The Family And The Unification Church Edited by Gene G. James
|
|
The Family And The Unification Church Edited by Gene G. James |
The traditional family in the Western world has been under siege most intensively over the past twenty-five years. The Western social scientist's fetish with objectivity and his allegedly value-free faith in the infinite flexibility of the human condition have done much to undermine the value of the family. The family has traditionally gained much of its strength from the fundamental assumption of the inalterability of the essential family structure. Advances in medical science, biological science, and most importantly, speculations of the social scientists have fostered a basic doubt about the form, components, or even the necessity for family.
Unfortunately, inadequate attention has been given to the correlative occurrence of massive and degenerative social and human problems as tacit and ethical support has been given to the decline of traditional family life in the Western world. In 1973, the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Youth held hearings entitled: "American Families: Trends and Pressures." Senator Walter Mondale chaired these hearings and indicated:
The more our work focused on what might be called the categorical problems of childhood -- abuse, inadequate child care, sudden infant death, and all the rest -- the more we became convinced that we were dealing with symptoms, not causes. The more I looked at the problems affecting children and the kind of help they needed, the more I became convinced that we should be focusing on the condition of the families and on their ability to discharge their fundamental child-rearing responsibilities.1
It would not be farfetched to trace many other human problems such as crime increase, sexual violence, divorce rates and much depression to the deterioration of the traditional family. Only woefully few social scientists believe as does renowned developmental psychologist Urie Brofenbrenner that:
It is no accident that in a million years of evolution, we have emerged with a particular form for the raising of children... and it is the human family.2
Such tidbits from the voluminous accumulated data clearly suggest that family life is under siege and its deterioration is having profound impact on the development of our children.
We must avoid the temptation to become faddish in our attack on contemporary social conditions and the attribution of difficulties to family deterioration. As Sally Helgesen recently observed in an article in Harper's: "pro family has become as faddish as autonomous individualism was in the 60s."3 Such faddish banner-carrying ultimately begs the question of the real genesis of our social problems and it invites an oversimplification of analysis which ultimately drags us into greater difficulty. The yearning for return to the days when tradition reigned supreme carries with it an over generalized yearning for the ethnocentrism, racism, sexism and rugged militarism which paralleled those times. Advocates of pro-family stances must be careful that they do not ally themselves with persons of dubious political intent camouflaged under a banner of "return to moral basics."
The hypothesis of this discussion is that one of the difficulties confronting the contemporary family is the self-fulfilling quality of scientific or social theories about human and social functioning.
One such fundamental hypothesis has emerged from the brilliantly inspired, but humanly inimical theories of Sigmund Freud. His assumption that family life is inevitably an erotic and tragic drama of animal instinct has functioned as a most destructive self-fulfilling prophecy. "Aggression forms the basis of every relation of affection and love among people," says Dr. Freud.4 Freud's preoccupation with sexuality creates a limiting conception of family which breeds inevitable conflict.
A theoretical perspective coming from the psychologists which is equally as destructive as the Freudian hypothesis is that of the Behaviorist. The Behaviorist views family functioning and child development as no more than a series of techniques. Child-rearing is viewed as a process of stimulus manipulations rather than as the complex interactive intimacy of dynamic family processes. So unlike the Freudians, who tend to over attribute hidden motives and dispositions, the Behaviorist operates as it they are not there or views them as irrelevant. Family interactions and the rearing of children are viewed as no more than a series of arrangements of rewards and punishments, and their value might be more adequately accomplished by machines. In fact, some radical behaviorists have advocated the superiority of machines in rearing children. Unlike earlier notions of the importance of parental affection and parent/child interactions, the current focus is that effective child-rearing is a result of good "parenting skills" rather than a result of being good, caring human beings. The very reduction of familyhood to certain technical skills is indicative of the destructive mentality which is accepted as good science and good humanity in contemporary society.
Both the pessimism about the human condition implicit in the Freudian theory and the mechanomorphic theory of the Behaviorists have resulted in disasters for the contemporary family. The large numbers of experts and therapists growing out of the Freudian and neo-Freudian tradition have all but created family discord by advocating the inevitability of such conflict. One is encouraged to reduce the inevitable neurosis by minimizing restrictions on the free expression of sexual interest and aggressive feelings within the family. Many Freudian-influenced families tolerate previously unheard-of misconduct from their children in the name of avoiding neurosis by unbridled permissiveness. Three generations raised within such a cultural motif no longer consider peace within the family an expected norm. Along with the medical discoveries which currently boast of their capacities to produce surrogate mothers by artificial insemination, extra-uterine fertilization, and an abundance of similar techniques and promises of even more daring experiments, the mechanical image of family renders it even less a necessity. The "single parent" has become an increasingly sought family structure in light of the concept that family life is no more than a technique rather than a process. With numerous popular conceptions of open marriages, child adoption by homosexual couples, and absentee parenting, the family has been placed in the category of the dispensable social organization.
The argument of this discussion is that the family is a naturally prescribed organization whose function is to foster the development of undeveloped life. Family structure and processes must be evaluated only in the light of their adequacy in fulfilling this fundamental function. The concept of family being a "prescribed" organization speaks to the inadvisability of its alteration. The suggestion that this prescription has a "natural" genesis carries an implication of inalterability as well. Despite such implications of inalterability, we are fully aware of the broad flexibility in the human make-up. We do not advocate a maladaptiverigidity. Natural developmental processes are dictated in lower animal forms by instinct, hormones and other biochemical processes which demand that certain things occur or death becomes imminent. The human being, on the other hand, is permitted to respond to urges with an undictated nature or respond to suggestions emanating from the natural world and its rhythms. The rhythms, cycles and processes of the natural world urge an imitation on the part of the human, but the processes cannot coerce imitation. Through the ability to record and retain events, attend to history, culture and even receive revelation (the acquisition of previously unexperienced information from non-sensory processes), men are invited to follow certain courses for their proper development. The courses to which they are invited are not arbitrary possibilities but represent processes which have stood the test of time and space (or geography). The idea of "natural prescriptions" has more enduring validity than the relativistic and arbitrary concepts of Western social scientists, who have proven themselves woefully inadequate in identifying remedies for escalating human and social problems. The validation of natural principles guiding human conduct is found in the consistent success of nature in preserving and expanding herself. Validation is also present in the ancient scripts from the Divine and the contemporary rediscovery of those principles by those who have given their lives in pursuit of Truth.
Another implication of our definition of "family" is that all human life is incomplete and is in the process of developing or unfolding. Consequently, family life is necessary for human beings at all stages of their lives and not just at the period of physical helplessness. The usual social science definition views the family as "an organization for the raising of the biologically immature until it reaches biological and social maturity." This rather narrow definition of family accounts, in large part, for many of the social problems which have been developed in modern society.
Our conceptualization is that the family should be viewed as a multi-dimensional process. It has concrete and specific characteristic manifestations which expand to become increasingly abstract and general. It is actually a process of concentric dimensions of manifestation. There are certain generalizable principles which can be observed at the lower and more specific layers which serve as inferences for the higher and less observable levels or dimensions of family life. (See Figure 1.)
Figure
1: The ascending spheres of the multi-dimensional concept of the
"Natural Family."
The most basic and observable level of family is actually the biological womb of the mother. There is a prototype of family process which can be understood from the functioning of the womb. The womb's primary functions are nurturance, protection, sacrifice, immunization and the overall processes for the facilitation of developing life. These fundamental processes characterize effective family functioning at each dimension of family life. A more extensive description of this model would be necessary to fully describe the application of these principles to each dimension of family as illustrated in Figure 1. Unfortunately, neither time nor space will permit such an extensive explanation in this context.
Before moving our discussion to some consideration of actual contemporary models which utilize this conceptual model in attempting to rebuild family life, it is necessary to say a couple of words about the functions of family life. The functions of protection, nurturance, sacrifice, etc. have a particular goal. This goal is the preservation of "constructive life development." The constructive life of the human being is one of physical survival, emotional stability, rational and moral advancement. Anything that interferes with these processes is an anti-life force which the "family" is obligated to attack or offer secure shelter against. Therefore, the "tribal" dimension of family is responsible for education because a part of its protective function is to protect against forces of ignorance or superstition which may retard effective rational development and community progress. The "tribal" dimension of family is responsible for providing a reservoir of self-knowledge in order to nourish the developing life into proper recognition of who it is; this is food for the rational development. Family or community has a responsibility to monitor the agencies in the society to insure that they are cultivating constructive moral and rational life.
In the same way that infection of the umbilical passage or leakage of the aminotic sac suggests destruction of the developing fetus, comparable disruption in the protective function of family portends the destruction of human rational and social life. The family (biological kin or tribal relations) represents the prototypical womb over developing life, whose function is to insulate, buffer and immunize that life to insure its development and expansion. Therefore, a functioning family must move defensively when it observes anti-life forces at work.
Certainly, this becomes a frightening commentary on contemporary society when we observe the state of the family. These nurturant and protective functions which we have described have been seriously handicapped by the deterioration both structurally and functionally of what is currently conceived as family. The natural family sees itself as responsible for the developing life of all its members and all of its members are viewed as developing life.
The idea of the family in Unification theology is strikingly similar to the concept of the natural family which we have discussed above. In "The Principles of Creation," it is stated:
The basic unit of the Kingdom of Heaven is the true family, the basic Four Position Foundation. The true family is the basic foundation for God's vertical and horizontal love and the perfect object of God's Heart. With this true family as a base, a true society, true nation, and true world would have been realized.5
This concept that the family is fundamental for the establishment of wider relationships is quite consistent with the foregoing discussion. One dimension added by the concept of the "natural family" is the identification of "God's blessing" in an even more basic manifestation, i.e., the womb, where we can observe the processes of family at work and available for study and application. The man/woman relationship and the human relationship to God are viewed as basic, but one has a recourse only to "Divine instruction" in order to understand the process of those relationships. By observation of the fundamental expression of family which we have described as the womb, we can observe concrete examples of how family should work and what should occur in the relationship. Obedience to God becomes parallel to respecting and observing natural law. What is described in Divine Principle as man's relationship to God, is viewed as man's understanding, and relationship to natural processes as being critical to establishing the "ideal family."
Certainly the concept of the "natural family" may be viewed as somewhat reductionistic when compared with the rather elaborate theological system centering around the concept of family in Unification theology. The thesis of this discussion is that societies fulfill their fundamental assumption about the nature of their relationships. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he," we are told in the Bible. Therefore faith in the concept that family is a basic blessing from God and that it has been given by God as fundamental for man's development, creates a view of family life as inalterable, potentially harmonious and guided by certain universal principles. It is this ontological difference in the view of family which makes family life functional and minimally problematic for Unification believers, but creates gross difficulty for the Freudian, Behaviorist or others who operate from a set of assumptions which do not view family life as axiomatic for human development.
Despite the somewhat non-Western way that marriages are arranged within the Unification movement, there is considerably greater success in establishing functional families than one finds outside of that movement. Marriage partner selections are made by the religious leader, Rev. Moon, and the duration of the courtship and the ultimate blessing of the marriage is given by Rev. Moon. The freedom to choose one's marriage partner without interference is viewed as a fundamental freedom by the criterion of most Western thought. This freedom is rather strongly defended because of the Western assumption that marriage and family life are "individual" matters or matters between "individuals." The Unification believer understands that marriage and family life are matters between man and God and one who is most knowledgeable of God's way is probably best qualified to make such selections.
One assumption that apparently operates within the Unification concept of family is that intermarriage between ethnic and racial groups will facilitate the development of the "one world family." Marriage between Occidental and Oriental, Black and White is viewed as a step toward resolution of world hostilities between such alienated groups. The concept of the natural family presupposes the establishment of one's nurturance within his "tribal" group as a prerequisite for "human relations." In other words, the person can be adequately nurtured in the higher group only if he/she has been adequately nurtured in the lower community. If one has a negative concept of self or an ignorance of self as a result of inadequate nurturance from the mother or biological relations, then it is difficult to undertake tribal relations. However, there is a presumed "automatic" readiness for good human relations if one has been able to establish good "tribal" relations. So, unlike the Unification procedure, world brotherhood grows naturally from good, mutually accepting tribal brotherhoods. However, the process of restitution may require some extreme grafting procedures in order to reestablish natural family life.
The African-American family has been particularly ravaged by contemporary deterioration as well as the historical disasters of slavery and oppression. The various Christian denominations have not consciously focused on family life and, therefore, have not been particularly successful in fostering strong family values among African-Americans. Many of the positive moral values fostered by most Christian churches have done much indirectly to strengthen the African-American family. The one religious group which has explicitly directed its efforts towards restitution for the African-American family has been the Islamic religious community in North America. Particularly, has this been the case for the Nation of Islam, led for forty years by the late Elijah Muhammad and subsequently under the leadership of his son, Waarith Deen Muhummad in its present structure as the American Muslim Mission.
Certainly the accomplishments of the Nation of Islam in this regard are probably most widely known. In Elijah Muhammad's rather basic language, he suggested:
Until we learn to love and protect our woman, we will never be a fit and recognized people on the Earth.... My beloved brothers in America, you have lost the respect of your woman and therefore you have lost the respect for yourself. You won't protect her; therefore you can't protect yourself. Your first lesson comes from your mother. If you don't protect your mother, how do you think you look in the eyes of other human beings?6
Elijah Muhammad rather directly equated respect for womanhood with the positive development of family life. His analysis concluded that slavery and oppression in America had damaged the family by undermining respect for the black woman as well as resulting in the black woman's loss of respect for herself. Restitution of family life could be accomplished by the restoration of respect for the woman. He encouraged the black woman to respect herself and avoid self-negating identification with white women. Mr. Muhammad instructed his followers to:
Stop women from trying to look like them. By bleaching, powdering, ironing and coloring their hair; painting their lips, cheeks and eyebrows; wearing shorts; going half-nude in public places; going swimming with them and lying on beaches with men....Stop them from going into bars and taverns and sitting and drinking with men and strangers. Stop them from using unclean language in public (and at home), from smoking and drug addiction habits. Nothing but Islam will make you a respectable people.7
These prohibitions, directly addressed to women in this context were similarly enforced for men.
Elijah Muhummad established classes for women (The Muslim Girl's Training and General Civilization Class) and for men (The Fruit of Islam Class). These classes instructed men and women in proper conduct and respect for each other.
Family life was identified as the only proper Islamic life. Premarital and extramarital relations were strictly prohibited. Violation of this restriction was punishable by public exposure and temporary suspension from the Muslim community life. The community served as the primary source of enforcement for the strict marital code of the Nation of Islam. These prohibitions are not unlike those expounded by the Unification Church. The Church community serves as the vehicle tor enforcement, much as the Islamic community did. The consequences of violation are not quite explicit in the literature of the Unification Church. Both groups see marriage and family life as a fundamental religious responsibility. Men and women are encouraged to observe these restrictions out of a direct obligation to God (Allah).
There is an additional element in the teachings of the Nation of Islam which stands in stark contrast to the position of the Unification Church. This relates to the issue of racial intermarriage. One objective of the Nation of Islam was not only the restitution of family life but the restitution of racial pride which had also been systematically destroyed during slavery and subsequent oppression of African-Americans. Elijah Muhammad, no doubt felt that self-love was fundamental. He observed:
One of the gravest handicaps among the so-called Negroes is that there is no love for self, nor love for his or her own kind. This not having love for self is the root cause of hate (dislike), disunity, disagreement, quarrelling, betraying, stool pigeons and fighting and killing one another. How can you be loved, if you have not love for self?... Love yourself and your kind.8
As a result, his interpretation of intermarriage was as a device of self-rejection. Mr. Muhammad insistently suggested that:
The white man does not want us to destroy their race by intermarrying with them. They will even kill you to protect their women. Can you blame them? No, blame your foolish self for not having enough respect tor your own self and your own nation to do likewise.9
Not unlike many staunch Caucasian segregationists, Elijah Muhammad equated integration with intermarriage:
You educators, you Christian ministers should stop preaching integration. The most foolish thing an educator can do is to preach interracial marriage. It shows the white man you want to be white....What are we going to integrate for? What do you want to marry a white woman for, when we are Black men? That is going to ruin our family. We will spot up our family. What does she want a black man for? Or what does the black man want the white one for?10
Mr. Muhammad clearly equated family destruction or destruction of the black man/woman relationship with destruction of the race. He said:
Today, the white race, the black man's worst enemies, has planned to make a last try to destroy the black man by pretending to be their friends and allow intermarriage. Many Americans (especially the Southerners) don't like the idea, but will finally be persuaded by their more learned men when they see no other way of making a final stroke at the black man.11
This concern about destruction of the race is also reflected in his admonitions regarding birth control. It is interesting to note that while Elijah Muhammad acknowledged the religious motive for the admonition, racial preservation was of foremost consideration He observed that:
Using the birth control law against production of human beings is a sin that Allah (God) is against and for which he will punish the guilty on the day of Judgment. Both the Bible and Holy Qur'an's teachings are against birth control... The motive behind these schemes is not designed to promote the welfare of black families, but to eliminate these families in the future.12
The selection of marriage partners is another area of contrast between the Nation of Islam and the Unification Church. Both groups clearly acknowledge that God (Allah) through his representative(s) is best qualified to make a wise choice of a marriage partner. Whereas this privilege is reserved for Rev. Moon himself (with occasional input from local officials) by the Unificationists, a more decentralized posture was taken by the followers of Elijah Muhammad. In the Nation of Islam, selection of marriage partners was strictly regulated by the local leader of the women's organization of the Temple (Mosque) who was referred to as M.G.T. (Muslim Girl's Training, etc.) Captain, and by the men's F.O.I. (Fruit of Islam) Captain in consultation with the Temple's minister. The selection was usually an individual choice, though approval by these officials was necessary in order for the marriage to occur. Occasionally, certain members were matched or encouraged to "talk" with each other by Temple officials. Marriage without such approval was prohibited by the community.
It is important to keep in mind that most of the procedures regulating marriage and the establishment of family life were altered with the death of Elijah Muhammad, the ascendancy of his son Waarith Deen Muhammad and the subsequent revamping of the Nation of Islam to the American Muslim Mission. As of 1975, all of the above procedures were rather radically modified with no diminution of the importance of family nor the Divinely prescribed basis for family life. Waarith Deen Muhammad, the son of Elijah Muhammad and current leader of the American Muslim Mission, has taken the homespun philosophy of his father's and placed it into a sound Islamic theology framework. WD. Muhammad says:
We say that God created male and female from a single being, and from the male and female spread many countless children. Human society starts when a man and a female come together, accept to live with each other, and decide to become one family to multiply themselves. According to the teachings of Islam, when two people come together to form a union, they come to each other as two halves, not as two wholes. The Holy Qur'an teaches us that the creation of the species began with a single being. That single being was made into two beings (male and female) to form the human family as we know it.13
This fundamental concept that family is established by Allah (God) and that the relationship between man and woman is an inalterable and axiomatic relationship serves as the foundation for the Islamic conception of family. The view of man and woman as separate halves (a reality validated by biology) is critical in understanding the correct match between male and female and the foundation of their relationship as being the growth of society and the human family as a whole.
The writer has been greatly influenced by Islamic ideas, the writings and lectures of Waarith Deen Muhammad. The fundamental hypothesis of this paper is rooted in basic Islamic thought. As WD. Muhammad observes:
Islam is a religion that is in accord with the natural life of the people. Simplicity is highlighted throughout the religion. When you understand the simple rules of nature, you see that Islam is not complicated.14
In fact Islam is referred to as the din ul fitr or the faith which is based on the order of nature. Our point is that this fundamental alteration in how family life is viewed has had probably the most profound impact on improving the family life of its predominantly African-American membership. Muslim families in large urban centers where the pressures on family dissolution are maximal have thrived in much greater proportions than comparable families. Again, as with Unification followers, we attribute this to the view of family life contained in the theology or worldview of the Muslim. As with Unification theology, family life is viewed as Divinely inspired, inalterably natural, potentially harmonious and the pathway for social and personal development. The family unit is viewed as essential for religious growth as well as for the flourishing of the Islamic community. It is essentially this idea which ties together the Unificationist, the members of the Nation of Islam and the members of the American Muslim Mission. Both Rev. Moon and Imam WD. Muhammad emphasize the religious foundation of family more than did the Honorable Elijah Muhammad who acknowledged the religious function but clearly emphasized the tribal (or racial) function of family. Certainly, the social situation and the needs of African-Americans as well as other people have changed considerably since the mid 1930s when Elijah Muhammad began his teachings. Perhaps, it is because of Mr. Muhammad's emphasis on racial pride for forty years that Rev. Moon and Imam Muhammad can present a meaningful raceless concept in the 1980s.
Waarith Deen Muhammad strongly objects to the ethnicizing of the Islamic religion and takes exception to the tremendous racial emphasis of his father. Instead he suggests that the principles and practice of Al-Islam and strict adherence to Quranic injunction are adequate for the establishment of strong family life while maintaining the early emphasis of his father that family life is the basis for a good Islamic life.
An irony is that despite Elijah Muhammad's anti-establishment, anti-Christian and pro-black conception of marriage and family life, the vast majority of marriages were performed by sympathetic Christian ministers, justices of the peace or other public officials, once the match had been approved by Temple officials. Since the leadership of Imam WD. Muhammad, the marriages have been performed by Muslim Imams (ministers) who are licensed as official clergy in the areas where they live. Many couples married under the administration of Elijah Muhammad through the old procedures had remarriage ceremonies during the early years of WD. Muhammad's administration. A similar detail of interest is that these ceremonies were originally performed only by WD. Muhammad, and it was some time before people accepted the authority of other Imams to perform their marriages. As the Unification movement continues to grow, "The Blessing" which is currently reserved for Rev. Moon may be assigned to others, although this will initially generate some degree of distrust of the new procedure as occurred when WD. Muhammad discontinued the practice and dispensed the responsibility of the local ministers (Imams).
Unlike the practice of the Unification movement, marriage partners are personally selected, but the selections are highly regulated by religious and social considerations. Muslims are highly encouraged to marry those who believe like themselves or those most closely related in belief (Christians). Again W.D. Muhammad observes:
Both the male and female come from a family, so each of them has blood ties with the family that is very close to them. The Holy Qur'an says that these family ties, which are very dear and very precious in one's life, are to be respected and revered.15
Similar to the Unification concept of family, the shared focus on Allah (God) is the fundamental principle for family development.
The Holy Qur'an tells us that "He that obeys God and His Apostle has already attained the highest achievement." Of all the saving powers that we have in our marriage, the best one is obedience to Allah and obedience to the instruction that we receive from the Holy Prophet.16
But as we observed above, the principles for the functioning of the marriage are found in Divine Instruction and in the laws of nature.
Family life is rapidly deteriorating in modern technologically developed, basically Western society. The consequence of this deterioration is far-reaching in terms of its impact on overall social organization and good human relationships. The argument has been put forth that one of the reasons for the difficulties faced by the modern family is the self-fulfilling prophecy of the limistic concepts of family life which are primarily coming out of social science theories. The concept of family as an alterable structure and the recent upsurge in efforts to identify alternatives to traditional family life have grown out of these misguided academic perspectives. Medical science's developments in discovering alternative methods for reproduction outside of the family structure and revisions in the societal ethical standards which legitimize such alternatives have created additional support for the need to modify the concept of family.
Such ambiguity about the nature and process of the family has created the atmosphere which feeds family dissolution. The hypothesis has been put forth that the family is a natural structure which is inalterable and unique in its function. It is described as fundamental for the development of the person, for the society as a whole and for human relations in general. The principles guiding family functioning are fairly clearly inferred from the functioning of the womb itself which is described as the prototype of family.
Efforts to restore the family have met with only sporadic success in the modern societal context. Two relatively successful examples are the work of the Unification movement and the American Muslim Mission. The elements held in common by these models are not dissimilar to the Islamically inspired model of the Natural Family developed in this discussion.
1 W. Mondale, "Government policy, stress and the family," Journal of Home Economics (Nov. 1976), p. 12.
2 Ibid., p. 12.
3 S. Helgsen, "Theoretical Families: Honor thy Children." Harper's, (Jan. 1982), p. 16.
4 S. Freud, "Civilization and Its Discontents," in The Standard Edition, vol. 21. (London: Hogarth Press, 1955), p. 113.
5 CH. Kwak, Outline of the Principle: Level 4 (New York: Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unif. of World Christianity, 1980), p. 24.
6 Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman (Chicago: Muhammad Mosque of Islam No. 2, 1965), pp. 58-59.
7 Ibid., p. 60.
8 Ibid., pp. 32-33.
9 Ibid., p. 60.
10 Ibid., p. 319.
11 Ibid., p. 107.
12 Ibid., pp. 64-65.
13 Wallace D. Muhammad, The Man and the Woman in Islam (Chicago: Hon. Elijah Muhammad Mosque No. 2, 1976), p. 17.
14 Ibid., p. 17.
15 Ibid., p. 20.
16 Ibid., p. 23.
Akbar, Nairn "Sanity for the African-American family." The Seventh Annual National Conference on the Black Family In America, Louisville, Kentucky, March 1980.
Freud, Sigmund. "Civilization and Its Discontents. "In The Standard Edition. Vol. 21. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.
Helgsen, S. "Theoretical Families: Honor thy Children." Harper's, 264, no. 1580 (Jan. 1982).
Kwak, C.H., Outline of the Principle: Level 4. New York: Holy Spirit Assn. for the Unif. of World Christianity, 1980.
Mbiti, J. African Religions and Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, 1970.
Mischel, W. Introduction to Personality. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981.
Mondale, Walter. "Government Policy, Stress and the Family," Journal of Home Economics, Nov. 1976.
Muhammad, Elijah. Message to the Blackman in America. Chicago: Muhammad Mosque of Islam No. 2, 1965.
Muhammad, Wallace D. The Man and the Woman in Islam. Chicago: Hon. Elijah Muhammad Mosque No. 2, 1976.
Nobles, W. "Africanity: Its Role in Black Families." The Black Scholar 5, no. 9 (1974).