Continuing Exchange with Joel Nichols on "Homeward Bound"

Amy,

Fair point about the downside of the possibility (and indeed history) of misuse of the "sacrifice" language to exclude women, which I decry as much as you.  In fact, I probably was inartful in using the phrase "sacrificial," for I'm not convinced that caring for children is always and necessarily sacrificial.  While there is some self-sacrifice involved, there is also a self-actualization aspect.   I would contend that success in Hirshman's terms (or even as intellectual stimulation) is  not  the pinnacle of human development and fulfillment.  Rather, attachment and the value of a deep relationship with another person provide better measures for both human development and fulfillment, both in developmental theory and in the Christian account.  It's hard to know how better to encapsulate that than the dependency of a child.

Also, while I join your focus on working toward more just structures in society, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that it is working toward the betterment of children that often achieves those more just structures  (which is a large part of my problem with Hirshman's argument). Rather than marginalizing children and the attendant care for them (which your response certainly does not do), we instead should shift our focus toward children and ask what lifts them up and advances them.  This is true both theologically (as mentioned in my earlier comments) and practically. For example, studies show that the surest way to help lift a child out of poverty around the world is to teach that child's mother to read.  Or, by further example, by focusing on studies that show that children's young brains are literally hard-wired to connect in sustaining relationships with adults (with parents, in faith communities, with teachers, etc.), our attention turns toward the need to establish structures and situations that will provide for exactly that kind of interaction and success for children.

And my response to Joel’s response:

I agree wholeheartedly that to focus on children is a good way to a more human society; but I'm not sure that an exclusive focus on children necessarily gets us to the goal line in terms of changing workplace structures.  First, it can become a provisional thing - accommodations while children are small.  Two, not everyone is a parent - it's important for people without kids to not let work become an idol, either.  I remember a story about a young woman rolling her suitcase to the elevator for a umpteenth time, and another woman says, "let me guess, single,no pets?"  There's an assumption that if you don't have kids your life has to be all about work – and that’s unhealthy too.  I'd also frame the broader solution relationally - but children doesn't capture the whole set of problems.