Authors’ note: Welcome to a portion of Chapter 1 in our new book, Why Fathers Count: The Importance of Fathers and Their Involvement with Children. We have agreed to have some portions of this book serialized on Meridian Magazine each month during 2008. We hope that the material shared will enrich your understanding of men, family life, and the important contributions of fathers and father figures to children, families and communities. We intend to focus on sharing fresh insights and practical tips on fathers, parenting and family life in the articles we select. We also encourage you to head on over to our on-line page (http:www.whyfatherscount.com), where you can order individual copies of the book.
The Question of Fatherhood
We have arrived at a point in American history where the question of fatherhood and the future of our children is a central concern. In writing about fatherhood over time in American history, two scholars commented:
In the conventional wisdom, over four centuries of American history the stern patriarch of the colonial settlers changed into the involved father of today, as the hierarchical model of domestic government gave way to the modern democratic ideal. Gone was the moral guide, distant and cold, rod in one hand and Bible in the other. In his place stood the playmate, pal, coach, child development specialist, diaper changer, chauffeur, and childbirth attendant of modern film and advertisements. 1
It hardly needs to be said that images of fatherhood, while representing a form of reality, generally fail to do justice to the many dimensions that represent the true diversity of fatherhood. The colonial father of European descent, represented as “distant and cold” from his children, was likely surrounded by other men who, like fathers today, were widely varied in their motivation and involvement with their children.
Although ideas of what has constituted the “good dad” have varied across time and context, the basic perceptions of the “bad dad” have remained constant across historical trends. 2 He was the father who failed to provide for his family. The four historical fatherhood trends that have been identified in America include the “stern patriarch” of the colonial period, the “distant breadwinner” of the 1830-1900’s, the “genial dad” and sex-role model from 1900-1970, and the “co-parent” from 1970 to the present day. 3
Additional trends that have affected fatherhood have emerged in the last three decades, shaping a new cultural discourse about fatherhood and how it affects the future of our children. One image that has emerged is the opposite of the nurturing co-parent, and instead characterizes many men as “deadbeat dads” who do not live with their children, avoid involvement, and fail to support them.
This father image has gained new relevance and is no longer associated simply with men of lower socioeconomic status, but with men of all ethnic and class backgrounds. This image has been fueled by changing family structures, which have corresponded to a rise in the divorce rate and a steep increase in out-of-wedlock childbearing, thus making fathers’ ties to their children more tenuous.
The contemporary images of fatherhood in America range from the “bumbling father” to the new, nurturant father to the “deadbeat dad.” Our primary concern – what are the affects on children?
Developments of the last few decades in the United States have led to a proliferation of images about fatherhood and a vigorous dialogue about the best approaches to supporting men in the lives of children and families. The continuing dialogue is now being shaped anew by social forces such as 9/11 and the War on Terror, with thousands of American men being drawn into conflicts across the world and leaving their families behind for months or years at a time.
Fatherhood is at the top of the national agenda for reasons that include child support, employment, military deployment, incarceration, divorce, delinquency, and the influence of these issues on the well-being of children. Father absence is a national epidemic and the empirical evidence suggests that the antidote – father involvement – is central to optimal child development outcomes.
We are compelled to believe that families deserve not just lasting debate, but actual decisions that reflect a desire to help fathers embrace their responsibilities and become architects of a positive future for the children in their lives. To achieve such change will require sustained attention, effort, and commitment to the ideal that fathers count and their contributions shape the future of generations yet unborn.
Turning the Hearts of Fathers to Children
In the past decade, scholarly and public discourse has moved toward the formation of a different, more holistic approach to encouraging fathers in the care of their children. 4 In essence, there is much dissatisfaction with the inherited models and images which reflect negative thinking about men in family life.
A primary critique of the deficit model of fathering is that it limits our understanding of fatherhood. Some scholars argue that, “to the extent that the deficiency model of men in families dominates our perspective, we will surely not see enough nor see clearly all that should be viewed.” 5
Another major critique is that deficit-oriented ideas inhibit attempts to promote good fathering by scholars, practitioners, and community leaders. For example, an assumption by a school principal that most fathers would not take time to come and read in the classroom with a child may lead the principal never to extend the invitation in the first place. Effective intervention and support must be combined with helpful and growth-promoting assumptions about fathers’ potential, and such assumptions are wanting in deficit approaches to thinking about men in family life. 6
We acknowledge that, although it is desirable to advance an understanding of men that focuses on their abilities rather than their inabilities, there are a great number of men who perpetuate the negative views of fathers in family life: fathers who are uninvolved and uncaring. However, as we accept this negative reality that some men reflect poorly on fatherhood by their abuse or abandonment, we must not abuse or dismiss the contributions of most men to their children and families or abandon hope for responsible fatherhood. Children, women, and men deserve our best efforts to assist fathers in opening their hearts to family life and being committed to their children.
It is evident that our thinking on fatherhood must not only assess the past but look openly toward the future. Promising new work on fatherhood has begun to focus on men’s capabilities rather than their deficiencies . 7 The challenge facing most fathers today, as in the past, is to develop the skills and insights necessary to nurture the rising generation – a concept known as generativity .
John Snarey framed generativity as “any caring activity that contributes to the spirit of future generations.” 8 In other words, fathers who are generative engage in those caring activities which aid in establishing physical, emotional, and spiritual health and well-being for the children of the next generation.
The concept of generativity first emerged primarily in the work of developmental psychologist Erik Erikson, who wrote, “Parenthood is, for most, the first, and for many, the primary generative encounter.” 9 Generativity can occur in a variety of caring activities, including direct care of infants, teaching values to children, and creating a healthy community atmosphere for adolescents.
Alan Hawkins and David Dollahite, family scholars at Brigham Young University, have built upon the work of Erikson to propose a conceptual framework known as generative fathering , which embraces men’s capabilities and highlights the developing ethical relationship between fathers, families, and children.
10The starting point for this view of fathering has its roots in the moral imperative recorded in the biblical record to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers” (Malachi 4:5-6). 11 The focus of such thinking is not simply to document the relationships between fathers and children, but to help men become better fathers and family citizens.
Fatherhood can be conceptualized as an ethical relationship between generations. To speak of generative fathering necessarily entails a connection between generations, since the concept of generativity has been conceptualized as those caring activities which nurture such connections, foster growth, and enable the transmission of values and norms. 12
The formation and maintenance of family relationships across generations is, in itself, an ethical challenge and has been characterized as the challenge to “create, care for, and promote the development of others, from nurturing the growth of another person to shepherding the development of a broader community.” 13
The relationship between a father and child naturally occurs in the context of a generational connection predicated on caring, kindness and moral responsibility. How can fathers best be encouraged to accept the responsibility of such a relationship and “turn their hearts” to fathering, so that in turn the hearts of their children will turn to them?
The responsibilities and positive capabilities men have to care for and connect with their children must be appreciated and emphasized in order to encourage generative fathering. Of course, this assumes that the responsibility to be a good father exists and that men have the capacity to fulfill it. As a father becomes a parent he assumes responsibility for another individual, a responsibility which cannot be transferred to others without difficulty. 14
Jean Bethke Elshtain has written of parenthood, “Being a parent isn’t just another lifestyle choice. As parents well know, it’s an ethical vocation. It is a vocation of the weightiest sort.” 15
Fatherhood involves a responsibility to work for a child’s well-being in a caring, committed manner. In essence, the development of a father-child relationship asks for a morally committed, actively involved devotion on the father’s part.
Terry Warner, a philosopher, has described this process of human relationships and declares that the person ” calls upon me, out of his or her hopes and fears, to render service, to share whatever I have,” and that relating to someone from the heart means to respond ” ethically, as one who is called upon ” (emphasis added). 16 Each father is called to the work, the work of generativity which spans each generation and makes possible the continued labors and loves of family life.
The Vision of Fathers and Family Life
For too many men, women, and children, the vision of a meaningful and happy family experience is blurred, cloudy, or simply missing. And yet, for many others the vision is clear. They speak from personal experience about the bonds of love and mutual support that can exist in a family’s experience. When there is no vision of a father’s meaningful involvement with his children, then the hopes of children for their own future are challenged and may even perish.
How can we understand the impact of a father’s absence in a child’s life? The work of Pauline Boss on ambiguous loss suggests some powerful ideas for understanding this phenomenon. Her theory of ambiguous loss suggests that individuals who experience loss of a person or object in an ambiguous way will often anticipate that person’s existence and long for a return. 17
Because most children grow up wanting a loving and involved father in their lives, this approach is helpful because it provides a framework for understanding the impact of a father’s absence in their lives. Of course, no child wants the difficulties associated with an abusive or abandoning father, and yet even in such circumstances a child will maintain hope for a father’s love and influence.
All children grow up with the knowledge that they have a father or father figure, whether they can physically see him or not. Ambiguous loss suggests that children who cannot see a father who has abandoned his family will anticipate his existence and long for his return, creating its own set of challenges. On the other hand, children who physically see a father who is not present and involved in their lives in a positive way, will also experience ambiguous loss and a desire to have him involved.
Both situations create damaging concerns for a child. A subtle message may be sent to the child that he or she is not important enough for that father to have been involved in his or her life, whether the father’s actions were intentional or associated with other circumstances. Such a sense of loss can be extremely troubling for children.
Pauline Boss’ research has shown that victims of 9/11, or conflicts in Vietnam or South America, often meet their loss with denial. 18 So, too, will many of those who have experienced a father’s absence or neglect struggle with its impact and face questions about what might have been in their lives.
Each child seems to intuitively want both parents involved in his or her life. We submit that it would be very difficult to find a child who sincerely wishes he or she could grow up without a father or father figure in his or her life, assuming that abuse or neglect has not tarnished that desire. However, when fathers fail to live up to the needs and wishes of children, their children can be left without the perspective that makes a healthy future generation more possible.
One night on a trip through Pierre, South Dakota, Joseph met a couple of young teenage boys, Matthew and Chris. Driving through the small town, he saw them skateboarding in an empty grocery store parking lot with their car stereo cranked up. It was about 9:30 p.m. He stopped to visit with them for a few minutes, as he used to skateboard himself as a teenager.
When he asked why it was rare to see kids doing “360’s” on their boards these days, both teenagers responded they could not do it. Joseph explained then that he was going to a meeting about fathers, and he was curious about theirs.
Both Matt and Chris were willing to talk about their fathers, though neither lived with them. One of them said he had seen his father once in the past two months, and the other indicated seeing his father about one or two times a month. He asked if they thought fathers were important. Both agreed they were.
Joseph next asked how life would be different for them if their fathers were around. They said that they had no clue – they didn’t know that life. Finally, Joseph asked how they would do things differently for their children to make sure they were involved in their lives, and they commented that they had no idea since it was not part of their own experience.
In America, there is a whole generation of youth who have little idea about what fathering and family life is all about. Their models are likely received from television, the movies, or other sources. There are many reasons that fatherhood is an important issue, but perhaps none more important than the concern of what another generation of children without fathers will become as they move into adulthood. It is the concern of what we know all too well about the impact of father absence on a child’s life.
What does it suggest when millions of children go to bed each night without a father to kiss them goodnight or affirm his love for them? In point of fact, fatherhood shapes the future of our children. As one prominent fatherhood scholar, David Popenoe, put it, “We are at a major fork in the road in America.” 19 He explained that we have to make a choice individually and as a nation. He then said:
It is imperative that we take one path – the path that requires a shift of direction – and not the other. For in the words of an ancient Chinese proverb: “Unless we change direction, we’re likely to end up where we’re headed.” And that would be a social disaster – for our children, our families, and our society. The act of being a good father, now so cavalierly discounted, is an essential building block of every successful society. Just as a multitude of personal failings becomes a major public crisis, so does a multitude of personal contributions add up to an enormous public gain. In the final analysis, every father counts.20
(You can share any comments or feedback with Sean Brotherson at [email protected]” target=”_blank”>[email protected] – we look forward to hearing from you! Further information about Why Fathers Count can be located at https://www.whyfatherscount.com )
Endnotes – Chapter 1
1 E. H. Pleck & J. H. Pleck, “Fatherhood Ideals in the United States: Historical Dimensions.” In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The Role of the Father in Child Development , 3 rd ed., pp. 33-48, at 33. (New York: Wiley, 1997).
2 F. F. Furstenberg, Jr., “Good Dads-Bad Dads: Two Faces of Fatherhood.” In A. J. Cherlin (Ed.), The Changing American Family and Public Policy , pp. 193-218. (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1988).
3 E. H. Pleck & J. H. Pleck, “Fatherhood Ideals in the United States: Historical Dimensions.” In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The Role of the Father in Child Development , 3 rd ed., pp. 33-48. (New York: Wiley, 1997).
4 W. J. Doherty, E. F. Kouneski, & M. F. Erickson, “Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1998, 60 , 277-292; A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives . (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997)
5 Hawkins, A. J., & Dollahite, D. C. (1994). Invited essay-book review of No man’s land: Men’s changing commitments to family and work. Kathleen Gerson. New York: Basic. 1993; Men, work, and family. Jane C. Hood (Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 1993. American manhood: Transformations in masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era. E. Anthony Rotundo. New York: Basic. 1993. Growing up male: The psychology of masculinity. B. Mark Schoenberg. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. 1993. How fathers care for the next generation: A four-decade study. John Snarey. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 1993. In Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56 (3), 772-776, at 774.
6 A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives . (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997)
7 W. J. Doherty, E. F. Kouneski, & M. F. Erickson, “Responsible Fathering: An Overview and Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Marriage and the Family , 1998, 60 , 277-292; D. C. Dollahite, A. J. Hawkins, & S. E. Brotherson, “Fatherwork: A Conceptual Ethic of Fathering as Generative Work.” In In A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives, pp. 17-35. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997).
8 J. Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation: A Four-Decade Study , at p. 19 . (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
9 E. H. Erikson, Childhood and Society , at p. 130 . (New York: W. W. Norton, 1963). Erikson, 1963, p. 130.
10 A. J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives . (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997).
11 D. C. Dollahite, “Fathering for Eternity: Generative Spirituality in Latter-day Saint Fathers of Children with Special Needs,” Review of Religious Research , 2003, 44 , 237-251.
12 E. H. Erikson, Life History and the Historical Moment . (New York: Norton, 1975).
13 J. Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation: A Four-Decade Study , at p. 19 . (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
14 E. Levinas, Ethics and Infinity . (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1985).
15 J. B. Elshtain, “Families, Communities, and Habits of the Heart.” Presented at the Annual Conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Baltimore, MD, 1993, p. 3.
16 T. C. Warner, Bonds of Anguish, Bonds of Love . (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1993).
17 P. Boss, Ambiguous Loss. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
19 D. Popenoe, Life Without Father . (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).
20 D. Popenoe, Life Without Father , at p. 228. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).
