Comments for Keith E Rice's Integrated SocioPsychology Blog http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog Random Thoughts of a SocioPsychologist Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:00:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on 24 Iraqi lives are not even worth 3 months in prison by Keith E Rice http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1157#comment-1687 Keith E Rice Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:00:45 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1157#comment-1687 From a bit of scouting around the news, I see that Wuterich was given an honourable discharge last Friday 16 February. Pity it couldn't have been a dishonourable discharge! But, given the stupid position the American military legals got themselves into it, it was a sort-of inevitable BLUE outcome. The silver lining in the cloud is that, at least, he shouldn't be pointing an automatic rifle at anybody anytime soon...in theory, at least! The bigger question is: what have the American military learned from this debacle that might help avoid such murderous scenarios in the future...? From a bit of scouting around the news, I see that Wuterich was given an honourable discharge last Friday 16 February. Pity it couldn’t have been a dishonourable discharge! But, given the stupid position the American military legals got themselves into it, it was a sort-of inevitable BLUE outcome. The silver lining in the cloud is that, at least, he shouldn’t be pointing an automatic rifle at anybody anytime soon…in theory, at least!

The bigger question is: what have the American military learned from this debacle that might help avoid such murderous scenarios in the future…?

]]> Comment on Family Systems and Crime & Deviance by Keith E Rice http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1149#comment-1681 Keith E Rice Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:32:01 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1149#comment-1681 Thanks for these thought-provoking comments, Eileen. Your remarks about family systems and processes are especially interesting. I would argue that they illustrate the PURPLE vMEME working in the manner of Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory (1947). According to Sutherland, youngsters learn deviant and criminal behaviours from those they are closest to and belong to. That children will model negative behaviour from those they identify with was demonstrated unequivocally by Albert Bandura (see: Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961 – http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/bandura_bo-bo_dolls.html) It can be argued that this perpetuates what Charles Murray (1989) has labelled the Underclass – see: Underclass: the Excreta of Capitalism (http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/excreta-capitalism.html). So we have multi-generation families, where there has never been anyone in gainful employment, living on the edges of society via a mixture of benefit fraud, prostitution, drug dealing and petty crime. Though I can’t say I’ve followed the Stephen Lawrence case particularly closely, I would imagine this is the kind family you were thinking his killers might have come from...? vMEMETICALLY, I think we’re talking a different degree when you mention the old 60s and 70s family-centred gangs like the Krays and theRichardsons. This is more like the RED warlord or bandit leader Don Beck likes to construct to hypothesise RED gone wrong. PURPLE is still there in the form of loyalty to the family but there is a power hierarchy headed by one or two absolute rulers. Organised crime, by its very name, indicates there is a strong element of BLUE in there, at the centre of the organising. Once we turn to the drugs cartels in Central and South America, I can envisage considerable ORANGE leading them, on top of a sound BLUE structure underpinned with PURPLE loyalty. These guys try to manipulate entire countries, not so much for the sake of power but to pursue their business ambitions. Perhaps relevant...in the days of HemsMESH (see: http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/hemsmesh.html), I talked with representatives of the West Yorkshire Police about running a campaign something along the lines of “If you are earning £50,000 a year from dealing drugs, we’d like to talk to you about becoming a businessman...” The idea was that, if you could earn that much from dealing drugs, then clearly you ARE a business person (almost certainly with ORANGE strong in your selfplex) – you’re just doing criminal business and, if we could only persuade you with training and maybe a start-up grant to start a legit business, you would bring that business acumen to the local economy.... Some of the cops really liked the idea but, for most of them, it was just too radical! Best Keith Thanks for these thought-provoking comments, Eileen.

Your remarks about family systems and processes are especially interesting. I would argue that they illustrate the PURPLE vMEME working in the manner of Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory (1947). According to Sutherland, youngsters learn deviant and criminal behaviours from those they are closest to and belong to. That children will model negative behaviour from those they identify with was demonstrated unequivocally by Albert Bandura (see: Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961 – http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/bandura_bo-bo_dolls.html)

It can be argued that this perpetuates what Charles Murray (1989) has labelled the Underclass – see: Underclass: the Excreta of Capitalism (http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/excreta-capitalism.html). So we have multi-generation families, where there has never been anyone in gainful employment, living on the edges of society via a mixture of benefit fraud, prostitution, drug dealing and petty crime.

Though I can’t say I’ve followed the Stephen Lawrence case particularly closely, I would imagine this is the kind family you were thinking his killers might have come from…?

vMEMETICALLY, I think we’re talking a different degree when you mention the old 60s and 70s family-centred gangs like the Krays and theRichardsons. This is more like the RED warlord or bandit leader Don Beck likes to construct to hypothesise RED gone wrong. PURPLE is still there in the form of loyalty to the family but there is a power hierarchy headed by one or two absolute rulers.

Organised crime, by its very name, indicates there is a strong element of BLUE in there, at the centre of the organising. Once we turn to the drugs cartels in Central and South America, I can envisage considerable ORANGE leading them, on top of a sound BLUE structure underpinned with PURPLE loyalty. These guys try to manipulate entire countries, not so much for the sake of power but to pursue their business ambitions.

Perhaps relevant…in the days of HemsMESH (see: http://www.integratedsociopsychology.net/hemsmesh.html), I talked with representatives of the West Yorkshire Police about running a campaign something along the lines of “If you are earning £50,000 a year from dealing drugs, we’d like to talk to you about becoming a businessman…” The idea was that, if you could earn that much from dealing drugs, then clearly you ARE a business person (almost certainly with ORANGE strong in your selfplex) – you’re just doing criminal business and, if we could only persuade you with training and maybe a start-up grant to start a legit business, you would bring that business acumen to the local economy…. Some of the cops really liked the idea but, for most of them, it was just too radical!

Best

Keith

]]> Comment on Martin McGuinness for President? by Sean Kay http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1126#comment-1674 Sean Kay Tue, 04 Oct 2011 23:25:57 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1126#comment-1674 Greetings - I stumbled on to this blog post while looking a Huffington Post article on Ireland I'd written over the weekend. Its a very interesting and thoughtul analysis - thanks for doing it. I apprecaite you mentioning some of the work on NI that I have done - I did want to correct one thing - Martin didn't say that specifically to me - while we have met, I didn't interview him formally for the book. Rather, it was the context in a speech he gave in Washington on St. Patrick's Day 2010 - which was very clear in his commitment to the peace process - and his direct references were to his own deep personal opposition to any kind of return to violence. All the questions raised in the context of the presidency are very good ones to ask - and it is especially important to raise the question of degree of empathy with the other side - which has to permeate on both sides of the legacy of the conflict for peacebuilding to take hold. I know I have seen him up close on a numer of occasssions wth Peter Robinson and the two get along very well. At anyrate, just wanted to correct that one thing - I interviewed a lot of people, but formally Martin wasn't one of them - that came from a public speech he gave, and was relating the sentment he was asserting strongly - at least to that Washington, D.C. audience. Cheers! - Sean Greetings – I stumbled on to this blog post while looking a Huffington Post article on Ireland I’d written over the weekend. Its a very interesting and thoughtul analysis – thanks for doing it. I apprecaite you mentioning some of the work on NI that I have done – I did want to correct one thing – Martin didn’t say that specifically to me – while we have met, I didn’t interview him formally for the book. Rather, it was the context in a speech he gave in Washington on St. Patrick’s Day 2010 – which was very clear in his commitment to the peace process – and his direct references were to his own deep personal opposition to any kind of return to violence. All the questions raised in the context of the presidency are very good ones to ask – and it is especially important to raise the question of degree of empathy with the other side – which has to permeate on both sides of the legacy of the conflict for peacebuilding to take hold. I know I have seen him up close on a numer of occasssions wth Peter Robinson and the two get along very well. At anyrate, just wanted to correct that one thing – I interviewed a lot of people, but formally Martin wasn’t one of them – that came from a public speech he gave, and was relating the sentment he was asserting strongly – at least to that Washington, D.C. audience. Cheers! – Sean

]]> Comment on The Riots: who’s right – Cameron or Blair? by jon http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1671 jon Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:05:23 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1671 Hi Keith, i thought about this somewhat after i wrote my first post. I ran an informal development group for a number of years a while ago. Bluntly you could say that we broke up a number of relationships and created a number of new ones. That wasn't the intention of course, just a side effect and I am saying broke up somewhat tongue in cheek too. What actually happened was that as people developed new interests in life they went looking for ways to satisfy them. The group was a home for all sorts of alternative ideas including medicine, meditation, spirituality and almost anything else you can imagine on related topics. We had lots of speakers in over the years. But to the point, in Spiral Dynamics terms what was happening was as people became disillusioned with the rat race of the modern economic world they pulled back and became more interested in alternative, green and holistic things. They were shifting from primarily orange to green. Now many of these people came along as individuals, there were exceptions and we had couples too. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that one half of a partnership, married or not, shifting through a value change while their partner does not is going to cause problems at home. The problems could have been there some time but joining a group like ours allowed people to validate their new values and break through into new alpha levels and effectively leave their partners behind. So, while we didn’t literally break up relationships, we did facilitate their demise somewhat faster. In practise, this kind of thing happens all the time. However, I would propose that it is actually happening more and more often to more and more people and that this is one factor in the higher rates of marriage failure. There are of course others too . If we look at how Spiral Dynamics can help society in general then having people be supported through values shifts is one of the cornerstones of where we should be headed. In fact, to my mind, conscious and deliberate facilitation of healthy growth through the spiral is THE major goal we should be looking for in our education systems and social structures in general. And so, that is why I was arguing that we can’t assume that marriage is for life any more in the same was as we could when social groups were far more rigid and whole towns and communities were primarily aligned into single Spiral Dynamics classified groups. While my long term top priority in society is support for every individual to reach their full potential, in the short term our aims have to be more focused on managing the relationships on the different valued power groups in society and across the international community. We have not yet the critical mass of second tier awareness to build and sustain those over arching support systems. Another major factor in the demise of marriage is indeed higher expectations from a relationship. In many cases unrealistically as you suggest but also in many cases very realistically. Our levels of social responsibility are increasing all the time and the centre of gravity of the communal values shift to ever more complexity. We should not put up with relationships that are throwbacks to red power bullies any longer. So, we necessarily have more dynamic relationships through life and we must live with but also manage and support society through those more frequent changes. At the risk of in the short term making things worse, we need the social stigma of failed relationships to fall away; it has to a very great extent already. We need financial systems that allow for the reforming of new stable relationships, including single parent families, more easily. But I am indeed asking for radical social and economic changes there so we will have to muddle through for the moment looking for clues to what the longer term structures will look like. But, hold on a minute, it might look like that i am advocating a free for all in terms of flexible relationships – I am not. I am arguing for the support systems to be there when things really do change catastrophically in relationships. The other side of this is that we really should, as you suggest, provide more support to maintain relationships through difficulties now that extended families are not there to do the job. But, on the other, third, hand, we need to do something else too. And that is to stop informal relationships becoming formal relationships too soon. The life span of humans is increasing, women are having children later and many have the opportunity to continue their value development to later ages – ideally everyone would. We see people staying in education longer, we see a global education tool in the internet and smart phones emerging and changing the way people learn. I suspect that the period of rapid value changes that occur earlier in life is being extended. These are serious social changes from our parent’s time. And to close, what was originally intended to be a short comment , i might throw in a couple of ideas. We need to build in value change awareness into the education system as soon as possible. With regard to this post this should be extended into the relationship education that you propose so that we don’t get so many relationships that are perhaps somewhat doomed from the start due to strong value clashes. We should formalise relationship counselling as a requirement before marriage. And, we should seriously consider raising the age at which we allow young people to marry, or perhaps even buy a house together. Perhaps i am in danger of getting too close to being accused by some groups of wanting to engage in social engineering. It’s all good fun... Hi Keith,
i thought about this somewhat after i wrote my first post. I ran an informal development group for a number of years a while ago. Bluntly you could say that we broke up a number of relationships and created a number of new ones. That wasn’t the intention of course, just a side effect and I am saying broke up somewhat tongue in cheek too.
What actually happened was that as people developed new interests in life they went looking for ways to satisfy them. The group was a home for all sorts of alternative ideas including medicine, meditation, spirituality and almost anything else you can imagine on related topics. We had lots of speakers in over the years.
But to the point, in Spiral Dynamics terms what was happening was as people became disillusioned with the rat race of the modern economic world they pulled back and became more interested in alternative, green and holistic things. They were shifting from primarily orange to green. Now many of these people came along as individuals, there were exceptions and we had couples too. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that one half of a partnership, married or not, shifting through a value change while their partner does not is going to cause problems at home. The problems could have been there some time but joining a group like ours allowed people to validate their new values and break through into new alpha levels and effectively leave their partners behind.
So, while we didn’t literally break up relationships, we did facilitate their demise somewhat faster.
In practise, this kind of thing happens all the time. However, I would propose that it is actually happening more and more often to more and more people and that this is one factor in the higher rates of marriage failure. There are of course others too .
If we look at how Spiral Dynamics can help society in general then having people be supported through values shifts is one of the cornerstones of where we should be headed. In fact, to my mind, conscious and deliberate facilitation of healthy growth through the spiral is THE major goal we should be looking for in our education systems and social structures in general.
And so, that is why I was arguing that we can’t assume that marriage is for life any more in the same was as we could when social groups were far more rigid and whole towns and communities were primarily aligned into single Spiral Dynamics classified groups.
While my long term top priority in society is support for every individual to reach their full potential, in the short term our aims have to be more focused on managing the relationships on the different valued power groups in society and across the international community. We have not yet the critical mass of second tier awareness to build and sustain those over arching support systems.
Another major factor in the demise of marriage is indeed higher expectations from a relationship. In many cases unrealistically as you suggest but also in many cases very realistically. Our levels of social responsibility are increasing all the time and the centre of gravity of the communal values shift to ever more complexity. We should not put up with relationships that are throwbacks to red power bullies any longer.
So, we necessarily have more dynamic relationships through life and we must live with but also manage and support society through those more frequent changes.
At the risk of in the short term making things worse, we need the social stigma of failed relationships to fall away; it has to a very great extent already. We need financial systems that allow for the reforming of new stable relationships, including single parent families, more easily. But I am indeed asking for radical social and economic changes there so we will have to muddle through for the moment looking for clues to what the longer term structures will look like.
But, hold on a minute, it might look like that i am advocating a free for all in terms of flexible relationships – I am not. I am arguing for the support systems to be there when things really do change catastrophically in relationships.
The other side of this is that we really should, as you suggest, provide more support to maintain relationships through difficulties now that extended families are not there to do the job.
But, on the other, third, hand, we need to do something else too. And that is to stop informal relationships becoming formal relationships too soon. The life span of humans is increasing, women are having children later and many have the opportunity to continue their value development to later ages – ideally everyone would.
We see people staying in education longer, we see a global education tool in the internet and smart phones emerging and changing the way people learn. I suspect that the period of rapid value changes that occur earlier in life is being extended. These are serious social changes from our parent’s time.
And to close, what was originally intended to be a short comment , i might throw in a couple of ideas.
We need to build in value change awareness into the education system as soon as possible. With regard to this post this should be extended into the relationship education that you propose so that we don’t get so many relationships that are perhaps somewhat doomed from the start due to strong value clashes.
We should formalise relationship counselling as a requirement before marriage.
And, we should seriously consider raising the age at which we allow young people to marry, or perhaps even buy a house together. Perhaps i am in danger of getting too close to being accused by some groups of wanting to engage in social engineering.
It’s all good fun…

]]> Comment on For Sian and Gillian Baverstock by Carolyn O'Donnell http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=174#comment-1670 Carolyn O'Donnell Sat, 03 Sep 2011 06:38:49 +0000 http://keitherice.wordpress.com/?p=174#comment-1670 Hi Keith, I met Sian Baverstock on a riding holiday in Wales in 1976. I searched for her on Facebook today and found the obituries. Wehad a friendship for a year or so afterwards. I stayed in Leeds at the family home. So sad. Carolyn Hi Keith,
I met Sian Baverstock on a riding holiday in Wales in
1976. I searched for her on Facebook today and found the obituries.
Wehad a friendship for a year or so afterwards. I stayed in Leeds at the
family home. So sad.
Carolyn

]]> Comment on The Riots: who’s right – Cameron or Blair? by Alan Clarke http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1669 Alan Clarke Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:43:17 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1669 Dear Keith, as Jon said, thanks for such a great analysis. Very thorough. I agree with James that a healthy rebalancing and rejuvenation of BLUE (right-wrong, order, structure, discipline, righteousness, justice), PURPLE (family, community) informed by ORANGE (economic nouse, competitive instinct) and GREEN wisdom & sensitivity is the formula. GREEN; mean-GREEN is the greatest barrier to Western survival and thriving. Current events and life conditions will continue to take care of that but things must get much worse before the group dynamic will shift. We're going to have change forced upon us through the collapse of the EURO & dollar and the consequent loss of US military power, the welfare state sustainability and the massive RED crime and RED-PURPLE-BLUE Islamic dynamism. I'm optimistic but its going to be a very bumpy ride. I keep trying to give up persuading GREEN to get to YELLOW and ORANGE/BLUE to get to GREEN. Need to remember to take Don's advice to take people as they are and adapt to life conditions as they are rather than as I'd like them to be. On a final note, I remember watching Alan Clarke talk about the British Football hooligans at EURO 1996. While most people were appalled by their behaviour, he said "it's the old British martial spirit in action. They just need some good leadership and a job to do." I felt the same about the rioters. The behaviour was totally unacceptable and should have been dealt with much more harshly. But, they're mostly not bad people but people in need of leadership, vision, opportunity, discipline, meaning and team spirit. Alan Dear Keith,

as Jon said, thanks for such a great analysis. Very thorough. I agree with James that a healthy rebalancing and rejuvenation of BLUE (right-wrong, order, structure, discipline, righteousness, justice), PURPLE (family, community) informed by ORANGE (economic nouse, competitive instinct) and GREEN wisdom & sensitivity is the formula. GREEN; mean-GREEN is the greatest barrier to Western survival and thriving. Current events and life conditions will continue to take care of that but things must get much worse before the group dynamic will shift. We’re going to have change forced upon us through the collapse of the EURO & dollar and the consequent loss of US military power, the welfare state sustainability and the massive RED crime and RED-PURPLE-BLUE Islamic dynamism.

I’m optimistic but its going to be a very bumpy ride. I keep trying to give up persuading GREEN to get to YELLOW and ORANGE/BLUE to get to GREEN. Need to remember to take Don’s advice to take people as they are and adapt to life conditions as they are rather than as I’d like them to be.

On a final note, I remember watching Alan Clarke talk about the British Football hooligans at EURO 1996. While most people were appalled by their behaviour, he said “it’s the old British martial spirit in action. They just need some good leadership and a job to do.” I felt the same about the rioters. The behaviour was totally unacceptable and should have been dealt with much more harshly. But, they’re mostly not bad people but people in need of leadership, vision, opportunity, discipline, meaning and team spirit.

Alan

]]> Comment on The Riots: who’s right – Cameron or Blair? by Keith E Rice http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1668 Keith E Rice Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:05:54 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1668 Thanks for this, James. Maybe your idea of 'natinal community service' has some synchrony with Cameron's proposed 'National Citizen Service'? Keith Thanks for this, James. Maybe your idea of ‘natinal community service’ has some synchrony with Cameron’s proposed ‘National Citizen Service’?

Keith

]]> Comment on The Riots: who’s right – Cameron or Blair? by Keith E Rice http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1667 Keith E Rice Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:21:07 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1667 Thanks for this, Jon. The stats show time and time again that married couples last longer than unmarrried couples and that children from stable nuclear families do better than children from single parent families. There are, of course, numerous exceptions - my own wife, Caroline, was a single parent whose daughter (Viki) is a lovely young woman, recently married to her partner of 10 years and pursuing a successful career. But you can't put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. There are fewer people as a percentage of the the population getting married than 50 years ago - though the number has increased slightly in recent years. And the divorce rate has dipped slightly too. But, yes, you're right: while the nuclear family is undoubtedly the best (when it works!) - and should be encouraged - alternative forms of 'family' have to be accepted and supported too. That is the reality. Another thought.... No one teaches people these days how to 'do' marriage/relationships. (The magazines tend to focus mainly on sex and perhaps raise expectations to unrealistic levels - the 'perfect orgasm' every time?!?) In the days when your parents lived in the next street, the fed-up young husband could go round and whinge to his father who would counsel him; same with the angry young wife and her mother. Maybe how to 'do' relationships should be part of the 'life skills' package we need to teach young people...? Keith Thanks for this, Jon. The stats show time and time again that married couples last longer than unmarrried couples and that children from stable nuclear families do better than children from single parent families. There are, of course, numerous exceptions – my own wife, Caroline, was a single parent whose daughter (Viki) is a lovely young woman, recently married to her partner of 10 years and pursuing a successful career.

But you can’t put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. There are fewer people as a percentage of the the population getting married than 50 years ago – though the number has increased slightly in recent years. And the divorce rate has dipped slightly too.

But, yes, you’re right: while the nuclear family is undoubtedly the best (when it works!) – and should be encouraged – alternative forms of ‘family’ have to be accepted and supported too. That is the reality.

Another thought…. No one teaches people these days how to ‘do’ marriage/relationships. (The magazines tend to focus mainly on sex and perhaps raise expectations to unrealistic levels – the ‘perfect orgasm’ every time?!?) In the days when your parents lived in the next street, the fed-up young husband could go round and whinge to his father who would counsel him; same with the angry young wife and her mother. Maybe how to ‘do’ relationships should be part of the ‘life skills’ package we need to teach young people…?

Keith

]]> Comment on The Riots: who’s right – Cameron or Blair? by James Parker http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1666 James Parker Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:24:28 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1666 We obviously needed a strong blue response, but don't mention this in green circles as they think you are a total right wing Tory, I know this from experience. I feel the best approach would be to combine strong blue authority with green understanding within a national community service, it being a hybrid of the old style national service with green social care. James We obviously needed a strong blue response, but don’t mention this in green circles as they think you are a total right wing Tory, I know this from experience.

I feel the best approach would be to combine strong blue authority with green understanding within a national community service, it being a hybrid of the old style national service with green social care.

James

]]> Comment on The Riots: who’s right – Cameron or Blair? by Jon Twigge http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1665 Jon Twigge Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:08:30 +0000 http://integratedsociopsychology.net/blog/?p=1116#comment-1665 As always Keith, a great article. I will share it on my Facebook page. One thing i wasn't sure about was marriage - long term relationships - yes, and stability for children - absolutely, but i do wonder if the decline in marriage is inevitable as we see more mobile relationships. And all of the things that lead to more social responsibility lead inevitably to more stable relationships and more responsible changes in relationships which is perhaps just as relevant now days. Of course we have to be careful not to encourage break ups in relationships but we need more support for children when it does happen. But that in the end leads to calls for changes in property ownership and social mobility and all sorts of things so that people can more easily adapt their circumstances without causing quite so many difficulties. I suspect we are a long way from the maturity as a society to do this all very well. As always Keith, a great article. I will share it on my Facebook page. One thing i wasn’t sure about was marriage – long term relationships – yes, and stability for children – absolutely, but i do wonder if the decline in marriage is inevitable as we see more mobile relationships. And all of the things that lead to more social responsibility lead inevitably to more stable relationships and more responsible changes in relationships which is perhaps just as relevant now days. Of course we have to be careful not to encourage break ups in relationships but we need more support for children when it does happen. But that in the end leads to calls for changes in property ownership and social mobility and all sorts of things so that people can more easily adapt their circumstances without causing quite so many difficulties. I suspect we are a long way from the maturity as a society to do this all very well.

]]>