>From hoffmant@rastro.Colorado.EDU Thu Jun 30 14:01:12 1994 Return-Path: hoffmant@rastro.Colorado.EDU Received: from rastro.Colorado.EDU (rastro.Colorado.EDU [128.138.129.21]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id OAA09765 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:01:11 -0600 Received: (from hoffmant@localhost) by rastro.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id OAA23836; Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:01:12 -0600 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:01:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Hoffman Thomas Subject: Re: fertility in U.S. To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In response to Pam's discussion about the modivations for (and we must not forget the modivationa against) fertility, I'd like to address what seem to me to be mixed messages (or maybe I'm just being overly critical at the expence of misunderstanding Pam,s point). On the one hand, Pam suggests that "educated/self-reflecting PEOPLE" (my emphasis) have children "because it is both a unique personal experience/commitmant..." (which sounds suspiciously like Liz's 'warm fuzzies' hypothesis) "..., and because it is the primary way which people make the future important to themselves." However, Pam does qualify this statement, suggesting that at least this was true in her case. On the other hand, Pam suggests that it is normative for - and this is my point of contention - "people who don't think much about it." (Pam seems to imply that fertility is normative for those of us are who are not one of the aformentioned educated/self-reflecting people). The question that first comes to my mind is: why would (could) more educated/self-reflecting people rise above normative fertility expectations while less educated/self-reflecting people would not? It seems to me that you're proposing a two teired model of fertility differentials: one being based on assumptions of creative/purposive action and the other being based on a type of Easterlin modified neo-classical Demand Theory - which is also based on assumptions that individuals act purposively but are none-the-less disempowered and passive. It seems to me that even highly educated/self-relecting individuals are socially bounded and constrained (or influenced, if a non-determinist vanacular if prefered) by a wide range of role expectations, uncertainty, and normative fertility expectations. For example, is it not normative for many middle status (or class) individuals or couples to be modivated by 'warm fuzzies'? Or is it also not normative to expect childrearing to be 'productively' fulfilling, to provide a notion of accomplishment or a sence of importance for themselve and the future? It seems to me that fertility is a social relationship among not only individuals but also between individuals and other social relations (e.g., production, reproduction, patriarchy, and exploitation - all of which, themselves, are related to each other). I would like to note that, in lue of previous diologue, it does accure to me that I may misunderstand what you intended to suggest. Please, clarify. AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome all of the new PPNers. We are all very pleased with the interest and turn-out for the Progressive Population Net. Thomas Hoffman BOE Department of Sociology C.U. Boulder.