|
Textbook Push Needs of 'Self' Over Marriage By Katherine Kersten When I was growing up in a small Iowa town, I knew an older couple. Years before, during their engagement, the woman had developed multiple sclerosis. But they hadn't let this interfere with their marriage plans. Though she grew progressively weaker -- eventually confined to a wheelchair -- the two had five children. For decades, the husband was a familiar sight around town, devotedly wheeling his wife, sometimes even carrying her. I saw him on a visit not long ago, still lovingly attending her after more than 40 years. Most marriages don't require such dramatic, self-sacrificing love. But successful marriages are made -- not "in heaven" -- but very much on earth, by two people completely dedicated to each other's well-being. The words of the traditional marriage vow speak the promise: "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part." Unfortunately, many kids today see few examples of marital devotion. Their own families are fractured, or perhaps never formed at all. They're uncertain about the chance of lasting love, and what it takes to make a marriage work. To plug the gap, society is turning to the schools to educate children about marriage and family life. Just what are they learning about marriage there? Last month, the Institute for American Values released "The Course of True Love: Marriage in High School Textbooks," a report evaluating the nation's most widely used health texts. (For copies, call (212) 246-3942.) It found some good news. These books describe marriage as a serious, life-long commitment, and portray divorce and single parenting as problematic in various respects. But there's bad news too. In general, the books promote a view of life that may actually undermine students' chances of marital success. Marriage requires self-denial and constant attention to another's needs and desires. But today's texts encourage just the opposite -- a complete preoccupation with self. One text puts it this way: "To love oneself is the beginning of a life-long romance." And if other people don't love you as much as you think they should? "Instead of waiting for others to 'take the hint'... and give you compliments, take direct action to improve your own self-esteem by giving yourself the attention, time and support you would love to get from others. ... Plan a date to take yourself on -- alone." (This event is called a "self-date.") In this way, you will not only "mee[t] your need for support," but "sho[w] others how to provide such support." The problem with this approach to life is obvious. Everyone will be too caught up in his or her own "lifelong romance" with self to give much "support" to anyone else. The Institute for American Values reports that the texts it reviewed devote an average of seven pages to marriage. By contrast, they devote fully 22 pages to the life-enhancing qualities of "self-esteem." The books portray "relationships" as important, but only insofar as they serve the isolated individual's "needs." And if multiple sclerosis strikes? Presumably, it's O.K. to say, "Sorry, honey, it's Splitsville. My needs aren't being met." Not surprisingly, today's texts answer life's biggest questions solely in terms of self-interest. Why not have sex as a teen? You might get a disease or have a baby. But if young people are to become good spouses and parents, they must learn to consider how their behavior affects others. What about avoiding pregnancy because it would harm your child to grow up without a father? What about abstaining from sex out of respect and concern for your girlfriend? The crux of the problem is this: High schools texts deal with love and marriage -- the the perennial inspiration of poets, artists and theologians -- solely in the crabbed and confining context of "health." Why? We have lost our collective moral voice, but we still want to teach our children how to behave. The concept of "health" offers a morally-neutral "umbrella" under which such instruction can proceed. As the Institute for American Values points out, today, "health" operates at the societal level just the way "self-esteem" operates at the personal level: "as the definition of an ultimate good and a religious-like metaphor for the highest set of values that unite our community." Teens, unfortunately, tend to greet all this health-talk with a huge yawn. For as the Institute for American Values observes, a one-dimensional clinical focus means that "most of the big interesting words -- mystery, romance, love, flirtation, jealousy, courtship, passion -- are simply left unexamined, ... replaced instead by smaller and ultimately sadder words such as dysfunction, self-esteem, responsibility, stress, coping [and] disease." Contrary to what our children's textbooks suggest, marriage is much more than purely personal act, or an inherently frail, psychological "commitment." It is a universal social institution, the rock on which our social order is built. It offers profound joys, but these come not so much from taking as from giving. Success in marriage, as in so much of life, is the result of transcending selfish concerns -- of "dying to self," not wallowing in it. For all the challenges they faced, the couple I knew as a child found far greater happiness in building a life together than in "striving for self-actualization" apart. Fortunately for them, they never read a high school text that taught them differently. -- Katherine Kersten is a director of Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis and a commentator for National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." |