6-7 Page paper on Religion from Etic & Emic Perspective

User Generated

NAT164

Writing

Description

Topic:  Religion

Sources below:

https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/miner.html 

Source 2.pdf 

Rites of Passage to Death and Afterlife in Japan.pdf 


In the Final Research Paper, you will examine your own culture from an etic (outsider's) perspective and another culture from an emic (insider's) perspective to demonstrate your understanding of cultural relativism and examine misconceptions and ethnocentric beliefs concerning each of these cultures. In doing so, you will demonstrate a culturally relativistic perspective, in order to understand why different groups of people do what they do, without expressing a positive or negative opinion of their cultural practices. Keep the distinction between cultural relativism and moral relativism in mind as you write your final paper. Even if you do not personally agree with a cultural practice, demonstrate your understanding of the practice in its cultural context. Avoid opinionated or judgmental language in your paper.

Your Final Research Paper will consist of two main parts, framed by an Introduction and a Conclusion. See the flow chart for a quick overview of the assignment.

Introduction

Begin with an introductory paragraph that has a thesis statement at the end. The introduction should set up your topic, giving a preview and summary of the analysis you will present in the body of the paper. The thesis statement is the last sentence or two of the introduction and states what the main point structuring your paper will be.

Here is an example of an Introduction.

Part I

Using the Miner (1956) article and the feedback you received from your instructor on your “Summarize Your Sources for the Final Research Paper” assignment in Week Three as a guide, describe one aspect of your own culture from an etic perspective. See the appropriate sections in the textbook, based on your chosen topic from Week Three, for information on how to approach your paper from an anthropological perspective. You can describe American culture in general, as Miner does, or you can describe an American subculture, such as a specific geographical group (e.g., New Yorkers), a particular ethnicity (e.g., African Americans), or an age-related category of Americans (e.g., millennials).

Use reputable statistics and/or scholarly research to support any factual statements. Do not rely solely on personal experience or opinion. Here is an example of how to properly support your statements

Potential sources you can use to support your analysis are listed below. You can also conduct your own research to find other sources.

Important: see additional instructions in Part I under Final Paper Requirements.

Here is an example of Part I.

Part II

Refer to the article you chose for Part II of the “Summarize Your Sources for the Final Research Paper” assignment in Week Three and describe an aspect of another culture from an emic (insider’s) perspective. You do not have to do research beyond reading your chosen article; however, if you do choose to conduct additional research make sure to use reputable statistics and/or scholarly sources to support any factual statements. Do not rely solely upon personal experience or opinion.

Important: see additional instructions in Part II under Final Paper Requirements.

Here is an example of Part II.

Conclusion

End with a concluding paragraph that reinforces your thesis. Summarize and tie together your main points for the reader. Provide a brief self-reflexive analysis of what you learned while writing this paper.

Important: see additional instructions in Conclusion under Final Paper Requirements.

Here is an example of a Conclusion.


The Final Research Paper

  • Must be five to six double-spaced pages in length (excluding title page and references page, meaning it will be seven to eight pages total), and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (see the APA Essay Checklist for Students).
  • Must include a title page with the following:
    • Title of paper
    • Student’s name
    • Course name and number
    • Instructor’s name
    • Date submitted
  • Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement.
  • Must have well-structured body paragraphs with clear transitions from one topic to the next.Incorporate in-text citations from your scholarly sources to support your analysis throughout the paper.
  • Must describe an aspect of your own culture from an etic perspective for Part I.
  • Must describe an aspect of another culture from an emic perspective for Part II.
  • Must demonstrate a perspective of cultural relativism throughout, avoiding judgmental and opinionated language.
  • Must end with a conclusion that that reinforces the thesis and provides a self-reflexive analysis.
  • Must use at least one scholarly resource in addition to the textbook, the Miner article, and the article chosen from the list in Part II of the Week Three assignment.
  • Must document all sources in APA style in the body of the paper and on the references page as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
  • Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Parenting, Policies, and Practice: Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Jill C. Schreiber Christianity has been integral to the development of America’s child welfare policy in two ways: Christian beliefs have influenced evolving American cultural norms about parenting, and Christians have responded to children whose needs were not met by their parents, both by creating institutions and agencies and by influencing policies. Christian influences were explicit when Protestant Christianity was the cultural norm, but its influence is still present in the secular child welfare systems today. Since cultural norms are slow to change, changes are more apparent when taking a broad scope. To portray the variations in the role of Christianity in child welfare policy, this article compares three changes in centuries in American history: the Post-Colonial Era (late 1700–early 1800s), the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), and what I refer to as the Modern Era (late 1900s–early 2000s). In colonial times, children were perceived to be the property of their fathers, and harsh physical punishment was deemed religiously necessary for successful child rearing. Over the past three centuries, mothers and children have developed more rights, limits were placed on physical discipline, and cultural values of self-actualization and independence have gradually replaced those of unquestioning obedience to authority. The first societal responses to poor parenting focused on poverty, and with time they evolved into child protection. Christians founded the first institutions that were focused on children—orphanages. Currently, state public child welfare systems assume primary responsibility for child welfare, and are necessarily nonreligious. However, religious issues are still relevant. For example, many religious child welfare organizations receive public funding for their work through subcontracts. Social Work & Christianity, Vol. 38, No. 2 (2011), 293-314 Journal of the North American Association of Christians in Social Work Social Work & Christianity 294 Private charity is always commendable. It is of ancient origin, and has blessed the world and sweetened dependent child life alone for ages. Public charity, more modern, is stronger in its power, when fully and properly exerted. Both are to be encouraged and continued. And yet out of them all cannot there be matured a system which should include both private and public, and which should be brought to a higher perfection, under which all children should be protected from ill treatment, should be reformed if delinquent, and should be cared for if dependent, all being restored to the kind and elevating influences of good home life? (Randell, 1893, p. v). C hristianity is a factor in child welfare today for many reasons. Most individuals in America are Christians (Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, 2008), and this would include children, biological families, and professionals in child welfare. Many child welfare institutions and service providers also have ties to the Christian faith (e.g., Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Social Services). Christian values have also grounded many legal and policy decisions. Because the United States was initially an overwhelmingly Protestant country, it is not surprising that the norms held for parenting were Protestant ones. Christian values and ethics also guided responses to situations when these parenting norms were not being met. Christian involvement in child welfare is motivated by a variety of Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) scriptures to care for widows and orphans and by a familiar passage from James: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27, New Revised Standard Version). This review begins with a summary of the Post-Colonial context and then considers the Progressive Era, when the needs of children became more of a concern to society and public services became more professional. The development of child welfare in the 21st century, with less explicit religious content, is then discussed. Finally, I conclude that it is important for educators and researchers to acknowledge Christianity’s current influence in child welfare. Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Post-Colonial Era Relationships between Children and Parents In early America, child welfare was based on tradition, English poor laws, and Protestant beliefs and Biblical texts, specifically Deuteronomy (Mason, 1994). In this era, just as slave children were the property of their masters, free children were perceived to be the property of fathers. Children were removed from fathers who could not support them and were “bound out” to masters who could. The focus of the law was on relieving the public of economic burdens, not on the best interest of the child. Fathers in the 18th century were expected to raise children who were not only vocationally able but religiously trained (Reardon & Noblet, 2009). Vocational training and religious catechism in early America were similar to medical and educational requirements of parents today; to fail to meet societal expectations could lead to removal of children. For example, a 17th-century Massachusetts Bay Colony statute stated: “Masters of Families are to Catechize or cause to be Catechized, their children and Apprentices at least once a week, on the grounds and Principles of religion” (cited in Mason, 1994, p. 6). Religious catechism coincided with general education because “the universal child’s book of the day was the Bible” (Earle, 1899, p. 228). Other than a primer, and possibly a hymnal, the Bible might be the only book a child would read from. Both free and slave children alike experienced corporal punishment. Harsh physical punishment of children was justified as religiously necessary. Many of the early Americans who came from Europe brought with them a belief that eternal salvation is dependent on “breaking the will of the child” or “beating the devil out of them” (Greven, 1992). Biblical scriptures such as “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die” (Proverbs 23:13, King James Version) were commonly used as justification for beatings, deemed necessary to ensure that children were not rude, stubborn, or unruly. In several states parents were even excused from charges of murder if “death occurred while lawfully correcting the child” (Mason, 1994, p. 104). South Carolina defended the use of knives as tools for disciplining children: “Provisions on killing by stabbing do not apply to person, who in chastising or correcting a child chances to commit manslaughter without intending to do so” (South Carolina code of law, 295 296 Social Work & Christianity cited in Mason, 1994, p. 104). Before the late 19th century, public officials rarely interfered with a family’s right to discipline their children (Sealander, 2003). If a father could not control his children, the state intervened. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had “stubborn child laws,” under which a son who would not obey his parents was to be brought to the state for chastisement. The consequence for the child could be as severe as death (Mason, p. 11). There was little or no public response to what we today define as child abuse or neglect. The closest thing to our current understanding of child welfare was a focus on meeting the needs of destitute people. Society’s Responses to Concerns about Children In the Post-Colonial Era, there were few provisions of social support and even fewer organizations that focused on the needs of children. All institutions were local, and there were no state or national policies. Although public institutions existed, most of the organizations that provided social support (including services exclusively for children) were private and sectarian. Public Poor Relief At the start of the 1800s, destitute people were cared for at a local level in concordance with the poor-law system practiced in England. Folks (1902) describes five methods of caring for the poor that were used before 1850 (p. 3): 1) By outdoor relief, given to families in their homes. 2) By farming out to a number of families, each pauper being awarded, as a rule, to the lowest bidder. 3) By contract with some individual, usually the lowest bidder, who became responsible for the care of all the paupers of a given locality. 4) By support of the almshouse directly under the control of public authority. 5) By indenture. Children were less likely to be farmed out or put on contract, but indenture was thought to be especially applicable for them. Almshouses were first built in the large cities for both children and adults, often with minimal or no differentiation in how they were housed or treated. Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Orphanages The first institutions especially for the care of children were created by Christians. The first private orphan asylum was established in 1727, attached to the Ursuline convent in New Orleans. George Whitfield, the celebrated itinerant preacher, established the Bethesda orphan house in 1738 in Savannah, Georgia. By the start of the 1800s, private institutions for children had been established in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore. The first public institution for children that was not part of an almshouse was opened in 1794 in Charleston, South Carolina.1 There were not yet many orphanages at the start of the 1800s, but by the end of the century they were quite common. This shift was the result of two major changes. By the mid-1800s, in response to awareness of the negative effects of housing children with adults in the almshouses, laws were enacted that limited or forbid the placement of children there. Additionally in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment made “involuntary servitude” illegal, rendering the indenture system for children unconstitutional. Since these previous avenues for child raising were closed, more orphanages were needed. The majority of children housed in orphanages were not orphaned, but rather came into care from broken families, single-parent homes, or married but destitute parents. These children entered care for a variety of reasons. “Within a single institution we frequently find mental defectives, backward children, delinquents, dependents, and neglected or ill-treated children” (Mangold, 1910, p. 331). Most agencies making decisions about children in need of care used indenture, adoption, or ‘placing out’ when children reached appropriate ages (twelve for boys and fourteen for girls). “As a rule, the orphan asylums seemed to regard the placing out system rather as a convenient means of disposing of their older wards” (Folks, 1902, p. 64). Although a few orphanages developed under public supervision, the vast majority were private, and most of those religious. By 1904, there were 119 public orphanages or children’s homes and 956 private, serving a total of 92,000 children: 52,000 in sectarian homes, 30,000 in other private homes, and 10,000 in public homes. Most religious orphanages were constructed by groups affiliated with Catholic or Protestant organizations (Askeland, 2006). The first non-Christian home was Jewish; it was established in New Orleans in 1856. Although some private orphanages were supported by groups of people “prompted solely by philanthropic impulses” (Folks, 1902, p. 56), these “non-re- 297 298 Social Work & Christianity ligious orphanages” were often Protestant by default (Crenson, 1998, p. 42); for example, they held nondenominational Protestant religious services and included the Protestant Bible in their schools. Some child advocates believed institutions were the proper method of care for dependent children, pointing to the values of “discipline, education, moral instruction, good environment, physical training and other advantages” (Mangold, 1910, p. 303). Others perceived orphanages differently, citing “the manifold evils of aggregation, of the absence of individuation and the unnatural conditions and surroundings of an institution” (Mangold, 1910, p. 303). Sophie Minton, the chairman of the Committee on Children States Charities Aid Association, stated it plainly: “The same drill which makes a good soldier annihilates the individuality of the child” (Minton, 1893, p. 45). She and others had a strong preference for placing children out. Placing Out Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Connecticut favored placing out above institutions. Their institutions were “strictly used as ‘clearing houses,’ or first steps to placing out” (Minton, 1893, p. 45). Boardingout and Placing-out Societies found homes for children and gave the caregivers a small fund, but children were expected to do their share in household work to earn their keep. It was not necessary for foster families to be well off: “rough conditions are nothing if the influence is good, morally and physically” (p. 47). Indeed, “the wish to place a child on a higher social scale than which it was born” was deemed inappropriate (p. 48). Another version of placing out was Orphan Trains, which were one of the solutions to the plight of destitute inner city children. In 1853, Charles Loring Brace, a young minister, founded the Children’s Aid Society. The society arranged the trips, raised the money, and obtained the legal permissions needed for relocating the children. Brace wrote, “The great duty is to get [the children] utterly out of their surroundings and to send them away to kind Christian homes in the country” (The American Experience, n.d., ¶ 3). Between 1854 and 1929, more than 100,000 children were sent to new homes in rural America. Some of the children had good placements; some experienced abuse or other mistreatment. Early efforts to place children into private homes rather than orphanages ran into fierce resistance from Roman Catholics, who feared Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America that Catholic children would be placed in Protestant homes and would consequently convert. This objection was categorically dismissed during the 1879 National Conference of Charities and Corrections (the predecessor to the National Association of Social Workers, or NASW). The religious bias is evident in the following quote: It will be very difficult, therefore, to provide for some of those [Catholic] children. . . . [F]ew Catholic families in New England are now sufficiently intelligent and prosperous to adopt or to train the children who need homes; and, as they usually have large families of their own, it is difficult to find among them homes to be compared with those freely offered by Americans and Protestants (cited in Crenson, 1998, p. 33). In spite of these concerns about religion, placing out became the practice of the day. The orphanage movement that was a hallmark of the 19th century became less popular in the early 20th century, when childhood and motherhood came to center stage. Progressive Era Christianity and Progressive Culture In the early 20th century, the origins of child welfare had their roots in Christian values. Although religious institutions had always provided mutual aid to their own members in times of crisis, in the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), the Social Gospel Movement called for the church to support people outside of their congregations. The “Social Gospel” was based on the principle of social responsibility, rooted in the Bible, that defined a good Christian as one who was active in reforming society according to Christian morality (Ebaugh, Saltzman, & Pipes, 2005). It stood in opposition to theology based on “the inherent depravity of the poor” (Winston, 1999, p. 124). Social Gospel adherents claimed that they were replacing the “Gospel of Wealth” with the “Gospel of Jesus.” Concerns about industrialization, urbanization, and immigration were part of the impetus for the Social Gospel movement. Early proponent Rev. Josiah Strong stated in 1885, “The city has become a serious threat to our civilization, because in it . . . each of the dangers 299 300 Social Work & Christianity (Romanism, socialism, wealth, intemperance, immigration…) is enhanced and all are focalized” (Winston, 1999, p. 16). However, not all Christians during the Progressive Era supported the Social Gospel movement. Lutherans, for example (and others), were opposed to its values and believed that social reform could only be achieved by the “transformation of individuals” (Pittman-Munke, 1999). Social work as a profession evolved out of the combination of religious impulses (including the Christian Social Gospel and the Doctrine of Charity) with secular liberalism, associated particularly with political economy and ethical individualism (Leiby, 1978). Since secular liberals and religious charity workers held different values, many issues were contentious; however, the two groups shared concerns about child welfare. Children were the object of universal sympathy; by making them the focus of reform, sectarian and ideological differences were neutralized (Crenson, 1998). Relationship between Children and Parents The role of families changed during the Progressive Era. Families became more private and isolated, partially due to increased mobility, and this was accompanied by an increase in the values of individualism and trust in societal progress: The work by parents must be done within the home. The home is an institution fundamental to our civilization. Its preservation must be rigidly guarded, and the duties taken from the home must not be so numerous as to lessen the cohesive force of this civilizing power. In fact, the state is using the home as one of its means of achieving further progress. (Mangold, 1910, p. 293) Growing importance was placed on motherhood and a sentimentalized family life (Sealander, 2003). As the labor movement developed in the 19th century, fathers left the home each day to earn ”living wages” to support their households, leaving mothers to take over the responsibilities of home and children. “In nineteenth century America, the maternal role was exalted to the exclusion of all other occupations for women” (Koven & Michel, 1993, p. 278). Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Society’s Responses to Concerns about Children Maternalism After the turn of the century, middle-class women were “urged to impress Christian values of their communities through charitable work” (Koven & Michel, 1993, p. 10), yet they were expected to live out the ideals of domesticity while doing so. The esteem for motherhood led to a rise of “maternalists” who worked for social change (predominantly in public policies) that supported poor and working mothers. Theirs was a different focus from that of feminists, who were advocating for equality and suffrage. Maternalists were predominantly Protestant, white, well educated, and middle class, working “on behalf” of poor women and children who were unable to advocate for themselves (Kornbluh, 1996). Jane Addams was a maternalist. Focused on social justice and collective action, she provided concrete support for working mothers, including day nurseries in her settlement house. Settlement houses were a product of the Social Gospel movement (Koven & Michel, 1993), although they were not explicitly religious. (Addams, for example, did not allow religious instruction at Hull House.) Maternalists and other child advocates of the day focused on a broad range of policies, including child labor, infant mortality, appropriate recreational opportunities (parks, playgrounds, and libraries), juvenile justice, children’s health, and compulsory education. They also addressed issues more commonly associated with child welfare today, including adoption, foster care, and maltreatment (called child cruelty). In response to concerns about maltreated children, both adoption and foster care were legalized (Askeland, 2006). However, the objective of “child saving” was not to protect children from cruel or abusive parents but to save society from future delinquents (Pfohl, 1977). Child Cruelty In the 1870s, the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC)2 was organized (Marten, 2004). By 1910, more than 250 private organizations identified themselves as “anti-cruelest” or “child rescue.” These organizations explicitly identified poor people and/or immigrants as those most likely to beat a child (Sealander, 2003 pp. 57, 59). Child cruelty was considered a type of neglect. Neglect in the Progressive Era “included parental incompetence, not properly caring 301 302 Social Work & Christianity for the needs of a child, and parental unfitness, usually immoral behavior or drunkenness” (Reardon & Noblet, 2009, p. 98). Harsh physical punishment was generally still acceptable in the early 1900s, and people had to give reasoned arguments to oppose it. One such argument was carefully stated by Gerry Elbridge, who in 1882 addressed the National Conference on Charities and Correction: It is in the interests of the republic that the people should not be disintegrated or impaired by any diminution of the intellectual, moral or physical strength of its members. . . [and that children as the] future component parts of the sovereignty, should be so cared for and reared that males when mature shall be competent to bear arms for the protection of the republic [and] that women shall be physically capable of bearing children (National Conference on Social Welfare, 1974, p. 127). He also argued that humans are made in the image of their maker and that “the purity of the children is the most beautiful type of the purity of God himself” (p. 128). He concluded his address discussing the mission of SPCCs: They protect the helpless, they bring back the outcast, they seek to save children in danger of being irretrievably lost. For physical cruelty is the parent of vice. Want and neglect are the incentives to crime, and crime not only destroys its perpetrator, but eats like a corroding ulcer into the nation which countenances its existence. (Elbridge address to National Conference on Charities and Correction in 1882, cited in National Conference on Social Welfare, 1974, p. 130) Concerns about abuse were based on a combination of theology with the Aristotelian principle of “parens patriae.” “This principle maintained that the State had the responsibility to defend those who cannot defend themselves. This was also understood by some to assert the state’s privilege in compelling infants and their guardians to act in ways most beneficial to the State” (Pfohl, 1977, p. 312). Both child delinquency (violating criminal codes) and child dependency (coming from a poor home with neglectful or abusive parents) damaged the State, and thus children experiencing either were targets for “child saving” Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America in the late 1800s. However, this perception of dependency changed in the early 1900s. On Christmas day in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a call to more than 200 child welfare experts and philanthropists to attend a meeting on the care of “children who are destitute and neglected but not delinquent” (Crenson, 1998, p. 11). At the meeting a month later, the participants made several recommendations, including the establishment of a federal children’s bureau. They also proclaimed that “children should not be removed from their families except for urgent and compelling reasons, and destitution was not one of those reasons” (Crenson, p. 15). This was a turning point, since previous policy had determined poverty to be sufficient for removal of children. Charity workers had long argued that public outdoor relief (assistance in one’s home rather than placement in an almshouse) was pauperizing, was dangerously open to political corruption, placed an unfair burden on the taxpayer, lacked proper supervisory methods, and discouraged help from relatives, friends, and churches. To counteract these concerns, state boards were developed in New York in 1916 that were enabled but not required to provide financial assistance, but “only when the mothers are suitable persons to bring up their children properly and require aid to do so” (Hopkins & Cupaluolo, 2001, p. 27). Mothers’ Rights Custody and parenting rights were linked to the changing status and power of women and to the powerlessness of the poor. In the early 20th century, when women were beginning to be awarded other rights (property, litigation, contracts, and suffrage), few states gave women rights to their children. Parental rights had first been awarded to a mother in America in 1809 in Plather v. Plather (Reardon & Noblet, 2009). This coincided with a new focus on a natural law understanding of a “mother’s special capacity to guide and nurture” (Reardon & Noblet, p. 88). However, Plather v. Plather was an isolated case, and higher courts overturned a similar ruling in 1844, where a judge expressed concerns about “natural law,” stating, “human laws cannot be very far out of the way when they are in accordance with the law of God [which supports the father as head of the family]” (Reardon & Noblet, p. 89). However, mothers eventually earned parental rights, starting with unwed mothers, who gained legal rights to their children in the early 303 304 Social Work & Christianity 1900s. Previously unwed mothers had either raised their illegitimate children without the support of the law or saw their children taken away. In the Progressive Era, tensions arose between the evangelical women who had managed maternity homes for decades and those in the new profession of social work over how to best deal with the issue of unwed mothers. Kunzel (1993) researched a plethora of primary sources, including case notes from maternity homes, for her book Fallen Women and Problem Girls: Unmarried Mothers and the Professionalization of Social Work, 1890-1945, the main source for the next section. Unwed Mothers Unmarried mothers were a lightning rod for social concerns during the Progressive Era, similar to the issues of gay rights and abortion today. Were illegitimate children better served by staying with their biological mothers or by being adopted into traditional families? Kunzel (1993) described the differences between charity workers, who worked for religiously based maternity homes, and professional social workers. One difference was their very different perceptions about whose welfare was of primary importance. Evangelical workers in maternity homes perceived the unwed mothers as fallen sisters who had been taken advantage of by males. They saw men’s seduction as predatory and brutalizing and women as victims of these tempters. The script of seduction and abandonment was so strong that one institution’s entrance forms even labeled the space for the name of the biological father as “the betrayer” (Kunzel, 1993, p. 181). The maternity home workers’ solution to this fallen state was the salvation granted by the position of motherhood. Believing that responsibility for a baby was a steadying and uplifting influence on a woman (p. 33), they required mothers to have lengthy stays in the maternity homes (usually six months). The goal was for the mothers to bond with their babies so they would be less likely to relinquish their maternal rights. “Evangelical women’s belief in the redemptive power of motherhood led them to endorse the potentially radical notion of a fatherless family” (p. 130). Evangelical charity workers valued religion and love of sister, and they denied that “human beings could be investigated, diagnosed, and treated with scientific and objective precision” (p. 133). Consequently, they did not always believe that science provided the best approach and were concerned with the lack of a bond that existed in a professional relationship. Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America By 1910, many social workers began to state that child illegitimacy was within their domain. Social workers had a very different perception of the problem of unwed mothers and consequently reshaped ideas and attitudes about them and their children. They did not see the mothers as “victims of men” but instead as weak, immature, and not well adjusted. In the social workers’ view, their clients were the babies, not the mothers. For instance, Amey Watson wrote the following in her 1923 social science dissertation at Bryn Mawr College: “After all, it is the child that is our real interest and it is his or her welfare that we are most vitally interested in saving” (quoted in Kunzel, 1993, p. 128).3 By the early 20th century, social workers invoked the legitimizing rhetoric of science “to brand evangelical women’s tradition of womanly benevolence as sentimental and sloppy, to pronounce unmarried mothers untrustworthy interpreters of their own experience, and to name themselves the rightful authorities over the ‘social problem’ of unmarried motherhood” (Kunzel, 1993, p. 115). A consequence of perceiving mothers as the problem, rather than as victims, was a dramatic shift in adoption rates. According to the dispositional records of agencies serving unmarried mothers, between 1890 and 1930 only 20 percent placed their babies for adoption, but by 1950, 80 percent did. By the 1930s, maternity homes were by and large out of business (p. 122). Orphanages and Placing Out In the early 20th century a variety of concerns were raised about orphanages. One concern was the placement of delinquent children into orphanages with dependent children. “Contamination of the moral children by those displaying immoral tendencies can hardly be avoided” (Mangold, 1910, p. 331). Another concern was cost. In the early 1900s, 23,000 New York City children lived in religious orphanages—21 percent of the orphanage population of the United States (Hopkins & Cupaluolo, 2001). It cost the city an astounding five million dollars annually for “substandard orphanages” (Hopkins & Cupaluolo). Placing-out programs were much less expensive. In 1917, the first year of the New York City placing-out program, the “modest” goal was to move 1,000 children into private homes. In response to strongly voiced concerns, there was intensive recruitment in Catholic parishes so that appropriate religious homes could be provided for the children being placed. “All children have been placed in homes of their own faith, while in the case of Catholic homes, a letter 305 306 Social Work & Christianity has in every case been obtained from the parish priest vouching for the family’s practical Catholicity” (New York, City Department of Public Charities, Children’s Home Bureau, 1917, cited in Crenson, 1998, p. 304). Other states also developed “religious protection” clauses that demanded that children be placed in adoptive homes of the same faith as far as practicable (Askeland, 2006). The overwhelmingly Christian culture of the United States was reflected in formal social work meetings, such as the 1920 National Conference of Social Work. Many of the presenters were ministers. The President Address was given by Owen Lovejoy, the general secretary of the National Child Labor Committee, who stated that whatever a man may say with his tongue or whatever he may think he thinks in denial of any religious faith, if we find him keen in the service of humanity and everlastingly on the job, we are bound to claim him as of that apostolic succession of which James was the original when he said: “Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works.” . . . A practical application of the Second Great Commandment—namely “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is by no means a denial of the first. But it is so evident that man is incurably religious and so many ages have been devoted to preaching obedience to the Unseen that many people feel the necessity of emphasizing the suggestion that “if we love not our brother whom we have seen, how can we love God whom we have not seen?” (Lovejoy, 1920). Lovejoy assumed that his audience was familiar with Christian Scripture and that it was relevant to their profession. However, as the field of social work developed, a strong desire by its practitioners to become more scientific and professional developed. Modern Era Although the past century has seen a growth in nonreligious Americans and in diversity of religions, the United States remains a predominantly Christian country (78.4 percent). Only 4.7 percent claim another religious affiliation, and 16 percent say they are unaffiliated with any religion (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2008). Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America The influence of Christianity on parenting still exists (and is dominant in some subpopulations), but it is often overlooked in child welfare research and education. Relationship between Children and Parents Widely divergent views on parenting norms existed in the 20th century. “In modern societies, . . . norms governing the socialization of children, education, employment, sexuality, and life’s purpose become increasingly oriented around market values, individual rights, self-actualization, and secularism” (Browning & Miller-McLemore, 2009, p. 3). In modern America, some conservative Christian parents still require children to submit to parental will in order to learn to submit to God. Often these parents use physical discipline, although there are legal limits to the type and severity allowed them. Of the few studies that address the role of religion in child welfare, many of them focus on religiously based child abuse (Capps, 1992; Jackson et al., 1999; Nelson & Kroliczak, 1984; Rodriguez & Henderson, 2010; Socolar, Cabinum-Foeller, & Sinal, 2008). Some Christian parents continue to believe that, rather than being abuse, harsh physical punishment is good parenting, necessary to counter the innate sinfulness of children, but the number of such parents is decreasing. “The idea of original sin is far less prominent today in almost all expressions of modern Christianity” (Browning & Miller-McLemore, 2009, p. 14). In today’s legal system, the determination of medical or educational neglect is moderated by parental religious beliefs. In response to a case about Amish parents’ rejection of compulsory education until age 16, the Supreme Court determined that “a parent’s right to control their child’s upbringing is strongest when it is motivated by religious conviction” (Browning & Miller-McLemore, 2009, p. 213). With respect to the definition of medical neglect, all 50 states grant an exemption for parents who refuse for religious reasons to secure conventional medical treatment for their children (Browning & Miller-McLemore, p. 213). Society’s Responses to Concerns about Children The Battered Child Syndrome After the zealous transformation of child welfare during the Progressive Era, there was less vigorous innovation between the 1920s 307 308 Social Work & Christianity and the 1970s. After the mid-1920s, cruelty to children ceased being a broadly publicized or major policy issue, as the country focused on economic issues during the Depression and on military issues during the wars. A resurgence of interest in “child battery” came by way of the medical field. In the 1950s, long bone fractures showing up on children’s x-rays were determined to be deliberately caused. Kempe published “The Battered Child Syndrome” in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1962. With a diagnostic label and subsequent intense media coverage, pediatricians began to find abuse among young patients. Why, however, were radiologists the impetus for the resurgence in interest in physically abused children rather than other types of doctors or social workers? Pfohl (1977) suggested that the social distance from parents was key. Parents were often seen as the real patient (they paid the bills), and professionals were “psychologically unwilling to believe that parents would inflict such atrocities on their own children” (Pfohl, p. 316). During the early 20th century, the distance grew between religion and the practice of social work. Canda and Furman (1999) refer to this period as a time of professionalization and secularization for the field. Social work as a profession promoted scientific and professional values above history, tradition, and meaning making. For example, in 1952, the American Association of Schools of Social Work (now the Council for Social Work Education [CSWE]) issued its first Curriculum Policy Statement. It contained no mention of spirituality or religion. Additionally, the involvement of federal and state governments in social work brought increasing concerns about the separation of church and state. Recently, there has been resurging interest in the role of religion and spirituality in social work, especially in the concentrations of substance use and health care. However, there has been very little research on the role of religion in child welfare. This is concerning because the perception of religion held by practitioners, policy makers, and researchers is limited to personal experiences or what they see reported in the media. Without research or education, “religion” often becomes equated with Christianity (and often with a subset of Christianity, such as Protestant or fundamentalist), which people judge as good or bad. Child welfare has been “belief-blind” or “religion-blind.” This is similar to issues of race, where “whiteness” was once treated as normative. Even though social work has not focused on religion in child welfare, issues of religion in child welfare do exist, as is evidenced by the recent legal cases. Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America The Wilder Case The most famous lawsuit addressing concerns about religion in child welfare has been Wilder v. Bernstein, a landmark case that lasted decades and combined issues of race and religion. Marcia Lowry brought a case against the State of New York’s foster care system in 1973 on behalf of Shirley Wilder. At the time New York relied primarily on private—but publicly funded—Jewish and Catholic agencies that prioritized “their own” religious clients, which left the Protestant (which also meant black) clients predominantly in a substandard system. Lowry claimed that the reliance on religious agencies violated the First Amendment’s separation of church and state and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee to equal protection and due process. The case lasted for 26 years and three generations of Wilders. In spite of the lawsuit’s initial focus on religion, the conflation of religion and race is evidenced by the final verdict. By the end of the case, the critics argued that since nearly all children in the foster system were black and Protestant that discrimination could not be proven. Nina Bernstein, an investigative journalist who carefully and thoroughly documented the case in The Lost Children of Wilder (2001), summarized the country’s status quo: “The child welfare system . . . [is] a political battleground for abiding national conflicts over race, religion, gender and inequality” (p. xii). Religious issues related to child welfare continue to be addressed primarily in the legal arena, as is evidenced by several recent news stories. As this article was being written, a number of stories appeared addressing societal concerns about Christian religion in child welfare. The Columbus Dispatch in Ohio and the Press and Guide in Michigan have both reported stories about Muslim parents who fought the state systems for the right of their children to be in Muslim foster homes rather than Christian homes (Pepper, 2011; Price, 2011). In Illinois, the Department of Children and Family Services was deciding if it will fund Christian agencies that refuse gay foster parents based on the agency’s religious beliefs (Nair, 2011). The Philadelphia Inquirer brought to public attention an informal arrangement between incarcerated mothers and Mennonites (Christians) who cared for imprisoned women’s babies without the supervision of any government agency (Davis, 2011). As these news stories illustrate, tension between Christian values and secular child welfare services is real and important. 309 310 Social Work & Christianity Conclusion The story of Christianity’s role in American child welfare is typically summarized with something of a patronizing tone: religious charities of inconsistent quality were replaced by a more uniform and scientifically based child welfare system. Although there is truth to this (over)simplified tale, it skims over the influence of Christianity on parental norms across several centuries and its continuing influence on child welfare practices today. Christianity has been and still is integral to determining parental norms. This was the case in early America, when Protestant Christianity was the cultural norm, and remains still true today, when there is more diversity of religiosity, including a growing segment of people without any (Chaves, 2011). Christian parenting norms were explicit during Post-Colonial America. However, even a cursory review of history shows that the Christian influence has not always been consistent with what we today believe to be good parenting. Christian theology has been used to justify harsh physical punishment, the rights of fathers above mothers or children, and discrimination based on religious affiliation. Although a small segment of Christians may still follow these beliefs, most would not. Do these changes reflect the church’s influence on culture, or vice versa? Christian theology and cultural parenting norms evolve together, although causality is not always clear. The issues have changed (to divorce, nontraditional families, and religious heteronomy, among others), but there remains a challenge for the church to faithfully and continually engage with cultural norms for parenting. Changes in Christian theology have also corresponded with changes in child welfare. Today, religious catechism for children is no longer required of parents. A parental right to corporal punishment has been not eliminated, but it has been constrained. Poverty remains an issue in child welfare, but it is not a sign of unfavored status or a reason for removal from a family, as was once true. Some religiously based child welfare policies, however, have not changed. Exceptions to child welfare laws with respect to medical or educational neglect are examples of the value of religious freedom above child rights. America’s first child welfare services were administered locally and were often sectarian. The supervision of the child welfare system has Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America become more public and more centralized over time. Today services are largely secular, predominantly publicly funded, and administered at a state or national level. However, vestiges of the earlier sectarian systems are apparent in the plethora of faith-based subcontractors for child welfare services (Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social Services, Jewish Social Services, and many others). These religious organizations often get the majority of their funding from government sources, which require following government oversight. For example, faith-based organizations must not discriminate against clients on the basis of religion. The balance between private (usually religious) and public systems of child welfare has continuously shifted in favor of larger public oversight. What has remained constant is opposing perceptions of the two systems as complementary or competitive. Christianity has been and continues to be engaged in child welfare in America. Historically, it has influenced parenting norms and supported children whose parents were unable to meet those norms. Although this role is less palpable today, Christianity still influences many individuals who either provide or receive child welfare services. Also, many child welfare agencies are explicitly Christian. It is time for both research and educators to acknowledge the place of religion, both its strengths and weaknesses, in child welfare. v References Askeland, L. (2006). Children and youth in adoption, orphanages, and foster care: A historical handbook and guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bernstein, N. (2001). The lost children of Wilder: The epic struggle to change foster care (1st ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Browning, D. S., & Miller-McLemore, B. J. (2009). Children and childhood in American religions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (1999). Spiritual diversity in social work practice: The heart of helping. New York, NY: Free Press. Capps, D. (1992). Religion and child abuse: Perfect together. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(1), 1. Chaves, M. (2011). Religious Trends in America. Social Work & Christianity, 39(2), 119-132. Crenson, M. A. (1998). Building the invisible orphanage: A prehistory of the American welfare system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 311 312 Social Work & Christianity Davis, C. (2011, March 7). Mennonites’ informal lifeline for jailed mothers. Philly.com. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://articles.philly.com/201103-07/news/28664845_1_mennonite-families-healthy-baby-girl-dhs. Dzuback, M. A. (1993). Women and social research at bryn mawr college, 1915-40. History of Education Quarterly, 33(4, Special Issue on the History of Women and Education), 579-608. Earle, A. M. (1983; 1899). Child life in colonial days. Darby, PA: Folcroft Library Editions. Ebaugh, H. R., Saltzman, J., & Pipes, P. F. (2005). Faith-based social service organizations and government funding: Data from a national survey. Social Science Quarterly, 86(2), 273-292. Finke, R. Stark, R. (1989). How the upstart sects won America: 1776-1850. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28(1), 27-44. Folks, H. (1902). The care of destitute, neglected, and delinquent children. New York, NY: The Macmillan Co. Greven, P. J. (1992). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the psychological impact of physical abuse. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Hopkins, J., & Cupaluolo, A. A. (2001). For better or worse? Policy & Practice of Public Human Services, 59(2), 24. Jackson, S., Thompson, R. A., Christiansen, E. H., Colman, R. A., Wyatt, J., Buckendahl, C. W., et al. (1999). Predicting abuse-prone parental attitudes and discipline practices in a nationally representative sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(1), 15-29. Kempe, C.H., Silverman, F.N., Steele, B.F. Droegemueller, W., and Silver, H. K. (1962). The battered-child syndrome. J.A.M.A. 181(17) 7-24. Kornbluh, F. A. (1996). Women and the State in the Americas. Feminist Studies, 22(1), 171-197. Koven, S., & Michel, S. (1993). Mothers of a new world: Maternalist politics and the origins of welfare states. New York, NY: Routledge. Kunzel, R. G. (1993). Fallen women, problem girls: Unmarried mothers and the professionalization of social work, 1890-1945. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Leiby, J. (1978). A history of social welfare and social work in the United States, 1815-1972. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Lovejoy, O. (1920). Presidential Address—The Faith of the Social Worker. Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Mangold, G. B. (1910). Child problems. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Marten, J. A. (2004). Childhood and child welfare in the progressive era: A brief history with documents. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins. Mason, M. A. (1994). From father’s property to children’s rights: the history of child custody in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press. Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Minton, S.E. (1893) Family life versus institution life. In History of child saving in the United States: At the twentieth national conference of charities and correction. (pp. 37-53). Boston: Ellis. Nair, Y. (2011, March 23). Anti-Gay Adoption Bill Struck Down In Illinois Senate. Huffpost Chicago. Retrieved March 25, 2011, from http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/antigay-adoption-bill-str_n_839462. html. National Conference on Social Welfare. (1974). Care of dependent children in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries. New York, NY: Arno Press. Nelsen, H. M., & Kroliczak, A. (1984). Parental use of the threat “God will punish”: Replication and extension. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23(3), 267-277. Pepper, P. (2011, February 11). New law brings Amer family some justice. Press & Guide. Retrieved Feb 28, 2011, from http://www.pressandguide. com/articles/2011/02/11/news/doc4d55a21fe4fcc220219633.txt. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2008) U.S. religious landscape survey: Report 1: Religious Affiliation. Retrieved June 29, from http:// religions.pewforum.org/reports#. Pfohl, S. J. (1977). The “discovery” of child abuse. Social Problems, 24(3), pp. 310-323. Pittman Munke, P. (1999). A different rootstock: The Lutheran contribution to the development of professional social work prior to 1917. Social Work & Christianity, 26(1), 40-59. Price, R. (2011, March). Kids beaten for being bad Muslims, caseworker says. Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://www. dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/ stories/2011/03/01/Kids_beaten_for_being_bad_Muslimsx_caseworker_says.html?sid=101 Randell, C.D. (1893). Introduction. In History of child saving in the United States: At the twentieth national conference of charities and correction. (pp. v-xiii). Boston: Ellis. Reardon, K. K., & Noblet, C. T. (2009). Childhood denied: Ending the nightmare of child abuse and neglect. Los Angeles: Sage. Rodriguez, C. M., & Henderson, R. C. (2010). Who spares the rod? Religious orientation, social conformity, and child abuse potential. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(2), 84-94. Socolar, R., Cabinum-Foeller, E., & Sinal, S. H. (2008). Is religiosity associated with corporal punishment or child abuse? Southern Medical Journal, 101(7), 707-710. Sealander, J. (2003). The failed century of the child. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The American Experience and WGBH Interactive, and PBS Online. (n.d.). The Orphan Trains. Retrieved on Feb 15, 2011, from http://www.pbs. org/wgbh/amex/orphan/index.html. 313 314 Social Work & Christianity Winston, D. H. (1999). Red-hot and righteous: The urban religion of the salvation army. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Endnotes 1. An interesting note is that the Charleston home was honored by a visit by President Washington. 2. The organization was nicknamed “Cruelty” by the poor and immigrants, who felt unjustly persecuted. 3. Bryn Mawr was unique in its doctoral education of women for the purposes of research. During this era most schools of social work were training schools run largely by charity organization societies (Dzuback, 1993). Jill C. Schreiber, MSW, MA , is a Doctoral Candidate and Research Specialist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work, Children and Family Research Center, 2080J, MC-82, 1010 W. Nevada St., Urbana, Illinois, 61801. Phone: (217) 356-7416. Email: schreibe@ illinois.edu Key Words: child welfare policy, Christian, history, parenting Copyright of Social Work & Christianity is the property of North American Association of Christians in Social Work and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. GE NER ATIO NS – Journal of the American Society on Aging By Yohko Tsuji Rites of Passage to Death and Afterlife in Japan A series of auspicious birthdays and mortuary rituals offers Japanese elders a smoother path to death and afterlife—but social change has impacts on these intricate rituals and those who practice them. M ore than two decades ago, Barbara Myerhoff noted the sparse cultural demarcations of old age in America, where “the stark beginning” of senescence is crudely marked by retirement and its end with a funeral. Although some events, such as moving to senior housing, using a hearing aid, or giving up driving, might denote the phases of aging, these happenings are normally regarded as “failures and signposts indicating that the end is ever nearer” (Myerhoff, 1984). Since then, the impending mass retirement of 77 million baby boomers has changed the culture of aging, “reinventing” old age and altering the life course. Yet the fact remains that the continuing ceremonial under-service—lack of rites of passage—to retirement (Savishinsky, 2002) and the absence of life-marking events in later 28 | Fall 2011 • Vol. 35 . No. 3 years require older Americans to negotiate and maneuver through aging processes with little cultural guidance. The situation is quite different in my native Japan, where culture prescribes the rites of passage from ages 60 to 111. One of my vivid childhood memories is of an elderly man, clad in a red vest and a red cap like a newborn baby, sitting on a red cushion, and surrounded by ten-year cycle and the other in the twelve-year cycle—converged again. He had completed a full circle to attain “rebirth,” which was symbolized by his baby attire. Today, with the average life expectancy of nearly eighty years for Japanese men and eighty-six for women, kanreki has become most meaningful as the age of mandatory retirement. Nonetheless, many high A series of auspicious birthdays provides occasions for rejoicing and reflecting on the elders’ long lives and ‘initiates’ them to different stages of old age. many people. He was celebrating his kanreki or sixtieth birthday. Kanreki warranted a big celebration because in earlier times not many Japanese lived to reach that age, and also because it was an auspicious occasion when two zodiac signs of his birth year—one in the schools, including mine, hold a reunion in the year when the graduates of each class have reached kanreki. Kanreki is the first of a series of auspicious birthdays acknowledged by Japanese culture. It is followed by koki (seventieth), kiju (seventy- Copyright © 2011 American Society on Aging; all rights reserved. This article may not be duplicated, reprinted or distributed in any form without written permission from the publisher: American Society on Aging, 71 Stevenson St., Suite 1450, San Francisco,CA 94105-2938; e-mail: info@asaging.org. Pages 28–33 seventh), sanju (eightieth), beiju (eighty-eighth), sotsuju (ninetieth), hakuju (ninety-ninth), jôju (one hundredth), chaju (onehundred-eighth), and kôju (one-hundred-eleventh). Except for the last few, which are rare, these milestone birthdays are widely recognized in Japan. They provide occasions for rejoicing and reflecting on the elders’ long lives and “initiate” them to different stages of old age. Hence, these special birthdays may be regarded as culturally guided rites of passage to death. Japanese culture also prescribes rites of passage even after one’s death in a tradition of ancestor worship. This article focuses on these rituals for the dead and considers their significance for elderly Japanese, and the impacts of recent social changes on mortuary rituals and those who practice them. Ritual in Later Life: Its Role, Significance, and Power also reported our grades to our forebears. The priest from our family temple came four times a month to chant a sutra on the monthly death anniversaries of my grandfather and three uncles. Though all of them had died long before I was born, they remained an important part of our family. Occasional visits to the family grave, especially during the religious weeks marked by equinoxes and mid-summer, also served to keep the dead “alive” in the world of the living. The Japanese mortuary tradition also offers welldefined guidance before and after death. The nearness of death is signified by matsugo no mizu, the rite of the last water, in which next of kin wet the lips of the dying person. After someone dies, a wake, a funeral, a cremation, and a bone-picking ceremony occur (cremation in The Japanese Mortuary Tradition I did not realize how closely the dead are integrated into Japanese daily experience until I moved to America, where death is secluded. In my family, like many other Japanese families, every morning my grandmother would offer tea, flowers, and freshly cooked rice at the family altar to honor the spirits of our ancestors. It was customary to offer sweets, snacks, and fruit before our consumption. We children A traditional family grave in Japan. ©American Society on Aging Fall 2011 • Volume 35 . Number 3 | 29 GE NER ATIO NS – Journal of the American Society on Aging Japan produces bones, not ashes, because the remains are cremated at a lower temperature), and a feast follows. More rituals continue every seven days until the forty-ninth day after death, and again on the one-hundredth day. Then a series of periodic rituals succeeds at the first, third, seventh, thirteenth, seventeenth, twenty-third, twentyseventh, thirty-third, and fiftieth death anniversaries. These rituals serve as rites of passage to ancestorhood. The ritual on the forty-ninth day after death is “a turning point” (Smith, 1974) when the spirit of the newly deceased, which is believed to have been in limbo between this world and the other world, enters the realm of the dead and becomes a new Buddha (nii-botoke). Hence, the forty-ninth–day ceremony is more elaborate and has more attendees than other weekly post-funeral services. It is also accompanied by a feast. Similarly, the ritual during the first mid-summer after death (niibon) transforms the new Buddha (nii-botoke) to Buddha (hotoke) and indicates “the deceased is clearly on his or her way to ancestorhood” (Hamabata, 1990). In this manner, Japanese mortuary rituals guide the deceased in their journey through the different postmortem stages, first from the spirit of the newly dead to new Buddha, then to Buddha, and 30 | Fall 2011 • Volume 35 . Number 3 finally to ancestor. With the passage of time, those who personally knew the deceased may also pass away. Yet memorial rituals continue for each departed individual and collectively for ancestors. Pages 28–33 worship was demanded as an important ie duty. A variety of burial practices that had existed previously were banned and replaced by a family grave in which generations of household ancestors were ‘I did not realize how closely the dead are integrated into Japanese daily experience until I moved to America, where death is secluded.’ The Japanese household plays a crucial role in caring for the dead. This role of the family in ancestor worship has a political origin in the Meiji period (1868–1912) and is closely tied to the ie, the family system (Tsuji, 2002). The Meiji Civil Code (1898) established the ie as a legal entity to which every subject must belong. By granting its head an authority over other family members and imposing on him the responsibility for a family’s maintenance and behavior, the law transformed each household into an effective state agent to control every citizen. The continuity of the ie became an important national concern. The Meiji Civil Code specified the rule of male primogeniture, or succession by the eldest son. This son and his family stayed with his parents to form a three-generation family. The law also provided alternative rules in case this ideal was not achieved. To legitimize the ie as a perpetual entity, ancestor buried together. The Civil Code also stipulated that the family grave and altar, as well as other items for ancestral rites, be a part of the family estate and that they be passed down from one generation to the next. Though the Meiji Civil Code was relinquished and the ie system was abolished after World War II, the ie-based ideology of death survived in the new Civil Code promulgated in 1948 (Tsuji, 2002). In contemporary Japan, the family remains the primary caretaker of the dead. The unit of burial continues to be the family, and most Japanese tombstones are inscribed “The X Family’s Ancestral Tomb.” Significance of Mortuary Rituals for Elders Japanese mortuary rituals provide elders with a role in their family. In most Japanese households, elderly women are the primary caretakers of the ancestors. Older men may not be involved in daily ancestral rituals, but normally they ©American Society on Aging Pages 28–33 assume the post of chief mourner at the funeral and of sponsor at major memorial rituals. These rituals also contribute to identifying who one is and where one comes from. Most families may not have a formal pedigree document, but Japanese generally have good knowledge of their forebears beyond their immediate family. Elderly family members who knew the deceased of several ascending generations relate stories of them. To the younger descendants who never met the deceased, these stories, and the mortuary rituals, serve to transform long-dead ancestors into familiar figures. Even distant ancestors, whom no living members of the family remember, can be traced in “the book of the past,” kept at the family temple, and which records all the deaths in the family over the past hundred years. By showing genealogical continuity, Japanese mortuary rituals reveal one’s origin—a vital component of identity. Culturally prescribed remembrances of the dead also serve as a remedy for coping with the loss of a loved one. For example, the weekly memorial services after the funeral not only offer opportunities to mourn together and share memories, but also mark the passage of time and help structure the survivors’ lives. Because American culture does not prescribe such a well-defined post-mortem path, I had to ©American Society on Aging Ritual in Later Life: Its Role, Significance, and Power make many decisions on my own after my husband’s death. This experience opened my eyes to the collective wisdom of the Japanese mortuary traditions; until then I had regarded them as tedious and demanding. Daily, monthly, seasonal, and periodical rituals for the dead also link the world of the living to the world of the dead, which meet at the Buddhist altar and the family grave. These rituals have positive effects on elders because the knowledge of joining the ancestral group and being cared for after death by the descendants helps to “mitigate the pain of aging” (Lebra, 1984). It also comforts elders to know that death is not “complete obliteration” (Myerhoff and Tufte, 1975), because they will be remembered for many years after their passing. Since death and the afterlife occupy an important part in the Japanese experience of growing old, many old-age homes have a community room with a Buddhist altar for their residents to remember their deceased relatives (Bethel, 1992; Thang, 2001). The close connection between the living and the dead also eases the passage to death. Susan Orpett Long reports the case of a woman with terminal cancer who wished to live until the mid-summer bon religious holiday, when the spirits of the dead return to visit the living. She said that if she survived until bon, her de- ceased father would take her to the other world and become the teacher for her new experience (Long, 2005). Impacts of Social Change on Mortuary Rituals As the Japanese family has gone through many transformations, the assurance of posthumous care is now in jeopardy. Traditional threegeneration families, which played a pivotal role in ancestor worship (and the care of elders), have drastically diminished in number. Nuclear families are also in decline, with a steady increase of couple-only and single-person households. Moreover, the birthrate is alarmingly low, while divorce and remarriage are on the rise (Thang, 2001; Raymo and Kaneda, 2003). These changes have undermined the family as a perpetual entity and produced a growing number of people without patrilineal (traced through male line) descendants who traditionally take care of the family grave and the ancestors. A shortage of grave sites and their exorbitant cost aggravate this problem. Consequently, non-traditional ways of caring for the dead have emerged. Eitai kuyô bo, eternally worshipped graves, are built by temples and other religious or nonreligious organizations. Individuals may be buried separately in their own graves, but at most of these sites, bones Fall 2011 • Volume 35 . Number 3 | 31 GE NER ATIO NS – Journal of the American Society on Aging are consolidated in one grave, not with family ancestors, but with nonrelatives. Burial under a tree, or jumokusô, is gaining popularity. In a clearing in the woods, a deep hole is dug to bury an individual’s bones. Instead of a tombstone, a flowering shrub is planted with a tag bearing the deceased’s name. Both eternally worshipped graves and burials under trees make posthumous care possible without “proper” descendants. The family is not responsible for maintaining the grave and memorializing the dead, because cemetery operators, who are paid for their services, assume these tasks. Furthermore, these types of graves need not be passed down to their buyers’ descendants. These features indicate the diminishing importance of the ie principle in posthumous care and the transformation of the grave from an important family asset to an individual’s eternal resting place. Denial of the ie concept is more apparent in the third type of non-conventional burial, which involves scattering bones in the sea or mountains. This practice, called shizensô, removes the need of a grave altogether. Although shizensô involves neither graves nor ancestor worship, it does not sever the link between the dead and the living. Some survivors regularly visit the place where their loved one’s bones were scattered. Others keep a very small amount of bone fragments 32 | Fall 2011 • Volume 35 . Number 3 at home to remember the deceased. Moreover, the idea underlying shizensô—unity of nature and humans, humans and nonhumans, and the living and the dead—renders the boundaries between them permeable, keeping this world and the other world close, and providing survivors with the feeling that the dead person has returned to nature. This view, together with its low cost (about $1,200), accounts for shizensô’s steadily growing popularity. These new rituals for the dead not only provide pragmatic solutions to the problem of posthumous care, but also enable contemporary Japanese to make choices not possible in traditional rituals. While the absence of descendants may compel childless couples and single women to buy eternally worshipped graves, some married women who have both a family grave and a son purchase them to avoid posthumous co-residence with their mother-in-law or husband, with whom they did not get along. Some tombs reflect individual choices. Instead of a traditional grave with the inscription of “The X Family’s Ancestral Tomb,” some choose a monument of natural stone inscribed with a Chinese character of their choice—love, dream, or serenity, for example. Another choice is a more novel form of grave, such as a tailor’s tombstone shaped like a man’s suit or a skier’s marker that Pages 28–33 resembles a mountain slope. Some people even host a living funeral, marking the passage to death before death, to celebrate their life with family and friends while they can still witness the event. ‘Japanese bookstores sell many how-to books on mortuary rituals, and nationally circulated newspapers place halfpage advertisements for graves.’ Despite these recent examples of individuality, many Japanese manage to continue traditional mortuary rituals with the help of their family and professionals from the fast-growing funeral industry and other commercial services. Conclusion An eminent anthropologist described death as “the supreme and final crisis of life” (Malinowski, 1948). While American culture treats this crisis with a sense of finality and provides little guidance for it, Japanese culture handles it differently. A sequence of culturally prescribed milestone birthdays offers a map for the progression of old age that eventually terminates in death. Traditional mortuary rituals link the world of the living to the world of the dead and, as a ©American Society on Aging Pages 28–33 result, not only smooth the journey to death, but also mark other important rites of passage in the afterlife. In short, Japanese mortuary rituals are rituals of continuity. They proclaim where one came from and where one will go, as well as that death is not the ultimate end of a human life and the deceased continue on in survivors’ lives. The world of the dead remains an important part of Japanese life, and serious considerations are given to assuring posthumous security and comfort, whether people are adopting new rituals or adhering to traditional ones. Though many Japanese may feel that honoring the mortuary tradition is difficult (as I did before my husband’s death), the prospect of not having an abode Ritual in Later Life: Its Role, Significance, and Power and a caretaker for their posthumous life generates a great deal of anxiety, epitomized by a phenomenon called muen-shi or “unconnected death.” Annually, more than 32,000 Japanese die alone, with their remains left unnoticed and decaying in their residences for weeks and even months. The large number of such deaths generates real concern among elders as well as younger people prone to social isolation. Japanese preoccupation with the afterlife contributes not only to the perpetuation of traditional mortuary rituals, but also to the invention of new types of rituals that relieve this anxiety. Japanese bookstores sell many how-to books on mortuary rituals, and nationally circulated newspa- pers place half-page advertisements for graves. Many Japanese also pay an unrealistically high price for a small cemetery plot and a tombstone. Others sign contracts for eternally worshipped graves or burials under trees, whereas some decide to have their bones scattered in nature. What persists amid myriad changes and diversifications of mortuary practices is the continuing significance of mortuary rituals in Japanese culture. Professionalization and commercialization of these rituals help the Japanese to keep practicing them in a rapidly changing social milieu. Myerhoff, B. 1984. “Rites and Signs of Ripening: The Intertwining of Ritual, Time, and Growing Older.” In Kertzer, D. I., and Keith, J., eds., Age and Anthropological Theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Savishinsky, J. 2002. “Creating the Right Rite of Passage for Retirement.” Generations 26(2): 80–2. Yohko Tsuji, Ph.D., is adjunct associate professor of anthropology at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. References Bethel, D. L. 1992. “Life on Obasuteyama, or, Inside a Japanese Institution for the Elderly.” In Lebra, T. K., ed., Japanese Social Organization. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Hamabata, M. M. 1990. Crested Kimono: Power and Love in the Japanese Business Family. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Lebra, T. K. 1984. Japanese Women: Constraint and Fulfillment. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Long, S. O. 2005. Final Days: Japanese Culture and Choice at the End of Life. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Malinowski, B. 1948. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. ©American Society on Aging Myerhoff, B., and Tufte, V. 1975. “Life History as Integration: An Essay on an Experiential Model.” The Gerontologist 15(6): 541–3. Raymo, J. K., and Kaneda, T. 2003. “Changes in the Living Arrangements of Japanese Elderly: The Role of Demographic Factors.” In Traphagan, J. W., and Knight, J., eds., Demographic Change and the Family in Japan’s Aging Society. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Smith, R. J. 1974. Ancestor Worship in Contemporary Japan. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Thang, L. L. 2001. Generations in Touch: Linking the Old and Young in a Tokyo Neighborhood. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Tsuji, Y. 2002. “Death Policies in Japan: The State, the Family, and the Individual.” In Goodman, R., ed., Family and Social Policy in Japan: Anthropological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fall 2011 • Volume 35 . Number 3 | 33 Copyright of Generations is the property of American Society on Aging and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Parenting, Policies, and Practice: Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Jill C. Schreiber Christianity has been integral to the development of America’s child welfare policy in two ways: Christian beliefs have influenced evolving American cultural norms about parenting, and Christians have responded to children whose needs were not met by their parents, both by creating institutions and agencies and by influencing policies. Christian influences were explicit when Protestant Christianity was the cultural norm, but its influence is still present in the secular child welfare systems today. Since cultural norms are slow to change, changes are more apparent when taking a broad scope. To portray the variations in the role of Christianity in child welfare policy, this article compares three changes in centuries in American history: the Post-Colonial Era (late 1700–early 1800s), the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), and what I refer to as the Modern Era (late 1900s–early 2000s). In colonial times, children were perceived to be the property of their fathers, and harsh physical punishment was deemed religiously necessary for successful child rearing. Over the past three centuries, mothers and children have developed more rights, limits were placed on physical discipline, and cultural values of self-actualization and independence have gradually replaced those of unquestioning obedience to authority. The first societal responses to poor parenting focused on poverty, and with time they evolved into child protection. Christians founded the first institutions that were focused on children—orphanages. Currently, state public child welfare systems assume primary responsibility for child welfare, and are necessarily nonreligious. However, religious issues are still relevant. For example, many religious child welfare organizations receive public funding for their work through subcontracts. Social Work & Christianity, Vol. 38, No. 2 (2011), 293-314 Journal of the North American Association of Christians in Social Work Social Work & Christianity 294 Private charity is always commendable. It is of ancient origin, and has blessed the world and sweetened dependent child life alone for ages. Public charity, more modern, is stronger in its power, when fully and properly exerted. Both are to be encouraged and continued. And yet out of them all cannot there be matured a system which should include both private and public, and which should be brought to a higher perfection, under which all children should be protected from ill treatment, should be reformed if delinquent, and should be cared for if dependent, all being restored to the kind and elevating influences of good home life? (Randell, 1893, p. v). C hristianity is a factor in child welfare today for many reasons. Most individuals in America are Christians (Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, 2008), and this would include children, biological families, and professionals in child welfare. Many child welfare institutions and service providers also have ties to the Christian faith (e.g., Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Social Services). Christian values have also grounded many legal and policy decisions. Because the United States was initially an overwhelmingly Protestant country, it is not surprising that the norms held for parenting were Protestant ones. Christian values and ethics also guided responses to situations when these parenting norms were not being met. Christian involvement in child welfare is motivated by a variety of Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) scriptures to care for widows and orphans and by a familiar passage from James: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27, New Revised Standard Version). This review begins with a summary of the Post-Colonial context and then considers the Progressive Era, when the needs of children became more of a concern to society and public services became more professional. The development of child welfare in the 21st century, with less explicit religious content, is then discussed. Finally, I conclude that it is important for educators and researchers to acknowledge Christianity’s current influence in child welfare. Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Post-Colonial Era Relationships between Children and Parents In early America, child welfare was based on tradition, English poor laws, and Protestant beliefs and Biblical texts, specifically Deuteronomy (Mason, 1994). In this era, just as slave children were the property of their masters, free children were perceived to be the property of fathers. Children were removed from fathers who could not support them and were “bound out” to masters who could. The focus of the law was on relieving the public of economic burdens, not on the best interest of the child. Fathers in the 18th century were expected to raise children who were not only vocationally able but religiously trained (Reardon & Noblet, 2009). Vocational training and religious catechism in early America were similar to medical and educational requirements of parents today; to fail to meet societal expectations could lead to removal of children. For example, a 17th-century Massachusetts Bay Colony statute stated: “Masters of Families are to Catechize or cause to be Catechized, their children and Apprentices at least once a week, on the grounds and Principles of religion” (cited in Mason, 1994, p. 6). Religious catechism coincided with general education because “the universal child’s book of the day was the Bible” (Earle, 1899, p. 228). Other than a primer, and possibly a hymnal, the Bible might be the only book a child would read from. Both free and slave children alike experienced corporal punishment. Harsh physical punishment of children was justified as religiously necessary. Many of the early Americans who came from Europe brought with them a belief that eternal salvation is dependent on “breaking the will of the child” or “beating the devil out of them” (Greven, 1992). Biblical scriptures such as “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die” (Proverbs 23:13, King James Version) were commonly used as justification for beatings, deemed necessary to ensure that children were not rude, stubborn, or unruly. In several states parents were even excused from charges of murder if “death occurred while lawfully correcting the child” (Mason, 1994, p. 104). South Carolina defended the use of knives as tools for disciplining children: “Provisions on killing by stabbing do not apply to person, who in chastising or correcting a child chances to commit manslaughter without intending to do so” (South Carolina code of law, 295 296 Social Work & Christianity cited in Mason, 1994, p. 104). Before the late 19th century, public officials rarely interfered with a family’s right to discipline their children (Sealander, 2003). If a father could not control his children, the state intervened. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had “stubborn child laws,” under which a son who would not obey his parents was to be brought to the state for chastisement. The consequence for the child could be as severe as death (Mason, p. 11). There was little or no public response to what we today define as child abuse or neglect. The closest thing to our current understanding of child welfare was a focus on meeting the needs of destitute people. Society’s Responses to Concerns about Children In the Post-Colonial Era, there were few provisions of social support and even fewer organizations that focused on the needs of children. All institutions were local, and there were no state or national policies. Although public institutions existed, most of the organizations that provided social support (including services exclusively for children) were private and sectarian. Public Poor Relief At the start of the 1800s, destitute people were cared for at a local level in concordance with the poor-law system practiced in England. Folks (1902) describes five methods of caring for the poor that were used before 1850 (p. 3): 1) By outdoor relief, given to families in their homes. 2) By farming out to a number of families, each pauper being awarded, as a rule, to the lowest bidder. 3) By contract with some individual, usually the lowest bidder, who became responsible for the care of all the paupers of a given locality. 4) By support of the almshouse directly under the control of public authority. 5) By indenture. Children were less likely to be farmed out or put on contract, but indenture was thought to be especially applicable for them. Almshouses were first built in the large cities for both children and adults, often with minimal or no differentiation in how they were housed or treated. Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Orphanages The first institutions especially for the care of children were created by Christians. The first private orphan asylum was established in 1727, attached to the Ursuline convent in New Orleans. George Whitfield, the celebrated itinerant preacher, established the Bethesda orphan house in 1738 in Savannah, Georgia. By the start of the 1800s, private institutions for children had been established in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore. The first public institution for children that was not part of an almshouse was opened in 1794 in Charleston, South Carolina.1 There were not yet many orphanages at the start of the 1800s, but by the end of the century they were quite common. This shift was the result of two major changes. By the mid-1800s, in response to awareness of the negative effects of housing children with adults in the almshouses, laws were enacted that limited or forbid the placement of children there. Additionally in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment made “involuntary servitude” illegal, rendering the indenture system for children unconstitutional. Since these previous avenues for child raising were closed, more orphanages were needed. The majority of children housed in orphanages were not orphaned, but rather came into care from broken families, single-parent homes, or married but destitute parents. These children entered care for a variety of reasons. “Within a single institution we frequently find mental defectives, backward children, delinquents, dependents, and neglected or ill-treated children” (Mangold, 1910, p. 331). Most agencies making decisions about children in need of care used indenture, adoption, or ‘placing out’ when children reached appropriate ages (twelve for boys and fourteen for girls). “As a rule, the orphan asylums seemed to regard the placing out system rather as a convenient means of disposing of their older wards” (Folks, 1902, p. 64). Although a few orphanages developed under public supervision, the vast majority were private, and most of those religious. By 1904, there were 119 public orphanages or children’s homes and 956 private, serving a total of 92,000 children: 52,000 in sectarian homes, 30,000 in other private homes, and 10,000 in public homes. Most religious orphanages were constructed by groups affiliated with Catholic or Protestant organizations (Askeland, 2006). The first non-Christian home was Jewish; it was established in New Orleans in 1856. Although some private orphanages were supported by groups of people “prompted solely by philanthropic impulses” (Folks, 1902, p. 56), these “non-re- 297 298 Social Work & Christianity ligious orphanages” were often Protestant by default (Crenson, 1998, p. 42); for example, they held nondenominational Protestant religious services and included the Protestant Bible in their schools. Some child advocates believed institutions were the proper method of care for dependent children, pointing to the values of “discipline, education, moral instruction, good environment, physical training and other advantages” (Mangold, 1910, p. 303). Others perceived orphanages differently, citing “the manifold evils of aggregation, of the absence of individuation and the unnatural conditions and surroundings of an institution” (Mangold, 1910, p. 303). Sophie Minton, the chairman of the Committee on Children States Charities Aid Association, stated it plainly: “The same drill which makes a good soldier annihilates the individuality of the child” (Minton, 1893, p. 45). She and others had a strong preference for placing children out. Placing Out Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Connecticut favored placing out above institutions. Their institutions were “strictly used as ‘clearing houses,’ or first steps to placing out” (Minton, 1893, p. 45). Boardingout and Placing-out Societies found homes for children and gave the caregivers a small fund, but children were expected to do their share in household work to earn their keep. It was not necessary for foster families to be well off: “rough conditions are nothing if the influence is good, morally and physically” (p. 47). Indeed, “the wish to place a child on a higher social scale than which it was born” was deemed inappropriate (p. 48). Another version of placing out was Orphan Trains, which were one of the solutions to the plight of destitute inner city children. In 1853, Charles Loring Brace, a young minister, founded the Children’s Aid Society. The society arranged the trips, raised the money, and obtained the legal permissions needed for relocating the children. Brace wrote, “The great duty is to get [the children] utterly out of their surroundings and to send them away to kind Christian homes in the country” (The American Experience, n.d., ¶ 3). Between 1854 and 1929, more than 100,000 children were sent to new homes in rural America. Some of the children had good placements; some experienced abuse or other mistreatment. Early efforts to place children into private homes rather than orphanages ran into fierce resistance from Roman Catholics, who feared Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America that Catholic children would be placed in Protestant homes and would consequently convert. This objection was categorically dismissed during the 1879 National Conference of Charities and Corrections (the predecessor to the National Association of Social Workers, or NASW). The religious bias is evident in the following quote: It will be very difficult, therefore, to provide for some of those [Catholic] children. . . . [F]ew Catholic families in New England are now sufficiently intelligent and prosperous to adopt or to train the children who need homes; and, as they usually have large families of their own, it is difficult to find among them homes to be compared with those freely offered by Americans and Protestants (cited in Crenson, 1998, p. 33). In spite of these concerns about religion, placing out became the practice of the day. The orphanage movement that was a hallmark of the 19th century became less popular in the early 20th century, when childhood and motherhood came to center stage. Progressive Era Christianity and Progressive Culture In the early 20th century, the origins of child welfare had their roots in Christian values. Although religious institutions had always provided mutual aid to their own members in times of crisis, in the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), the Social Gospel Movement called for the church to support people outside of their congregations. The “Social Gospel” was based on the principle of social responsibility, rooted in the Bible, that defined a good Christian as one who was active in reforming society according to Christian morality (Ebaugh, Saltzman, & Pipes, 2005). It stood in opposition to theology based on “the inherent depravity of the poor” (Winston, 1999, p. 124). Social Gospel adherents claimed that they were replacing the “Gospel of Wealth” with the “Gospel of Jesus.” Concerns about industrialization, urbanization, and immigration were part of the impetus for the Social Gospel movement. Early proponent Rev. Josiah Strong stated in 1885, “The city has become a serious threat to our civilization, because in it . . . each of the dangers 299 300 Social Work & Christianity (Romanism, socialism, wealth, intemperance, immigration…) is enhanced and all are focalized” (Winston, 1999, p. 16). However, not all Christians during the Progressive Era supported the Social Gospel movement. Lutherans, for example (and others), were opposed to its values and believed that social reform could only be achieved by the “transformation of individuals” (Pittman-Munke, 1999). Social work as a profession evolved out of the combination of religious impulses (including the Christian Social Gospel and the Doctrine of Charity) with secular liberalism, associated particularly with political economy and ethical individualism (Leiby, 1978). Since secular liberals and religious charity workers held different values, many issues were contentious; however, the two groups shared concerns about child welfare. Children were the object of universal sympathy; by making them the focus of reform, sectarian and ideological differences were neutralized (Crenson, 1998). Relationship between Children and Parents The role of families changed during the Progressive Era. Families became more private and isolated, partially due to increased mobility, and this was accompanied by an increase in the values of individualism and trust in societal progress: The work by parents must be done within the home. The home is an institution fundamental to our civilization. Its preservation must be rigidly guarded, and the duties taken from the home must not be so numerous as to lessen the cohesive force of this civilizing power. In fact, the state is using the home as one of its means of achieving further progress. (Mangold, 1910, p. 293) Growing importance was placed on motherhood and a sentimentalized family life (Sealander, 2003). As the labor movement developed in the 19th century, fathers left the home each day to earn ”living wages” to support their households, leaving mothers to take over the responsibilities of home and children. “In nineteenth century America, the maternal role was exalted to the exclusion of all other occupations for women” (Koven & Michel, 1993, p. 278). Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America Society’s Responses to Concerns about Children Maternalism After the turn of the century, middle-class women were “urged to impress Christian values of their communities through charitable work” (Koven & Michel, 1993, p. 10), yet they were expected to live out the ideals of domesticity while doing so. The esteem for motherhood led to a rise of “maternalists” who worked for social change (predominantly in public policies) that supported poor and working mothers. Theirs was a different focus from that of feminists, who were advocating for equality and suffrage. Maternalists were predominantly Protestant, white, well educated, and middle class, working “on behalf” of poor women and children who were unable to advocate for themselves (Kornbluh, 1996). Jane Addams was a maternalist. Focused on social justice and collective action, she provided concrete support for working mothers, including day nurseries in her settlement house. Settlement houses were a product of the Social Gospel movement (Koven & Michel, 1993), although they were not explicitly religious. (Addams, for example, did not allow religious instruction at Hull House.) Maternalists and other child advocates of the day focused on a broad range of policies, including child labor, infant mortality, appropriate recreational opportunities (parks, playgrounds, and libraries), juvenile justice, children’s health, and compulsory education. They also addressed issues more commonly associated with child welfare today, including adoption, foster care, and maltreatment (called child cruelty). In response to concerns about maltreated children, both adoption and foster care were legalized (Askeland, 2006). However, the objective of “child saving” was not to protect children from cruel or abusive parents but to save society from future delinquents (Pfohl, 1977). Child Cruelty In the 1870s, the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC)2 was organized (Marten, 2004). By 1910, more than 250 private organizations identified themselves as “anti-cruelest” or “child rescue.” These organizations explicitly identified poor people and/or immigrants as those most likely to beat a child (Sealander, 2003 pp. 57, 59). Child cruelty was considered a type of neglect. Neglect in the Progressive Era “included parental incompetence, not properly caring 301 302 Social Work & Christianity for the needs of a child, and parental unfitness, usually immoral behavior or drunkenness” (Reardon & Noblet, 2009, p. 98). Harsh physical punishment was generally still acceptable in the early 1900s, and people had to give reasoned arguments to oppose it. One such argument was carefully stated by Gerry Elbridge, who in 1882 addressed the National Conference on Charities and Correction: It is in the interests of the republic that the people should not be disintegrated or impaired by any diminution of the intellectual, moral or physical strength of its members. . . [and that children as the] future component parts of the sovereignty, should be so cared for and reared that males when mature shall be competent to bear arms for the protection of the republic [and] that women shall be physically capable of bearing children (National Conference on Social Welfare, 1974, p. 127). He also argued that humans are made in the image of their maker and that “the purity of the children is the most beautiful type of the purity of God himself” (p. 128). He concluded his address discussing the mission of SPCCs: They protect the helpless, they bring back the outcast, they seek to save children in danger of being irretrievably lost. For physical cruelty is the parent of vice. Want and neglect are the incentives to crime, and crime not only destroys its perpetrator, but eats like a corroding ulcer into the nation which countenances its existence. (Elbridge address to National Conference on Charities and Correction in 1882, cited in National Conference on Social Welfare, 1974, p. 130) Concerns about abuse were based on a combination of theology with the Aristotelian principle of “parens patriae.” “This principle maintained that the State had the responsibility to defend those who cannot defend themselves. This was also understood by some to assert the state’s privilege in compelling infants and their guardians to act in ways most beneficial to the State” (Pfohl, 1977, p. 312). Both child delinquency (violating criminal codes) and child dependency (coming from a poor home with neglectful or abusive parents) damaged the State, and thus children experiencing either were targets for “child saving” Christian Influence on Child Welfare in America in the late 1800s. However, this perception of dependency changed in the early 1900s. On Christmas day in 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a call to more than 200 child welfare experts and philanthropists to attend a meeting on the care of “children who are destitute and neglected but not delinquent” (Crenson, 1998, p. 11). At the meeting a month later, the participants made several recommendations, including the establishment of a federal children’s bureau. They also proclaimed that “children should not be removed from their families except for urgent and compelling reasons, and destitution was not one of those reasons” (Crenson, p. 15). This was a turning point, since previous policy had determined poverty to be sufficient for removal of children. Charity workers had long argued that public outdoor relief (assistance in one’s home rather than placement in an almshouse) was pauperizing, was dangerously open to political corruption, placed an unfair burden on the taxpayer, lacked proper supervisory methods, and discouraged help from relatives, friends, and churches. To counteract these concerns, state boards were developed in New York in 1916 that were enabled but not required to provide financial assistance, but “only when the mothers are suitable persons to bring up their children properly and require aid to do so” (Hopkins & Cupaluolo, 2001, p. 27). Mothers’ Rights Custody and parenting rights were linked to the changing status and power of women and to the powerlessness of the poor. In the early 20th century, when women were beginning to be awarded other rights (property, litigation, contracts, and suffrage), few states gave women rights to their children. Parental rights had first been awarded to a mother in America in 1809 in Plather v. Plather (Reardon & Noblet, 2009). This coincided with a new focus on a natural law understanding of a “mother’s special capacity to guide and nurture” (Reardon & Noblet, p. 88). However, Plather v. Plather was an isolated case, and higher courts overturned a similar ruling in 1844, where a judge expressed concerns about “natural law,” stating, “human laws cannot be very far out of the way when they are in accordance with the law of God [which supports the father as head of the family]” (Reardon & Noblet, p. 89). However, mothers eventually earned parental rights, starting with unwed mothers, who gained legal rights to their children in the early 303 304 Social Work & Christianity 1900s. Previously unwed mothers had either raised their illegitimate children without the support of the law or saw their children taken away. In the Progressive Era, tensions arose between the evangelical women who had managed maternity homes for decades and those in the new profession of social work over how to best deal with the issue of unwed mothers. Kunzel (1993) researched a plethora of primary sources, including case notes from maternity homes, for her book Fallen Women and Problem Girls: Unmarried Mothers and the Professionalization of Social Work, 1890-1945, the main source for the next section. Unwed Mothers Unmarried mothers were a lightning rod for social concerns during the Progressive Era, similar to the iss...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer


Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags