The Moynihan Report
30 Years Later and Counting
[Reprinted from Issues & Views Winter 1995]
"The situation may indeed have begun to feed on itself," reads a
gloomy reflection in the Moynihan Report. Published in 1965, few public
documents have been the subject of so much misunderstanding and scorn.
Just what was the situation that was "feeding" on itself? The
Report, a meticulous piece of research, described the ongoing disintegration of
the black family, as demonstrated especially by the weakened role of men. It
emphasized the need for public policies designed to strengthen the economic
role of black men. Entitled, "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action," its central thesis raised questions about the ability of the
black family to continue its important function as socializer of future
generations.
Much of the information in the Report was first communicated by the eminent
black sociologist Franklin Frazier, who published important studies on black
culture from the 1930s to 1950s. In a sense, the Report merely updated the
early findings and observations of Frazier and other black social scientists. A
major reason why it set off a firestorm of criticism is because it made the
mistake of being published when the high follies of the 1960s were in full
swing.
This year, the 30th anniversary of the Report’s publication, finds the
black family in even greater distress. In fact, the Report’s term
"disorganized," which was used to describe much of black family life
at the time, today sounds rather restrained. Not only have the follies of the
‘60s not ceased, they have been buttressed by official government policies
that reward capricious lifestyles undreamed of even in the heady days of the
flower children.
In 1965, when news about the contents of the Report hit the fan, an armed
assault team of social scientists, black and white, set out to discredit its
findings. Politically correct ideology was blatantly substituted for objective
investigation. In fact, several of these academics condemned what they called
the Report’s "cold, scientific" approach to the facts.
Refusing to distinguish reality from pipe dream, people who once were judged
sane set off in all directions to go on record as pious protectors of the
downtrodden. Instead of helping poor blacks comprehend the cycle in which they
had become trapped, people who should have known better set in motion new
forces that insured the poor’s continued decline.
Numbers of black academics determined to conduct their own
"research," with some of them boldly stating just what they would be
looking for. They, by God, were going to locate the "strengths" of
the black family and put to rest this talk about its disintegration. Without a
trace of shame, they announced that the ultimate goal of what they called
"black social science" was not to achieve scientific competency, but
to bring about "black liberation."
And so these purveyors of a new black sociology set out to discover order
and meaning in the behavior of the lower class. Locking horns with their white
counterparts, black "intellectuals" fought for recognition to be the
sole interpreters of black behavior. They, after all, were better attuned to
finding the truth, so they claimed. While black youth rioted and families
continued to crumble, this interracial gang of hucksters fought over the
lucrative spoils that go to those who generate doctoral dissertations, journal
articles, magazine features, conferences, seminars, curriculums, and endless
streams of books.
The Report’s most significant contribution was its clarion call to
action. In fact, its subtitle is "The Case for National Action." In
stark, statistical detail, it made clear the urgent need to reverse negative
social trends where tens of thousands of young males grow up with no clear
picture of the responsible roles they must play as men. While detailing the
nature of the problems confronting the poor, it placed great emphasis on the
need for immediate strategies to improve the lot of families through higher
rates of male employment, income maintenance and education.
The renewal of fragile families was central to the Report’s thesis. The
implication was clear that social programs should be evaluated primarily for
their benefits to families and their potential to help keep families intact.
Defensive posturing now got under way in earnest. Slick, upper class
columnist Carl Rowan, complained that he was "weary of being analyzed and
mesmerized." Apparently, for Rowan and other prominent blacks like him,
the Report’s "exposure" of the negative lifestyles of any black
men was an attack on him and all black men. These worthies were embarrassed.
James Farmer, the director of CORE, claimed the Report simply provided fuel
for a new racism and was really a covert attempt to get blacks to "take
our eyes off the prize." Whitney Young of the National Urban League
insisted that discrimination alone accounted for the continuing troubles of the
poor, and that the subject of family instability was a "peripheral
issue." Bayard Rustin of the A. Philip Randolph Institute claimed that,
what might seem to be social disease to one group, "may be a healthy
adaptation to the Negro lower class." Clarence Mitchell of the NAACP
rejected the Report’s implication that blacks might benefit from examining
internal dynamics to get a handle on solving some of their problems.
One rationalization after another was proclaimed by apologist leaders in
newspaper columns, in public forums and from church pulpits—dismissing the
insights and wisdom of the Report. All of which could only leave the sober
black observer to ask, "With ‘leaders’ like these, who needs
outside enemies?"
Unfortunately for the black poor, these notables, along with their white
liberal confidantes, held the power to dictate the nature of social policy for
years to come. As grandstanding opponents to the Report took center stage,
those blacks who appreciated the Report’s candidness could find few forums
in which to be heard. In general, they were ignored by the mainstream media.
Sociologist Nathan Hare, for example, was a lone voice denouncing those who
were most instrumental in shutting down debate over the issues raised.
The shrill cries of the civil rights establishment prevailed. Middle class
blacks now sought to use the findings of the Report as proof of the need to
speed up moves toward integration. Such misguided schemes only sounded another
death knell for poor blacks, whose urgent problems had nothing to do with
attaining greater social proximity to whites.
Following are excerpts from the Moynihan Report:
Margaret Mead has pointed out that while ‘In every known
human society, everywhere in the world, the young male learns that when he
grows up one of the things which he must do in order to be a full member of
society is to provide food for some female and her young.’ This pattern is
not immutable, however, it can be broken, even though it has always eventually
reasserted itself.
‘Within the family, each new generation of young males learn the
appropriate nurturing behavior and superimpose upon their biologically given
maleness this learned parental role. When the family breaks down . . . this
delicate line of transmission is broken. Men may flounder badly in these
periods, during which the primary unit may again become mother and child, the
biologically given, and the special conditions under which man has held his
social traditions in trust are violated and distorted.’. .
A cycle is at work; too many children too early make it most difficult for
the parents to finish school. . . . An Urban League study in New York reported
that 44% of girl dropouts left school because of pregnancy. Low education
levels in turn produce low income levels, which deprive children of many
opportunities, and so the cycle repeats itself. . . .
At this point, the present tangle of pathology is capable of perpetuating
itself. . . . The cycle can be broken only if these distortions are set right.
In a word, a national effort towards the problems of Negro Americans must
be directed towards the question of family structure. The object should be to
strengthen the Negro family so as to enable it to raise and support its members
as do other families. After that, how this group of Americans chooses to run
its affairs, take advantage of opportunities or fail to do so, is none of the
nation’s business.
Copyright © 2001 Issues & Views
|
