Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Paperback – January 29, 2013

For Edward Banfield the search for exceptionalism in American community life ended in St. George, Utah. Banfield contrasted the vibrant community engagement found in St. George with the disengagement that he encountered in Montegrano, Italy, in his 1958 book, The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, and Charles Murray adopts Banfield's basic premise in his own Coming Apart, a detailed analysis of some of the changes taking place in American communities.The St. George, Utah, discussed in Banfield's 1958 classic book and in Coming Apart was brimming with exuberant social capital. Neighborliness and civic engagement were visible and evident, palpable and widespread. St. George residents were friendly, concerned about their neighbors, active in a wide diversity of community organizations, perpetuating a model of social trust and interaction that could be traced back to some of the earliest American communities, and was documented by foreign writers such as Tocqueville and Francis Grund.Charles Murray sees much of that same social capital, so visible in St. George and those early American communities, in startling decline in certain segments of American society. Murray's recurring theme in his interesting book is to show that this diminution in social trust and social engagement is occurring at an alarming rate in the lowest socioeconomic classes of America, a rate of change that promises to alter the America that many take for granted, a rate of change that threatens to undermine the very means by which most people achieve happiness and deep satisfaction in their lives.Murray posits four domains, or "founding virtues" as he refers to them, where all human beings can discover happiness and fulfillment, achieving the deepest satisfaction in life regardless of their level of income. These four domains for most people include (1) family; (2) vocation; (3) community and (4) religious faith. Murray emphasizes that individuals need not participate in all of the domains to achieve satisfaction in life, but he does emphatically state that much of the "stuff of life" falls into one of these four domains.Murray's detailed analysis in Coming Apart illustrates that while the vitality of each of the domains he associates with achieving deep satisfaction in life are doing well in the uppermost classes of American society, all four are in free fall in the lowest.Coming Apart documents a bleak situation in these bottom-dwelling socioeconomic classes in America. Declines in rates of marriage, increased births to unwed mothers; an increasing number of males remaining out of the work force; increases in crime and a decline in religious activity are all symptoms of the erosion of the four "founding virtues" in these communities and this erosion represents a loss, perhaps irreversible, of the very means by which most people that live in these communities achieve happiness and deep satisfaction in their lives.Charles Murray has maintained for over two decades that America is rapidly becoming a polarized society of two diverse classes of people: those possessing the intelligence to take advantage of the modern economy, along with the wealth to live in protected enclaves sequestered from the rabble, and then everyone else. Much of Coming Apart deals with the actual numbers behind that often repeated assertion, and the accumulated data is convincing.In the final chapter of the book Murray takes his own somewhat moralistic approach to the problems outlined in Coming Apart, drawing inspiration from a similar approach in Arnold Toynbee's classic but forgotten work A Study of History.Toynbee detected a very similar sequence in the twenty-six different civilizations that he analyzed. Each civilization developed by the uncreative majority following the lead of a smaller creative minority, confident in its virtues and sense of purpose, only later to begin a gradual decline once the creative minority evolved into a dominant minority. The endgame of each civilization followed a loss of confidence by the dominant minority in its sense of purpose, and its authority to lead, accompanied by a general vulgarization of the entire civilization.Critics of Coming Apart have bristled at such moralistic generalizations. Many of the same critics have dismissed Murray's consistent assertion that government programs exacerbate the problems of lower socioeconomic classes, assaulting the very means by which people might live satisfying lives. A recent article on the Huffington Post webpage pronounced Murray to be guilty of recycling old news without offering any new solutions.There is an element of hope in this provocative book's final pages, an optimistic assertion by Murray that the unfolding of events in Europe and new discoveries in science will undermine the moral justifications of the modern welfare state, that Americans will reaffirm their commitment and allegiance to the continuation of the American experiment.Only time will tell if Murray is correct. Coming Apart is worth reading in the meantime.

"People like to be around other people who understand them and to whom they can talk." (Kindle Locations 894-895). Sales of Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, would have suffered if he had only written this sentence but the response wouldn't have been nearly as animated. However, Charles Murray and his writings have generated energetic responses for over 20 years. This paper briefly examines the truism of "birds of a feather" and the evidence Murray uses to justify his contention. I will also address my personal response and how it affects my duty toward social justice.From 2000 until today I have lived approximately 10 years outside of the United States. I never "lived" in the United States during the past 12 years; I visited. When I was home, I was either celebrating holiday or beginning a new transition back overseas. Therefore I didn't invest myself; I didn't make the point to overtly observe nor acutely feel some of the growing divisions. Only in this last year, while transitioning to becoming an American again, have these dividing lines been obvious. This realization provoked me to read several interesting books detailing these apparent ruptures. Coming Apart has been an interesting read, because it challenges some of my more progressive leanings. However, the argument Murray makes is compelling, as it addresses some of the more dangerous topics in 21st century discourse: race, intelligence, and government intervention.Murray's thesis introduces two hypothetical cities: Fishtown and Belmont. These two hypotheticals are based upon real cities with a few alterations: all the inhabitants are white and the age range is 30-49. Murray, whose previous bestseller The Bell Curve, was roundly criticized for drawing what some considered racist conclusions. When recently interviewed, Murray explained he limited his findings to white America in an attempt to avoid such claims. It is important to remember this caveat when looking at our first city, Fishtown 2010.Fishtown has seen better days. It has been ravaged by a poor economy, high crime rate, and what some term a systematic moral decay. 40 percent of all children are born outside of marriage. This was once called wedlock, but that word now carries a pejorative connotation. Those who do marry will probably divorce. Fishtown residents are the working class, where 30 percent have at most a high school diploma and work (maybe) in a low paying job. Consequently, their income falls in the 8th percentile nationally. Also, two-thirds of the people who live in Fishtown are overweight and about a third are obese (Kindle Locations 581-582).Belmont, our other real/fictional city, is the home to what Murray terms the cognitive elite. He defines the cognitive elite as the 20 percent of the American population who have a college degree and who work in occupations requiring a specific type of knowledge. These residents usually work in the fields of finance, IT, government, law, and medicine. These professionals stay married at a far higher rate than the working class in Belmont. They attend a religious service more often than the counterparts in Belmont. They are in the 97th percentile economically. Part of the reason their income is higher is because they work hard and for long hours. Another interesting distinction is Belmont residents are fanatic about monitoring caloric intake, eating whole grains, green vegetable, while avoiding red meat, processed food, and butter (Kindle Locations 605).The city of ?, in which I grew up, is considered a Superzip. A SuperZip is where residents score between the 95th through the 99th percentile on a combined measure of income and education. Interestingly from Potomac to Ellicott City, Maryland is the largest contagious grouping of SuperZips in the United States. This means you can literally drive from Potomac to Ellicott City without leaving an area where 95 percent of its inhabitants are richer and better educated than all but a mere 5 percent of the overall population (Kindle Locations 1428-1429).Murray takes us back to the idyllic year of 1963. A charming and good-looking president was gearing up for what everyone thought would be a contentious 1964 election. Three television stations ruled the airwaves. Walter Cronkite was not yet Uncle Walter. The Perry Como Show or Perry Mason were must see television. The white and blue collar often lived, worked, and played together. Certainly there was economic disparity but how pronounced was it? The most expensive homes in Chevy Chase cost $500,000 (adjusted to 2010 dollars). The "rich" drove a $50,000 Cadillac (adjusted), or a Buick if they didn't want to be perceived as ostentatious. "In Washington newspaper advertisements for November 1963, gas was cheaper, at the equivalent of $2.16 per gallon, but a dozen eggs were $3.92, a gallon of milk $3.49, chicken $2.06 a pound, and a sirloin steak $6.80 a pound"(Kindle Locations 449-451). These prices demonstrate that cost of living in 1963 was roughly equivalent to 2010. Another important fact to remember was that people working in high paying white collar professions made about $62,000. A little bit further up the salary food chain reveals fewer than 8 percent of American families made more than $100,000, and about 1 percent made $200,000 (Kindle Locations 424-426). The most obvious difference between the rich of 1963 and everyone else was that they just had more money (Kindle Location 489). This minor difference was soon to be replaced by countless others.The OWS movement was intensifying soon after my return stateside. I spent several months discussing with friends. Slowly, it became clear how contentious economic theory is for many people. I often remarked, "It is called economic theory for a reason," only to be corrected on this naïve response. I would retort how the machinations of human behavior with the global exchanging of goods and services could be anything other than a theory. It seemed everyone was a politician, giving the party-line answer to their constituency. All I knew was that I wasn't running for office and was genuinely interested in the OWS demands."Homogamy refers to the interbreeding of individuals with like characteristics. Educational homogamy occurs when individuals with similar educations have children. Cognitive homogamy occurs when individuals with similar cognitive ability have children" (Kindle Locations 1034-1036). A college education in 1960 was rare. Those who had earned a college degree numbered less than 10 percent and almost certainly didn't have parents who also were college graduates. It hadn't been that long when the men of Harvard and the women of Wellesley were not cognitively different than graduates of a state university. Murray writes that the assassination of the temperamentally non-confrontational Kennedy and the subsequent replacement with Lyndon Johnson "the master legislator," a perfect storm for the "Coming Apart" was approaching (Kindle Location 204).After Dallas, November 1963, something unique began to occur. Large numbers of smart people began to send their children to the same schools. Murray writes, "The average Harvard freshman in 1952 would have placed in the bottom 10 percent of the (Harvard) incoming class by 1960" (Kindle Location 931). Beginning in the 1960's the Ivy League became the meeting place for the cognitive elite. "Increased educational homogamy inevitably means increased cognitive homogamy" (Kindle Location 1052). It is from this sentence Murray's thesis springs. Children of high IQ parents, often successful and with money, began meeting on campuses reserved for biology's finest. Below are two quotes, the first detailing Yale in 1961 and the second detailing the 105 best universities in the United States in 1997.The stratification became still more extreme during the 1960s. In 1961, 25 percent of Yale's entering class still had SAT verbal scores under 600. Just five years later, that figure had dwindled to 9 percent, while the proportion of incoming students with SAT verbal scores from 700 to 800 had increased from 29 to 52 percent (Kindle Locations 941-944).Together, just 10 schools took 20 percent of all the students in the United States who scored in the top five centiles on the SAT or ACT. Forty-one schools accounted for half of them. All 105 schools, which accounted for just 19 percent of all freshmen in 1997, accounted for 74 percent of students with SAT or ACT scores in the top five centiles (Kindle Locations 953-956).I remember Michael Steadman, a Penn graduate, and his wife Hope Murdoch, his Princeton educated wife. The television show thirtysomething was filled with smart, highly educated people talking about literature, child-rearing philosophies, while having Native American blankets in their homes as decoration. I remember watching many of these episodes as a college student. I still remember Michael and Hope having a heated argument whether to raise their daughter in the Jewish or Christian faith. I am not ashamed to say I remember the night Gary--Michael's best friend--died. Michael and Hope's conversation about her miscarriage is easily recalled. Michael consoled her by saying, "It is okay, we will have another baby," to which Hope replied, "But it won't be this baby." Though 18 at the time, I remember thinking how their responses felt familiar and authentic. If Michael and Hope were real, we can safely assume they are rich ($500,000 plus combined income), still married, and that their daughter eventually went to one of the 105 schools mentioned above. "The reason that upper-middle-class children dominate the population of elite schools is that the parents of the upper-middle class now produce a disproportionate number of the smartest children" (Kindle Locations 1021-1023). I will let the implications of that quote linger.Michael and Hope were industrious, honest, faithful, and spiritual people. Murray would contend they embody the foundational traits upon which this country was built. They are emblematic of our "fictional" city Belmont. Sadly, I guess, the Steadman's long moved out of Fishtown, never to return. The once relatively heterogeneous neighborhoods of the 60's became increasingly homogeneous, both ways. "It is not the existence of classes that is new, but the emergence of classes that diverge on core behaviors and values--classes that barely recognize their underlying American kinship" (Kindle Locations 239-240). Is there a way out of this spiral toward irrevocable division? Have we as a society already laid the foundation of our demise? Has the rewarding of the rich been more destructive or the enabling of the poor? Answers to these questions reflect our most deeply held convictions. As an educator, and more importantly a father, I must consider my legacy? Am I optimistic about this grand experiment called The United States of America? Is there anything I can accomplish or should my focus be concentrated on the people and circumstances I have direct contact?My idea of social justice is that it needs to evolve according to context and to not become overly dogmatic. The debate this book has sparked is healthy. However, the tone of the debate disturbs me. I am often unable to decipher civility when people discuss important matters. Hidden agendas, obvious neurosis, poor inter-personal skills, and shallow understanding inflict the blogospheres and the airwaves. It is in these weak moments I most empathize with the residents of Belmont. Who does not crave tranquility and safety? If these are options, why wouldn't I choose them? However, Murray suggests we do the opposite. He believes Belmont, with its hard-working and faithful residents, needs to re-engage the wider society.I am not sure if I am optimistic toward this proposal. Though this might be the solution, it is its implementation that proves problematic. Like Murray I tend to be a libertarian when it comes to how we address social ills. Murray believes it was government activism that precipitated many of the current problems. Johnson's The Great Society expanded the role of government in numerous ways. Many "conservatives" contend these policies had the opposite effect of what they originally intended. As Ronald Reagan once remarked, "We fought a war on poverty and poverty won."This paper is not my treatise on the role of government, but rather my role as a citizen. A few principles to which I adhere are that social constraints are effective deterrents to many types of dangerous behaviors. I believe community involvement builds neighborhood cohesion. I also contend active parents increase educational opportunities (not just for their own children). Lastly, implementation of cooperative educational models makes a difference in assessment scores. The task is daunting and the process long, but changes in society do occur. I take away from this book a renewed sense of just how important an educator's role is in our very real cities.

O papel e impressão do livro são muito ruins

Excellent

décrit et analyse la divergence de culture et de résultats des classes "populaire" et "moyenne supérieure" aux USA. Un livre équivalent reste à écrire sur la France.

I have just read ‘Coming Apart” a decade after it was first published. It’s storyline is probably more relevant today than 2012/13. Australia is experiencing the same disintegration of the family, the Church, and society in general. Even our national broadcaster has lost the trust of a broad cross section of society. The primacy of ones personal conscience has supercharge secularism and may be our ultimate demise. Charles Murray makes us think about how 2000 years of Judeo-christian values have delivered us this far, but what will deliver a prosperous future.

Obwohl bereits vor 2012 geschrieben liest sich das Buch wie eine Erklärung all der Dinge, die zwingend zur Wahl von Trump führen musste.Die Sprache ist sehr klar und einfach zu lesen. Er baut ein Argument langsam, aber zielstrebig auf. Fachbegriffe kommen sehr selten vor, und wenn, werden sie gut erklärt. Grafiken werden sparsam gezeigt, und sind aber jedesmal sehr sorgfältig ausgewählt und gestaltet.Eine immens sorgfältige wissenschaftiche Arbeit, die ebenso sorgfältig vorgetragen wird.