Again it must be admitted that certain aspects of the romantic complex are open to such charges, but the more central aspects of the romantic complex emphasize parenthood as the fulfillment of marriage provided the can be raised in an atmosphere of freedom and individualism, and also can contribute to the growth of the parents. It is this point of view that must be contrasted with the statement that children are more important to nature which is a crude version of survival ethics. In passing it might also be remarked that from a societal point of view it is a good thing that the romantic complex emphasizes the desire for children. If the ordinary conformed completely to his role of status seeker we would have no instead of the declining birthrate we have now. Thus the family sociologist emerges from his attack against the romantic complex as a confirmed anti-individualist and as one who places a crude conception of institutional function over the achieving of the values of freedom and personality growth. The main difference then between the companionship school which has launched this attack and older institutional theories of the family is that the former recognize the impossibility, at least at the present time, of dictating to the individual what he must do in regard to marriage. Elliott and Merrill, for example, state that Even if it were possible, no one would advocate a change to the strict European marriage of convenience'; and Burgess points out that the family sociologist and marriage educator must work alongside of youth in the study of the family rather than dictating to young people.25 The solution, therefore, from the point of view of the modern marriage educator is to awaken youth to the dangers of romanticism, and individualism, and to the desirability of conforming, being conventional, selecting one's mate with due regard for status and class, and following one's parents' suggestions. The net result of this type of training is not quite the same as that which might be derived from the older type of institutional theory, for if the latter's compulsory solution were possible we would end up with a stable society and family, albeit not a free society or family, whereas the prosaic man of the modern family sociologist is asked to conform to norms which will not only prevent the growth of his personality, but which will render the middle-class family unstable far more than do even the excesses of the romantic comDlex.
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 1960
Robert H Walker + 1
Open Access