and principle combined.

With a sharp dividing line between the presidential candidates on the issue now defined, how will this divisive social question play out in the November elections? And beyond the immediate political fallout, what does this change mean for the larger society? On May 16, Brookings expert Jonathan Rauch took your questions and comments in a live web chat moderated by Vivyan Tran of POLITICO.

12:34 Vivyan Tran: Hi everyone, let's get started!

12:35 Jonathan Rauch: Hi everybody. Nice to be here. I'm a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution...contributing editor of National Journal and Atlantic...but here because I write and think a lot about gay marriage, of which I'm an advocate. I wrote "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."

12:35 [Comment From Anne:] Were you surprised by the President's decision to support same-sex marriage? Did Biden force Obama's hand with his misstep?

12:39 Jonathan Rauch: Very surprised. Just a day earlier, I had told friends on a listserv that Obama would stay away from SSM until after the election, because it wouldn't help him, and probably would hurt him a bit in the swing states and with the swing voters that he needs to win.
Biden's role? I think it gave a nudge. But Obama could easily have held out until the election, had he chosen to. I think he had changed his mind some time ago and figured there would never be a better time...and he didn't want to lose the election and miss the opportunity to have made this historic change.
I'm guessing. But I think he had a "goddammit" moment. More on that here...http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/05/09-gay-marriage-obama-rauch

12:39 [Comment From Roberto:] How do you see the gay rights issue playing out during the course of the election? Will it become a focal point of the campaign, or take a backseat to other key issues like the economy?

12:41 Jonathan Rauch: This year, it's the economy, stupid. It's in neither candidate's interest to talk about social issues. I think some evangelicals will make some hay with the issue among their networks, but most of those voters were all going to turn out against Obama anyway. Same goes for the liberals he'll energize: they were already voting for him, mostly in states he was going to win.
So I don't think it makes a big difference this year. That's why he felt safe doing it. As I said, he would never have a better time--at least, not while he's a non-lame-duck president.

12:41 [Comment From Allan:] Assuming Obama wins in November, can you foresee this administration embracing domestic partner benefits as a first step in recognizing same-sex relationships? Obviously moving towards marriage equality would be better, but given there is likely not enough support to win over Republicans, it only makes sense to at least push for incremental change.

12:44 Jonathan Rauch: A federal civil unions program is a logical place to go in a second term. A solid majority of the public supports either CUs or gay marriage. Another place to go, though less likely to get past the Republicans: repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (if the courts don't throw it out) and give federal recognition to states' same-sex marriages. Either could happen. Neither is easy. It will be interesting to see if, in a second term, Obama continues pushing the issue--being the "fierce advocate" he promised to be in 2008, a description he has now lived up to--or considers his work mostly done.
Here's an article where I suggest that gay rights is a major legacy item for Obama--maybe No. 1, if health reform gets rolled back...
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/103280/obama-gay-rights-marriage-biden-civil-president-lbj

12:44 [Comment From Gianne:] How does Mitt Romney respond to Obama's endorsement of gay marriage?

12:46 Jonathan Rauch: He mostly ducks. Republicans will try to use the issue, but they'll keep it local and at the level of pulpits and independent-group advertising. They'll keep the national campaign away from it. Independent voters see social issues as a distraction. Interestingly, even religious-conservative groups, like Concerned Women for America, are urging the Republicans to focus on the economy this year. For both gay-marriage advocates and opponents, it's 100 percent about winning the presidential race this year--not making a statement.

12:46 [Comment From Samantha:] Will Obama's support of gay marriage cause him to lose support among any of the demographics who turned out for him in force in ‘08?

12:49 Jonathan Rauch: It's a balance. It helps mobilize and energize younger, upscale voters...but it may marginally turn off independents and moderates, who want to focus on the economy, as well as some socially conservative blacks. Not sure how this plays. We may never really know.

12:49 [Comment From Eddie:] What did you think of this week's Newsweek cover? Do you think it's fair to call Obama the nation's first "gay president?"

12:50 Jonathan Rauch: I loved it. I wish it had been the headline for this article of mine...
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/103280/obama-gay-rights-marriage-biden-civil-president-lbj
Yes, it's fair in the sense that Obama has adopted gay equality as a personal cause, whereas all earlier presidents (and 99.9 percent of straights until just a few years ago) saw this as someone else's problem. For gay Americans, he's a historic figure.

12:51 [Comment From Joseph:] Do you think that the president's statement will really have a broader impact, or was it all talk?

12:53 Jonathan Rauch: Obama's statement doesn't change a line of law or policy. I've heard people carp about it for that reason. But it's culturally very, very important. He has put one of the two major political parties behind gay marriage, almost certainly forever. There will never again be a Democratic president who does not support full gay equality. He has brought support for gay marriage fully into the mainstream. He will nudge some people to rethink the issue. I expect he will indirectly influence the courts, which try to stay in the political mainstream--and he has just defined that mainstream as including gay marriage.
It's a landmark.

12:54 [Comment From Abigail:] Will Obama's stance help gay-rights advocates who are trying to get bills passed in states?

12:56 Jonathan Rauch: It has got to help some. I'm not sure how much. But one reason that initiatives banning SSM and civil unions keep passing--even in states where majority opinion favors recognizing same-sex unions--is that opponents are more intense on the issue than proponents. I think Obama is going to bring more straight support to the table.

12:56 [Comment From Ron:] I have never understood why same-sex marriage is such a big and divisive issue.

12:58 Jonathan Rauch: How could it not be? We're debating the meaning of marriage. What is it for? Who gets to define it? This is law and society and religion and family and equality, all brought together in a single ball of energy. I'm actually glad the country is giving the issue an extensive debate. Not just because it has given gay people like me a chance to humanize ourselves and make our case. But because this really is an important issue.

12:58 [Comment From Mike:] Do you think that Obama's subsequent statement that gay equality is a states’ rights issue contradicts the idea of gay equality as a civil right, i.e. a right that cannot be denied?

1:01 Jonathan Rauch: I agree with the president: until there's much more of a national consensus, gay marriage should be left to the states. Rights don't come from courts, ultimately: they come from public consensus. We need to build that. Prematurely deciding this at the federal level wouldn't end the debate; it might merely escalate it. Conservatives would spend the next 40 years trying to undermine and differentiate same-sex marriage, much as they did with abortion.
More on that here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-same-sex-marriage/2012/05/11/gIQAtmLoIU_story.html

1:02 Jonathan Rauch: I'm told we're out of time. Thanks for the good questions and tuning in. However you feel about this issue, thanks for considering my views. I consider it a miracle that I'm living here and now, in a country that's willing to open its heart to gay people.
Here's my thank-you note...
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/jonathan_rauch_we_are_a_sideshow_no_longer/singleton/

1:02 Vivyan Tran: Thanks for the questions everyone, see you next week!

Participants

Moderator

Vivyan Tran

Web Producer, POLITICO

Panelists

Jonathan Rauch

Guest Scholar, Governance Studies

Getting Obesity Under Control: The Importance of a Systems Approach

Ross A. Hammond — Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 -0400

New research focuses on the cause and spread of the obesity epidemic and just how difficult it will be to coordinate efforts to get it under control. The epidemic not only causes serious health problems but is also driving up medical costs dramatically—by some estimates, 100 percent higher. Senior Fellow Ross Hammond examines the issues around obesity, arguing that the best way to coordinate effective prevention policies is to use a systems approach to model and coordinate the policy side, the scientific side and different methodologies. Hammond’s recent work features extensively in a major new National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on obesity, as well as a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and HBO for the event, “The Weight of the Nation.”

“The obesity epidemic has really become a very pressing problem in the United States and, actually, worldwide. Here in the U.S. two in three adults are now overweight, and one in three are obese; and among children and adolescents one in three are overweight. So these are very large numbers and there are some serious public health consequences of this. Being overweight and obese puts you at much higher risk for things like several cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and also things like asthma and arthritis.

So in addition to these public health consequences there are some real economic costs associated with [being] overweight and obese. In particular, medical spending is much higher among the overweight and obese. Some estimates say as much as one hundred percent higher. So that adds up to quite a bit in medical spending, and (again) by most estimates at least twenty-one percent of U.S. medical spending is driven by obesity already. That number could easily go up, so that is some of the economic side of it.”

Preventing obesity is the best way to stop the epidemic (1:11)

“The main thing to think about it how important prevention is with obesity, in particular, because once obesity exists there are some very powerful physiological processes and behavior patterns that are very entrenched, and it is quite difficult to reverse. This is the reason why the majority of overweight and obese children go on to be overweight and obese adults. Prevention, particularly early prevention, is really important. I think that is the fundamental focus.

Unfortunately, prevention is also hard. Obesity is a very complex syndrome that is driven by many, many different factors. In one sense it is extremely simple because it is about energy balance – energy in and energy out. If you take more energy in than you have energy out you will gain weight. It is as simple as that. On the other hand it is quite complex because the drivers of what you eat, how much physical activity you get, and what your resting metabolic rate are quite complicated and involve biology, physiology, and genetics; but [it also involves] advertising, marketing, and social norms, our agricultural system of production and distribution, the physical environment around us where we live, and how our world is structured. All of those things work together to produce different outcomes. That linkage between these different factors is less well-understood and is actually very important for trying to do policy in this space.”

A systems approach to obesity needed (2:42)

“I think there is a growing consensus that what we need to do in order to do a better job of preventing obesity is to coordinate activity across different sectors and different levels of scale, or to take what is called a “systems approach.” A systems approach means that you try to coordinate what is going on in education in schools, what is going on in transportation in urban planning, and what is going on in agriculture because all of these things are linked together, and they all drive health outcomes (for obesity in particular). They tend to be addressed from a policy perspective and from a science perspective separately. Really connecting what we are doing in a coordinated and cohesive way is extremely important for making progress on this issue.

Some of the modeling work that we do at the Center on Social Dynamics and Policy here at Brookings is helping to explore these complex linkages, both across sectors (so what is happening in the private and public sectors) but also what is happening at the different levels at the federal, state and household levels. Finally, these connections between the biology, physiology (what is happening inside of people and in their brains as they eat food and observe advertising), and what is happening around them in their physical and social environment – all of these are connected. Models can help us to understand how they work together, and how to design policies that work together to address it more holistically.”

There are three systemic barriers to preventing obesity (4:11)

“There are definitely barriers in the way; there are at least three sets. One set of barriers is institutional. On the policy side we have different departments of government for public health and for the things that actually drive public health, as well, such as education, transportation and agriculture. They are not necessarily used to working together, but they really need to to address this problem. The second set of hurdles in on the scientific side. We have different fields of science – genetics, nutrition, business – and they do not usually talk to each other or work together, either. They also need to to help us understand this problem. The third set of challenges is really methodological. We do not have tools that are good at this amount of complexity, and at helping us to manage it and design effective policies. These new tools that have arisen to address this challenge is what we really specialize in here at the [Center on Social Dynamics and Policy]. We are helping the federal government and the scientific community to apply [expertise] to the obesity epidemic.”

Two out of three overweight people live in the developing world (5:17)

“In the international context the picture looks (in some ways) very different from the United States context. In fact, a lot of obesity is occurring in the developing world. Two in three overweight people in the world are in developing countries, not in the developed world. This is a surprising statistic. In the developing world everything is changing very rapidly. Their systems of growing, producing and distributing food are changing very rapidly as they develop. Their social norms and tastes are developing very rapidly.

What you find in many developing countries is, at the same time, there is a lingering epidemic of widespread malnutrition and a new obesity epidemic which is getting quite bad. They coexist, sometimes even in the same village, or even in the same household. That is a bit of a puzzle, but I think it is because both things are driven by the same fundamental underlying systems that effect nutrition. Malnutrition and over-nutrition (which is what leads to obesity) are really part of the same problem. One of the challenges for developing countries will be to solve their malnutrition crisis without creating an obesity epidemic. That is very challenging to do and it involves coordination between the agriculture sector, and our understandings of environment and health, are how the three are all working together to produce one or the other obese effects, or sometimes both at the same time.

Video

Getting Obesity Under Control

How Social Norms Change through Osmosis

Hakan Altinay — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:43:00 -0400

Does the outside world have a role as norms in a given society change? If asked this question, the first model that many international relations specialists would recall would be the transformation of Germany and Japan at the hands of the United States. The US militarily defeats these totalitarian and militarist countries, occupies them for a considerable while, supervises their constitutional overhaul, and two success stories emerge in due course. This would be the hard power option. It was no coincidence that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 the trajectories of Germany and Japan were frequently evoked. There are also the 19th century precedents: Commodore Perry’s opening of Japan, the Opium Wars and the practices once generically referred to as white man’s burden would all fit into this category.

One can also imagine norm change through soft power. Changes in Turkey during the last decade have been explained through the EU’s soft power; EU presented a better way of organizing a society and an economy; and Turks set out to join this prized club and accepted the conditionality to become a member. In the 18th century, Russians chose to cut their beards in their rush to imitate the Europeans and acquire commensurate might. After WW2, inhabitants of the Pacific islands built airstrips, because, from where they were standing, the cause and effect relationship was all about the construction of airstrips and the arrival of precious goods, a process that the anthropologists termed “cargo cult.” Because soft power is still power, described as getting others to do what you want them to do, the quality of the deliberations by the weaker party is not the focus of attention. When they are not intimidated by the barrels of our guns, they are still awe-struck by our capabilities. If they are found to be wanting in analytical capacities, then so be it.

After Joseph Nye coined the term ‘soft power,’ like many good ideas before, it achieved rapid adoption. The dominant reaction from the international relations field was that something like soft power may indeed exist but that its importance should not be overstated. Soft power was too soft for many; smart power, an intelligent way to pick and choose from a menu of hard and soft power levers, became the new near-consensus.[1]

At the risk of going against the prevailing current, I wonder whether there could also be a less power-centric way through which norms change. Can we, for example, talk about norm osmosis? Osmosis, as we may recall from our high school science classes, is the movement of particles across semi-permeable membranes without needing any external kinetic energy. Can we think of cases where norms changed, not because societies in question were coerced or were awe-struck, but because they observed and studied practices and experiences of other societies?

One such example would be the accepted norms about wealth creation. Not so long ago, David Landes described a world divided by cultures of making and cultures of taking. Today, it is very difficult to find societies where culture of taking prevails. While we may debate proper levels of regulation and taxation, the notion that systematic pillage and confiscation as a route to prosperity, no longer exists. Another example would be whether key political posts could be inherited to one’s heirs: 300 years ago most such posts would be inherited. Nowadays, almost none are, barring North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Meritocracy has won over aristocracy. Another norm that is spreading is the desirability of having independent redress mechanisms. Swedes are often credited for establishing the first ombudsman in the 18th century.[2] Since then, the idea and the practice of instituting ombudsman-like structures have been adopted by more than 90 countries.[3] Are we to explain this norm osmosis through the size of Swedish gun boats? Not so long ago, high and hyperinflation plagued many developing nations; today, there are no policymakers who have not been convinced about the detrimental costs of high and hyperinflation. World Economic Outlook database shows that several dozen countries had high and hyperinflation throughout 1980s and 1990s; none had it in 2010. Can we explain this transformation only through IMF conditionality? What are we to do with all the countries where IMF was never involved? Take the death penalty: Once a universally accepted punishment, currently two-thirds of the countries in the world, 140 by last count,[4] no longer resort to the death penalty. Amnesty International and the European Union have long advocated for the elimination of the death penalty, but crediting the perseverance of the advocates, or the size of their megaphones, may blind us to what happens at the receiving end of these proposals. Management scholarship about leadership was previously built around arcane and hierarchical notions of charismatic leadership where leaders were endowed with certain qualities and the followers simply followed. The current scholarship, led by Robert Kelley, Ira Chaleff and David Berg, has moved its floodlights to the followers and the workings of followership. It may be that, in order to understand fully the dynamic at play, we need to be less mesmerized by the norm entrepreneurs and more curious about the followers and their deliberative processes.

Abolition of the slave trade has been the paradigm case for transnational norm entrepreneurship. It was ideal for many reasons: it is an early example of a counter-intuitive success. While Bartolomé de Las Casas had championed the rights of the non-whites in 16th century, the campaign to ban the international slave trade is the earliest success story that we can point to. International slave trade was profitable by many accounts, and its abolition cannot be explained away by less than normative motives. The campaign also had the distinct advantage of having one identified advocate for change. Much scholarship has been devoted to the study of this norm transformation, and justifiably so. Because it has been the main prism through which we had to comprehend norm transformation, we may have been relatively inattentive to other kinds of norm change where the process is less complete, at least in the short term, and where there is no discernible institutional advocate. Take, for example, the extraordinary findings of the World Values Survey: self expression values have advanced by similar rates in five different cultural zones of the world between 1981 and 2006, even with disparate base lines. It may be that enhanced self expression has been adopted through norm osmosis, rather than through the work of one clearly delineated advocate.

Commonplace assumptions of norm diffusion are often predicated on unidirectional movement from the center to the periphery. Osmosis, on the other hand, entails selective, or differential, permeability. Furthermore, the movement is multi-directional.[5] Therefore, norm osmosis does not mean we should expect a total convergence on all tracks, a homeostasis of sorts.

The story of how movement of capital, goods and people has rendered national border porous, has been well chronicled, yet it is the movement of ideas and narratives, which gives us norm osmosis. Not only news from different parts of the world but also visually compelling narratives of daily life are now routinely available to many of us. Furthermore, this is a field with many new entrants. You no longer need to double check CNN with BBC World, but can rely on Al Jazeera or France 24. Hollywood not only has to contend with Bollywood and Nollywood, but also with Participant Media, TEDTalk, telenovelas and YouTube. Turkish soap operas have defied the conservative clerics and effectively conveyed a depiction of a different good life across the Middle East. Every day, latent definitions of good life are being perceived, chewed over, contested, internalized and reproduced by billions. The chances are that the definitions of the good life which end up being absorbed through selective osmosis are those propositions which best interface with our past experiences as well as our tacit aspirations about the future.[6] Cumulative effect is norm osmosis.

What does all this mean? Or, rather what does it not mean? Norm osmosis does not mean we should forget about norm change through hard or soft power. It does however mean that just because hard and soft power-centric options provide us with levers and a raison d’être, we should not assume that they are the only dynamics at play. Having a hammer at hand may nudge us into seeing only nails, but the reality tends to be more multifarious. Norms are shared definitions of what is legitimate and what is feasible. They give their environment a structure and a framework for predictability.[7] Norm osmosis, if real and significant as I claim, means that ours is, among other things, a virtual learning community. Through multiple interactions, we are negotiating and redefining what is feasible and what is acceptable. We are also known to seek each other’s regard; at a minimum, we strive to avoid others’ loathing.[8] The cumulative effect of these interactions is the emergence of a system of global conventions, albeit fragile and incomplete. This emergent system is as necessary as the system of formal rules and laws as we attempt to navigate our global interdependence.[9] It would not be unreasonable to assume that, as power disparities dissipate and cross border communication races ahead, this diffuse process will become more intense.

What we may need at this stage is more ethnographic surveys and a detailed combing through data. Norm osmosis is a diffuse dynamic where the multiple interactions that occur are separated by many layers of space and time. Therefore, combinations of cause and effect may prove elusive, and strong causal hypothesis may be difficult to prove.[10]Quantum physics has taught us that difficulties around measurement should not be allowed to conceal the underlying realities, and norm osmosis may be another case where we should not overlook a possible dynamic, only because methods to ascertain its prevalence are not immediately obvious.

Policy Implications:

Global norms are quasi global public goods. They represent shared definitions of what is feasible and what is ideal, and as such they provide a critical and enabling backdrop to our growing interdependence. Norm formation deserves more attention.
Hard power and soft power are not the only mechanisms through which interactions regarding norms take place. There is evidence that more ubiquitous and diffuse learning is taking place, and often below the radar of the policy makers.
Taking the deliberative processes and faculties of other societies seriously is one important way we can better understand and assist this benign process. Not poisoning the international environment with hubris would be another way.

[1] There is, to be sure, the small but significant constructivist school, which has taken the ideational side of international relations seriously, and treated it as a possible independent variable in their analysis.

[2] It has also been suggested that the administrative law and practices of the Ottoman Empire, where King Charles XII of Sweden spent five years in self-exile before he established the Swedish Ombudsman in 1713, was a key source of inspiration. If indeed true, this would a counter-intuitive example of norms moving from South to North. There are other examples of norms moving from South to North: Likes of Ayahuasca, Rumi, Ubuntu, yoga have provided layered references to those seeking to question Cartesian distinctions.

[3] International Ombudsman Institute reports that ombudsman like structures now exist in 93 countries.

[4] http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries (accessed 12 February 2012)

[5] The visual images we need for such a phenomenon may come from unlikely places such as fractal geometry or Hubble Telescope: http://www.vladstudio.com/wallpaper/?infinity_1_blue/3072x768/ (accessed 12 February 2012) and http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/nebula/pr2005037a/ (accessed 12 February 2012)

[6] A key issue is what qualities of the international system hinder or facilitate osmosis. One can posit that events such as the illegal invasion of Iraq undermine the sense of a benign world community, provide further proof for the primacy of the law of the jungle, increase skepticism, and slow down osmosis. On the other hand, opting to admit mistakes may restore the propensity to give the international community the benefit of the doubt, and enhance osmosis. This hypothesis, too, is in need of experimentation and research.

Authors

Hakan Altinay

Publication: Global Policy Journal

Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce

Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:30:00 -0400

Event Information

October 21, 2011
9:30 AM - 11:00 AM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

There are two popular misconceptions about divorce: that it happens only after a long process of misery and conflict, and that once they file for divorce, couples don't entertain the idea of reconciling. But the majority of divorced couples report average happiness and low levels of conflict in the years prior to their divorce, and new research shows that in at least 10 percent of divorcing couples, both spouses are open to efforts to reconcile--and in another 30 percent, at least one spouse has interest in reconciliation. This research also suggests that the high divorce rate in the U.S. is not only costly to taxpayers and harmful to children, but that a substantial number of today’s divorces may be preventable.

On October 21, The Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation hosted an event to release a new report from the Institute for American Values, "Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce." Co-authors Professor William Doherty and Justice Leah Ward Sears presented the report’s findings in a discussion moderated by Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston. Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation and Theodora Ooms from the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center offered their analysis of the report and its proposals.

After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Participants

Moderator

Panelists

William J. Doherty

Professor of Family Social Science and Director of the Citizen Professional Center
University of Minnesota

Leah Ward Sears

Former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice
Partner, Schiff Hardin LLP

Theodora Ooms

Senior Consultant, National Healthy Marriage Resource Center
Public Strategies, Inc

Robert Rector

Senior Research Fellow
The Heritage Foundation

Secular or Christian? Exploring the Competing Narratives of Religion in America

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:00:00 -0400

Event Information

October 10, 2011
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM EDT

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Politicians in the United States are expected to embrace their religious tradition while simultaneously keeping it at arms length. Constituents want elected officials to be transparent about their faithbut react critically if religious leaders have undue influence over political decisions. And while Americans are dedicated to the principle of religious liberty, surveys show that the majority also believes America is a Christian nation. What is the proper role of religion in American politics? And how has this role evolved since the nation’s founding?

On October 10, Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston moderated a discussion of Religion in America: A Political History, by Denis Lacorne, senior research fellow with the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales at Sciences Po, Paris. Lacorne traced two narratives of religion in America: one embracing the strict separation of church and state, the other recognizing faith as a fundamental part of American identity. After Lacorne's presentation, Patrick Deneen, director of The Tocqueville Forum on the Roots of American Democracy at Georgetown University, joined the conversation.

This event is part of the Governing Ideas series intended to broaden the discussion of governance issues through forums on timely and relevant books on history, culture, legal norms and practices, values and religion. After the program, panelists took audience questions.

Audio

Secular or Christian? Exploring the Competing Narratives of Religion in America

Participants

Panelists

Denis Lacorne

Senior Research Fellow, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales
Sciences Po, Paris

Patrick J. Deneen

Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis Associate Professor and Director, The Tocqueville Forum on the Roots of American Democracy
Georgetown University

The Major Roadblock to Muslim Assimilation in Europe

Shadi Hamid — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:17:00 -0400

I was having dinner the other day with some European friends who are reasonable center-left types. London riots were in full swing. Anders Breivik had killed more than 80 of his countrymen in an apparent bid to halt the "Islamization" of Europe. Greece's economy had collapsed. The consensus among my friends was that the next five to 10 years could turn out "very scary" for Europe.

Muslims are only one part -- and a small part -- of these problems. But, unfortunately, economic collapse tends to fuel racism and intolerance, which is exactly what is happening now. The slow progress made on Muslim integration is likely to unravel as more Europeans find refuge in populism in general and far-right, radical parties in particular.

While dutifully disavowing such groups, my leftish friends, like so many Europeans, asked why European Muslims weren't doing more to assimilate and respect the culture of their new countries. And this brings us to the issue at hand: there is a clash of values, one which will make it considerably harder to find a path of compromise between Muslims and the rest of Europe.

Secularism, as its understood and practiced in Europe, is not value-neutral. It asks conservative Muslims to be something that they're likely not. "Secularism," the thinking goes, allows all groups, including Muslims, to practice their religion as they see fit. This assumes that the practice of religion is fundamentally a personal, private act detached from public, political life. It is here that Islam (how it is understood, if not necessarily practiced by most Muslims) and Europe's traditional identity and culture find themselves at odds.

It is this expectation or, rather, hope -- that Islam will somehow cease to be what it is -- that colors so many debates not just in Europe but also in a rapidly changing Middle East.

There is, in fact, something uniquely "uncompromising" about Islam, at least compared to other faiths. This is not a value judgment but rather a descriptive statement about what Islam is today (rather than what it could or should be). Many Muslims take pride in this very fact. It is this unwillingness to compromise in the face of secularizing pressures, they would say, that makes Islam both vibrant and distinctive. Indeed, Islam has proven remarkably resistant to the persistent attempts to relegate it to the private sphere.

The fact that someone like Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan and tens of thousands his fellow "Euro-Islam" followers are seen in Europe as too conservative is illustrative of the problem. Ramadan's proposed moratorium on the hadd punishments (for example cutting off the hands of thieves and stoning adulterers) was seen as beyond the pale in secular France. In a memorable debate on French television, Nicholas Sarkozy, then the interior minister, attacked Ramadan for refusing to unequivocally condemn the stoning of women.

In a place like Egypt, however, such a moratorium would likely provoke controversy for the opposite reason -- for being too "liberal." Whether we like it or not, Ramadan's version of Islam, by the standards of mainstream Islamic thought, is actually quite "progressive," which is one reason it has, so far, failed to catch on in the Arab world. Consider the findings of a December 2010 Pew poll. In Egypt, 82 percent of respondents supported the stoning of adulterers while 77 percent said they favored cutting off the hands of thieves.

As I note in my recent Foreign Affairs article,"The Rise of the Islamists," many Western observers made the mistake of thinking that this year's Arab revolutions were "secular." There was the naïve view -- one almost entirely divorced from the Egyptian reality -- that once the yoke of dictatorship was removed, Egyptians, and Arabs more generally, would turn out to be fluffy pro-American liberals. Well, they aren't and won't be anytime soon.

From an American perspective, the rapid rise of Egypt's Salafis -- conservative Islamists who advocate a strict, uncompromising view of Islamic law -- is indeed troubling. That said, it is undemocratic, as well as illiberal, to ask millions of Salafis to stop being Salafis once they enter the public sphere, as some Egyptian liberals seem to be demanding. Similarly, it is undemocratic and illiberal to ask European Muslims to be as religious as they want at home but to keep their Islam out of public view. For many, if not most religious Muslims, such a distinction is as odd as it is inconceivable. Yet asking Muslims to respect such distinctions is also entirely understandable in the troubled, bloody context of European history. In the pre-Enlightenment period, mixing religion with politics brought Europe close to the brink of destruction, with the Thirty Years' War being only the most obvious example. The French Revolution was, in part, about correcting this "imbalance." For Europe to prosper, religion would have to be controlled and constrained by the state. And so French laïcité was born. Laïcité, in turn, became central to France's social fabric and to French national identity. To be French is, in some sense, to believe in this constructed secular ideal.

The French national ideal, then, and the beliefs of a large number of French Muslims are in tension, if not contradiction. French Muslims much more strongly identify with their religion than the French population at large. According to a 2009 Gallup poll, 52 percent of French Muslims either "very strongly" or "extremely strongly" identify with their religion -- compared to only 23 percent of the French public. The numbers for Britain are even starker -- 75 percent versus 23 percent. Other poll results underline this clash in values. Remarkably, zero percent -- yes, zero percent -- of British Muslims believe homosexuality is morally acceptable. Inevitably, such views, informed by religion, are not simply a matter of private concern. They have an effect on public policy (just as the anti-gay attitudes of conservative Christians shape Republican policy in America).

It doesn't have to be this way, but that's the way it is now. In times of economic distress -- and with the euro zone inching toward collapse -- Europeans may increasingly take refuge in anti-Muslim scapegoating. This, in turn, will hurt the already dim job prospects of the European Muslim underclass. For their part, European Muslims who face heightened discrimination may very well find refuge in an increasingly rigid construction of their Muslim identity. Unemployment, immigration fears, the ascendance of the far right -- along with a very real clash of religious and cultural values -- make for a potent combination.

If there was a strong, confident left in Europe, then perhaps this dangerous mix could be effectively fought and opposed. For now, though, we may just have to hope - and pray - that cooler heads prevail.

Authors

Shadi Hamid

Publication: The Atlantic

Disconnected Narratives Between the United States and Global Muslim Communities

Ambassador Marc Ginsberg and Anne Hagood — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

ABSTRACT:

In the era of social networking, visual media are still the most powerful tools in shaping and influencing public opinion. This media working group, convened at the 2011 U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Washington, DC, was composed of insightful academic and business leaders, media experts, and public diplomacy practitioners from throughout the United States and the Muslim world. They sought to identify new initiatives to promote greater visual media programming to redress cross-cultural misunderstandings between the United States and global Muslim communities.

The working group analyzed and explored new opportunities to change the discourse that exacerbates stereotypes. One of the contributing factors identified as promoting these erroneous stereotypes is editorializing in news reporting, which tends to reflect the tense relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. The working group also explored how nonprofit media initiatives can play a positive role in shaping public perceptions of the "other," while acknowledging that the nonprofit sector is limited in its capacity because of financial restrictions.

This paper takes the debate a step further by analyzing the media landscape through a practical lens, and by asking how partnerships can be developed to leverage public-private initiatives to promote a more open environment that can correct stereotypes and lead to better understanding. The working group participants also came up with other platforms to challenge preconceived notions and put forward a series of recommendations that address issues related to methodology, market calibration, and media training initiatives. The full set of recommendations is presented at the end of the paper.

Downloads

Download Full Paper

Authors

Ambassador Marc Ginsberg
Anne Hagood

Brookings: Topics - Social Norms

Shame and Teen Pregnancy

Authors

In Reducing Teen Pregnancy, Shame Is Not a Four-Letter Word

Authors

Subjective and Objective Indicators of Racial Progress

Downloads

Authors

Restoring Marriage Will Be Difficult

Authors

The Connecticut Shootings: Now is the Time for a Debate over Gun Control

Authors

Integration or Emancipation? (Muslime in Deutschland brauchen Emanzipation)

Authors

Breakthrough! Gay Marriage Is Now Mainstream

Authors

Aurora and the U.S. Obsession with Guns: Leadership Wanted to Fight Political Capture

Authors

Improving The Lives Of Single Moms And Their Kids

Authors

Twenty Years Later, It Turns Out Dan Quayle Was Right About Murphy Brown and Unmarried Moms

Authors

President Obama’s Stance on Same-Sex Marriage: A Live Web Chat with Jonathan Rauch

Event Information

Participants

Getting Obesity Under Control: The Importance of a Systems Approach

Video

How Social Norms Change through Osmosis

Authors

Second Chances: A Proposal to Reduce Unnecessary Divorce

Event Information

Video

Audio

Transcript

Event Materials

Participants

Secular or Christian? Exploring the Competing Narratives of Religion in America

Event Information

Audio

Participants

The Major Roadblock to Muslim Assimilation in Europe

Authors

Disconnected Narratives Between the United States and Global Muslim Communities

Downloads

Authors