DOCUMENT RESUMEED 021 884 (A 002 139By- Herzog ElizabethUNMARRIED MOTHERS: SOME QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED AND SOME ANSWERS TO BE QUESTIONED.Pub Date Oct 62Note- 12p.Journal Cit- Child Welfare; v41 n8 Oct 1962EDRS Price MF-S0.25 HC-$0.56Descr:iptors- CAUCASIANS, CENSUS FIGURES CULTURAL FACTORS, IDENTIFICATION, *ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS

1NCONE. INTELLIGENCE LEVEL MARRIAGE NEGROES, POPULATION TRENDS RACIAL DIFFERENCES *RACIALFACTORS SLAVERY, SOCIAL MOBILITY, *SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS TEENAGERS *UNWED MOTHERS

This article discusses trends in the occurrence of out-of-wedlock births andfactors which contribute to or are associated with illegitimate pregnancies. Specificallydiscussed are the rates of increase of such births, particularly among unmarriedteenage mothers, and the ethnic, social, and psychological characteristics of unwedmothers. It is felt that the rise in illegitimacy is substantial but not alarming" and thatout-of-wedlock births are related both to socioeconomic and racial factors, but thatsocioeconomic factors are probably more significant. (LB)

ctuz.

J ...-U .S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

TO ERIC AND OROMMATIOn OPERMIA THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THEWIER MEOWS WITH THE U.S. OrFlt

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSEDUCATIOR. FURTHER RESOI3UR101: OUTTHE floc sysim REQUIRES PERMI&SIO STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION'LAE COMMIT GOER."

!" POSITION OR POLICY.

Unmarried Mother. SomeQt./legions T.o Be Answered.and Some AnswersTo Be Questioned _

Two of the main needs in research and

practice related to unmarried mothersare: to learn some of the things we havenot yet discovered and to unlearn some

we mistakenly think we know. The double

need applies to statistical facts and to

theoretical formulations, and this articleconsiders both in the light of availableresearch evidence.

AMINIIMMENI

ELIZABETH HERZOG

When people talk about the problem of un-married mothers or the problem of birthsout of wedlock, it is 'often like the old storyof the blind men and the elephanteachhas hold of a different part and seems tobe describing a different animal. The refer-ence may be to the unmarried mothers them-selves, or a particular group of themteen-agers, say, or perhaps women with four orfive out-of-wedlock children. Or the refer-ence may be to the problems faced, the =V-ices needed, the tax burden caused by allthese unworthy dependents, moral valuesor social conditions, or a number of otheraspects.

I found myself trying to picture the prob-lem as an elephant, with each part of himlabeled for a different aspect. But I gave

CHILD WELFARE

it up, because no elephant has enough parts.Any adequate portrait would have to includeat least a herd of elephants, with their tusksand trunks all intertwined and tangled.

I have had occasion during the past yearto interview a number of research peoplewho are especially interested in problemsrelating to births out of wedlock. My re-marks here are in effect a report on thesediscussions, plus a good deal of browsingin the literature. This is the kind of exercisesometimes referred to as a "survey of ex-perts."

For convenience I will refer to these ex-perts as my respondents. Some of them Ihave interviewed at considerable length,with discussion back and forth about whatwe know, what we need to know, and whatwe thought we knew that turned out notto be so. Some I have merely read, gleaningtheir opinions on these same points fromthe printed page. Obviously, I have mademy own selection of respondents, of points,and of opinions.

My respondents did not, nor shall I, makemoral or ethical pronouncements. As re-search investigators, our responsibility is toanalyw and to report, providing backgroundfor decisions and actions guided by values.Nevertheless, the attention given to the sub-

ELIZABETH HERZOG is Chief of theChild Life Studies Branch, Division of Re-search, Children's Bureau, U. S. Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare, Washing-ton, D.C. This paper was presented at theCWLA Eastern Regional Conference, Balti-more, Maryland, March 1, 1962.

,COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTEDI-Ulf Atlinglit

Tit IIIVIPS.AnCE OFOctober 1962"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE MIS

BY--g---LI 4 We I -Cara. EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE

THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSION OF

THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.", j

jectby researchers as well as by others--reflects the assumption that our illegitimacyrates pose serious problems, that reducingthem would be good, and that failure toreduce them is bad.

Defining the Problem

My respondents were almost unanimouslyconcerned about defining the problem. Arewe concerned about illegitimate births?Are we concerned about extramarital con-ception? Or are we concerned about extra-marital coitus? Let us be clear about it, theyinsist, because the ways of coping with thesethree different levels would be different andmight, to some extent, be incompatible.

For purposes of this paper, we are talk-ing about unmarried mothers and illegitimatebirths. I shall refer to them as unmarriedmothers, even though a considerable numberof illegitimate pregnancies occur duringmarriage, between marriages, and aftermarriage.

The survey of experts brought out threemain questions that serious researcherswould most like to have answeredthreequestions, # ach of which trails a host ofothers. These three are:

1. How big is the problem?2. Wbo are the unmarried mothers?3. What factors contribute to, or are as-

sociated with, births out of wedlock?I will try to indicate under each question

some of the reasons they thought we shouldlearn more about it.

Question One: How Big Is the Problem?

The first question can be studied fromtwo viewpoints: How big is the problem inabsolute numbers and how big is it relativeto other numbers? Our galloping publicitymakes us more familiar with the absolutethan with the relative picture. We are con-stantly being reminded that the number ofbirths out of wedlock has risen radically.In the twenty years between 1938 and 1958it has more than doubledfrom less than100,000 to more than 200,000 (see ChartI).1. 2 And if we look at birth rates ratherthan the absolute numbers, the increase iseven more striking.8

How we perceive a problem and its

340

HERZOG

BIRTHS OUT OF WEDLOCK TO WHITE AND NONWHITE MOTHERSIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, I9313I9513

mousoce OF ILLEGIVIAATE 81137115225

200

175

150

125

100

73

50

25

01338 1943 1948 1953 Is5411

CHART I

Source: Bureau of Public Assistance, Illegitimacyand Its Impact on the Aid to DependentChildren Program, 1960.

causes strongly conditions what we are ableand willing to do about it. The nature ofour perception of this one is suggested bythe frequency with which we hear referenceto the "alarming" rise of births out of wed-lock. A number of my respondents asked,"How alarming is the rise?" They did notdoubt that the rate had gone up, but theydid suggest tin:. if it could be seen incontext, perhaps it could be viewed withoutalarm. This would be so salutary, both forour peace of mind and for our unmariedmothers, that it seems worth considering.

Those who dwell on the alarming aspectof the increase sometimes forget that it ispart of an over-all increase in the totalnumber of live births and also in the birthrates. These rates, in turn, reflect changesin the number of women of childbearingage, in their age distribution, and in changesin marriage rates and in average family size.

1 No figures later than 1960 were available, andsome go back to 1957. Unless otherwise specified,figm es quoted are from the Bureau of the Census orthe National Office of Vital Statistics.

2We are much indebted to Mr. Francis McCarthyof the Friends Neighborhood Guild, who producedthe charts for us, and to the Friends NeighborhoodGuild for making his services available.

3 By rates is meant the number of births out ofwedlock per 1000 unmarried women of childbearingage.

October 1962 CHILD WV7

Unmarried Mothers

Marriage rates and family size, in their turn,respond to economic conditions, war andpeace, and perhaps other more elusive in-fluences.

If we look at illegitimate births as part ofall live births; we see them in a context ofgeneral increase. Chart 11 shows the increasein all live births, with the black segmentat the bottom showing the increase in birthsout of wedlock. The rate of increase amongillegitimate births has been a little faster thanthe over-all rate. In 1958 out-of-wedlockbirths represent about one percentage pointmore than in 1938, as a proportion of alllive births. How much of this increase isreal and how much is merely apparent is amoot question. But one point to be recog-nized for the moment is that the main in-crease is part of a total picture. It is notthat suddenly and erratically illegitimatebirths have shot up, and that this is an iso-lated phenomenon to be dealt with as acrisis. It is rather that gradually, over aconsiderable period, births out of wedlockhave shown the same tendency to increasethat characterizes all births. We are tryingto cope, not with a crisis, but with a long-term trend.

There are, of course, disagreements aboutinterpreting the togetherness of birth ratesin and out of wedlock. People ask, whyshould the two rates stay neck and neck?Why should the things that make total births'go up also affect illegitimate births? Thequestion is not unreasonable. Nevertheless,a gradual increase in these rates, which is ofa piece with rates for all live births, is a dif-ferent phenomenon from a sudden spurt thatrepresents a departure from the rates forother live births. It seems more accurateto view it as part of an over-all picture andthen to consider how we can make it di-verge from the over-all trend rather thanto view it out of context as a lonely andsomewhat monstrous phenomenon. Whatforces cause the rise or fall in all birth ratesis a grand and challenging question, beyondthe scope of our present discussion.

Another point to be recognized is thatthe problems arising from births out of wed-lock are not due to the increase. They aredue to the phenomenon itself, which hasbeen with us for a long time, and of whichthe increase per se is only a fraction. Had

CHILD WELFARE October 1962

TOTAL LIVE BIRTHS AND ESTIMATED ILLEGITIMATEBIRTHS, 1940 MB, IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES

tom. we sums 1..0n3MATI SHOSSITISAATC 11111111%

voo,too

knows

SANksos

-N.

\k**

kMs.

NL.N.

1

N

Ins 1143 Mb,

CHART II

Source: Bureau of Public Assistance, Illegitimacyand Its Impact on the Aid to DependentChildren Program, 1960.

the births out of wedlock not gained on thebirths in wedlock, the top of the black seg-ment (on the right side of the chart, 1958)would be just a little lower than it is. Theproblem, however, would still be with us,and probably we would still be writing aboutit. The appropriate focus of attention, then,is not the sliver that represents the increase,but the segment that represents continuityrather than crisis.

This point seems worthy of considerationbecause the crisis view invites reactions offear and hostility. Not only are these emo-tions destructive in themselves, but theyoften constitute blocks to communicationand problem-solving.

One point a good deal more prominentin the minds of my respondents than in thedaily press is that our national figures onbirths out of wedlock are estimates, basedon reports from thirty-five states. The tend-ency to forget this is no fault of the Na-tional Vital Statistics Division (more fa-miliar under its former name, National Officeof Vital Statistics). In addition to per-forming a remarkable job of reporting andanalysis, this office continuously supplies uswith model statements of limitation. If everynews story about statistics on unmarriedmothers carried one of these excellent para-graphs at its head, probablywell, prob-

341

ablythey would seli fewer papers. It wouldbe well, however, for those of us who areconcerned with understanding this explosivecomplex of problems to ponder these limit-ing statements.4

My respondents were not inclined to viewthe present figures as overestimates. Someof them, however, question the magnitudeof the reported increase in rates. The rea-sons are probably familiar. Despite carefulestimates we are not sure about the effectsof the constant improvement in reporting.It seems possible that accurate allowancefor changes in reporting would substantiallyreduceand perhaps even eliminatethatone percentage point by which illegitimatebirths have outstripped total live births inamount of increase during the last twentyyears.

This, of course, would not reduce thecurrent illegitimacy rate. It would merelyput the rate in line with the picture oftotal live births, or perhaps show it increasingat a slower pace. Thus, the rate of increasewould be converted from an alarming riseto a more gradual and therefore presumablyless alarming one.

Doubts about the rise have been with usfor a long time. About seventy years ago astudy of illegifimate briths in Massachusettsreported a gradual increase in rates of illegit-imacy over the preceding forty years, butwarned that the increase might be more ap-parent than real and might, in fact, be dueto improvements in reporting.

The crisis view of our subject is often as-sociated with reminders that the number ofteenage unmarried mothers has increasedgreatly, that they represent 40 percent ofall unmarried mothers, and that this is thelargest proportion for any age group. Allthree statements are true, as Chart III shows.Here we see that, in 1959, 40 percent of theunmarried mothers were under twentythe largest proportion for any five-year agespan.

It is also true, for many reasons, thatperhaps we need to be more concerned aboutthe teenage unmarried mother than aboutany other, no matter what proportion of the

4 Illegitimate Births: Fact Sheet (Washington, D.C.:U. S. Department of Health, PAlucation, and Welfare,Public Health Service, National Office of Vital Sta-tistics, April 15, 1960).

342

HERZOG

ESTIMATED ILLEGITIMATE LIVE BIRTHS,BY AGE OF MOTHER:UNITED STATES, 1959

/=-!EMI

1E0111

A1111111IS TSARS

ASISIltawssmIc MINN& age,' STAlUTICS, wawa taw. :myna. Sinswe

CHART Ill

whole she represents. That proportion, how-ever, is not in itself the reason for concern.To view it without alarm might help toview it without hostilitywhich, in turn,might help communication and understand-ing between generations.

The Teenage Unmarried Mother

Four points help to put in perspectivethe teenage unmarried mother as a statistic.One is that the majority of unmarriedmothers are not teenagers (see Chart IV).If we look only at those below twenty andthose above twenty, the configuration israther different from that presented by ChartIII. The so-called "older mothers"that is,those above twentyaccount for 60 per-cent, as compared with 40 percent for theteenagers. It might perhaps be added thatin 1938 the proportion was not 40 percent,but 48 percent. In other words, the teen-ager accounts, not for a larger, but for asmaller proportion of the unmarried mothersthan before.

A second point for perspective is that,although teenagers do not constitute a ma-jority of unmarried mothers, they do con-stitute a majority of unmarried women ofchildbearing age. Chart IV shows that in1960 teenagers represented 68 percent ofour unmarried female population of child-bearing age, while unmarried women be-tween twenty and forty-four represented 32

Ociober 1962 CHILD WELFARE

Unmarried Mothers

ESTIMATED ILLEGITIMATELIVE BIRTHS

BY AGE OF MOTHER:UNITED STATES,It59

Na,Avv.w4 carNMINfAtTlf SNOWSMAIM WM 117177STIC T LIIMMW

UNMARRIED FEMALEPOPULATION,14-44YEARSOF AGE, BY ME GROUP:

UNITED' STATES,I/60

AWMAre 1Nnes 44.MAPICSISMIC Mani MO

abrti"'W.:44.39.4r[MK Arnen"Vali,"11"4 Antea'VX/19".

CHART IV

percent.6 Thus, the teenageras she surelyshould beis underrepresented in the popu-lation of unmarried mothers. Not as muchunderrepresented as we would like to seeher, and as we should surely try to makeher. But the implications of the frequentlyquoted figure seem unfair.

A third point for perspective is that, al-though rates of illegitimate births have in-creased since 1938 for all women of child-bearing age, they have increased least of allfor the teenager. Chart V shows the increasesbetween 1938 and 1957 for each age group.These increases, it should be repeated, repre-sent rates rather than numbersthat is, theyshow the number of children born out of wed-lock per 1000 unmarried women of child-bearing age. In 1938, the rate for teenagerswas higher than for any age group exceptthose twenty to twenty-four years old. Ac-cording to our latest figures, however, therate among teenagers is lower than for anyage group under thirty-five.

My last point for perspective is perhapsthe most important of the four. This is thatin the last few years for which we havefigures-1956 to 1958the teenager repre-sents the one age group that has shown noincrease in rates of illegitimate births. It is

a In Chart IV it was necessary to combine figuresfor 1959 and 1960. There was not enough changebetween those two years, however, to affect our pictureappreciably.

CHILD WELFARE October 1962

ESTIMATED ILLEGITIMACY RATES, BY ME OF MOTHER:UNITED STATES, MS ANDItS7*

411- Val ROL ON IINIMMOI nto.un 144 so" UAW

- 38* 111311AU SP MIMI. IN °MRS

es *wok smovriu mow or emu stivraiww

CHART V

hard to understand why this fact is so under-played in the midst of viewing with alarm.If we accept the national estimates at all,why do we keep saying the number of birthsto teenage unmarried mothers has increasedby so many thousands, and never addbutin the last few years, the rates have not in-creased? Actually since 1947 the rate forgirls fourteen and under has been constant.°

I have never seen a headline to this effect.I have hardly seen a mention of it in a newsstory. What I do see is highlighting of thehigh number of illegitimate births for every1000 live births to girls under seventeen; andthis figure is usually quoted with no referenceto the fact thatdespite our decreasing- ageat marriagerelatively few girls under seven-teen are childbearing wives, so that mothersunder seventeen are likely to be unmarried.

When I ask why we are so bent on em-phasizing this particular negative, I am usu-ally told that the only way to get people todo something is to rouse them up into apanic. This view has its points, but it alsohas its weaknesses. Certainly soothing syrupis not generally recommended as a stimulant,but neither are panic and hostility recom-mended as the best recipe for problem-solv-ing. These problems are serious enough to

6 Joseph Schachter and Mary McCarthy, Illegiti-mate Births: United States, 1938-57 (Washington,D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, Public Health Service, National Office ofVital Statistics, 1960), Table F, p. 231.

343

command sober rather than frantic attention.And so far, panicking the public has notpaid off in reduced iaegitimacy rates.

Question Two : Who Are theUnmarried Mothers?

The second and third questions high-lighted by my respondents are: Who are theunmarried mothers; and what factor> can weidentify that contribute to, or are significantlyassociated with, births out of wedlock? Takentogether, these two questions represent theresearcher's cagey way of approaching thequestion, whywhich he knows by ex-perience almost never allows itself to beanswered in broad daylight.

Although questions two and three are inessence inseparable, I shall separate them.Separating the inseparable is, of course, oneof the research habits found so irritating bypractitioners. But discussion, like research,often requires pulling things apart in orderto see how they fit together. Accordingly,under each one separately I will mention afew points on which some familiar answersare being qualified or challenged.

Describing Unmarried Mothers

Who are the unmarried mothers? Fourfamiliar answers have influenced assump-tions about who they are.

The first of these concerns mentality.Time was when it was commonly said thatlow intelligence was significantly related tounmarried motherhood. Perhaps there hasbeen a real change in this correlation. Orperhaps we have become more alert to thelimitations of certain intelligence tests forpeople not proficient in the language or themores. Or perhaps we are more alert tosampling problems. A study of the twenties,for instance, described the unmarriedmothers who had been sent to a psychiatricclinic for testing as representative of thoseknown to social agenciesapparently with-out considering that the very reasons forwanting them tested might constitute a differ-ence between them and the others. In anycase, recent studies do not encourage an as-sumption that inferior intelligence is es-pecially associated with, and may contributeto, unmarried motherhood.

344

HERZOG

The second stock answer concerns brokenhomes. Here- again, sophisticated samplingraises doubts. It is probably true that a largeproportion of unmarried mothers do comefrom broken homes. However, the incidenceof broken homes is very high among thegroups with high out-of-wedlock birthratesthat is, the low-income groups, bothwhite and nonwhite. It has yet to be estab-lished, however, that the broken home ismore characteristic of unmarried mothersthan of other women in these groups. In fact,some studies explicitly absolve it.7 This isa point on which more evidence is needed.

The third answer concerns geographic mo-bility. It is often said that unwed motherhoodis most frequent among the newest migrantsfrom the South to the North or from ruralto urban environment. The explanations of-fered are persuasive. A few recent studies,however, show less illegitimacy mong veryrecent arrivals than among those who havebeen longer exposec: to urban influences.8Until this point is resolved, one can no longerwith any comfort put the onus on the new-comer.

The fourth familiar answer is often theonly one given to the question: Who are theunmarried mothers? The terms used varyamong emotional disturbance, psychologicaldisturbance, disturbed parent-daughter rela-tionsusually mother-daughter. Most fre-quently this answer involves the assumptionthat out-of-wedlock pregnancy is the unmar-ried mother's solution to her intra- and inter-personal problems, that her pregnancy is notaccidental but quasi-deliberate, and that herpersonality and problems conform to a regu-larly recurringin fact almost invariablepattern. Often there is a lip-service recogni-tion that unmarried mothers are not all psy-chological identical twins. Yet a doctoraldissertation published as late as 1958 candeclare roundly that all unmarried mothersshow the same traits and have become preg-nant through the same psychological mechan-ism; and a serious article dated 1956 can de-

7 F. Ivan Nye, "Child Adjustment in Broken andin Unhappy Unbroken Homes," Marriage and FamilyLiving, XIX (1957), 356-361; and Virginia Wimperis,The Unmarried Mother and lier Child (London:Allen and Unwin, 1960).

Jane Collier Kronick, "An Assessment of ResearchKnowledge Concerning the Unmarried Mother," Re-search Perspectives on the Unmarried Mother (NewYork: CWLA, 1962).

October 1962 CHILD WELPARB

Unmarried Mothers

_

dare that pregnancy out of wedlock is neverreally accidental and that these girls can be-come pregnant almost at willeven thoughfailure to use contraceptionmay help a little.

A root of conflict in testimony about whothe unmarried mothers are seems to be that,through the years, the most available sub-jects for study have been me clieme of socialagencies, and generalizations about the un-married mother have typically reflected thecharacteristics of agency or clinic clientele.

The evidence supports at least one unqual-ified statement. So far no single trait or condi-tionphysical, intellectual, or emotionalstands Up as the overwhelming constantcharacterizing the unmarried motherex-cept, of course, bearing a child out of wed-lock. Nor is there convincing evidence that,among those who do suffer from emotionaland interpersonal disturbances, one patternis overwhelmingly preponderant. To thosewhose business is the assessment of evidence,it is surprising that statements as sweepingas the one cited can still be made.

Clark Vincent is the investigator who inrecent years has most emphatically and con-vincingly pointed out the distortions in ournotions of who the unmarried mothers are,and some of the consequences of these dis-tortions. When he presented evidence thatsome unmarried mothers are relatively ma-ture, upstanding, and economically self-suf-ficient, lie added an essential and long-lostpiece to our picturea piece consistent viththe neglected message of our national statis-

cs. The results of his studies, and of histhinking about them, are brought togetherin his recent book, Unmarried Mothers,which offers our field something like a shotof iron and vitamins.9 He asked a simplequestion: Who are the other unmarriedmothersthe ones who do not form ourcaptive populations for study, in agenciesand on relief rolls; the ones who are overtwenty and supplied with cash and able toleave home to bear their out-of-wedlockchildren, whom they then placeall secretlyand without benefit of agency? This questionhe proceeded to begin answering, and in do-ing so he began sketching in the lines of amore balanced and realistic picture than hadbeen accepted before.

9 Clark E. Vincent, Unmarried Mothers (New York:The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961).

CHILD WELFARE October 1962

The neglected group he added to ourken represents a minority of unmarried moth-ers, but an important one. They are whitegirls and women, chiefly of the middle- andupper-income levels. It is generally concededthat the great majority of unmarried motherscome from low-income trackets. We do notknow exactly how large a proportion, but myrespondents agree that we would do well tofind out.

We do know how large a proportion arenonwhite, according to the national estimates.The overrepresentation of nonwhites amongbirths out of wedlock is a familiar theme.Moreover, our national figures show the ratesfor nonwhites increasing more than the ratesfor whites."

Sources of Difference

Some of my respondents voiced skepticismabout the size of the differences betweenillegitimate birth rates for whites and fornonwhitesdifferences in present rates andalso differences in the rate of increase. Al-most no one doubted the existence of adifference. Several suspected, however, thatif relevant factors could be controlled, thedifference in rate at a given time would beradically reduced and the difference inamount of increase might be wiped out.

The difference in amount of increase hasundoubtedly been affected by improved re-porting of all births, an improvement fargreater for nonwhites than for whites, asestimated by the National Office of VitalStatistics.'1 Thus, a considerable portion ofthe apparent nonwhite increase does seemattributable to improved reporting.

An unknown element in reported differ-ence is represented by the fact that the stateswhich do not report illegitimacy are the veryones to which white unwed mothers are mostlikely to travel, in order to give birth secretlyand place the child in adoption, with the il-!egitimacy reported neither in the state ofbirth nor in the mother's state of residence.

10 Nonwhite is the classification used in our nationalfigures. About 92 percent of the nonwhite populationis Negro.

11 Vital Statistics of the United States, 1959 (Wash-ington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education,and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Officeof Vital Statistics, 1961), Section 3, Natality Statis-tics, Table 3.1).

345

These states include, among others, NewYork, California, and Massachusetts.

One source of real disparity between whiteand nonwhite rates is that the over-all rateis higher for nonwhite births than for whitebirths, and has increased moreas shownin Chart VI. We see both higher rates and asteeper climb on the nonwhite sideagain apicture paralleled iu the out-of-wedlockbirths.

Another source of real difference betweenwhite and nonwhite rates is socioeconomicstatus. We have no national figures directlyrelating unmarried motherhood to social-economic level. One of the few unchallengedstatements that can be made on this subject,however, is that the overwhelming majorityof reported births out of wedlock are tomothers on the low-income levels. A recentstudy in New York City, for example, es-timated that less than one in twenty of the il-legitimate births during the study period oc-occurred to private patients.12

The extent to which births out of wedlockare concentrated in the lower economiclevels has been computed by a sociologist,drawing on the data of the Kinsey group andsome other investigators. According to hiscomputation, out of 100 middle- or upper-class white girls who have premarital coitus,one will have an illegitimate child; while out100 lower-class Negro girls who follow thiscourse, seventeen will bear children.13

This proportion is in large measure a re-sult of the fact that, according to availableevidence, fewer middle- and upper-classwhite girls will conceive because most ofthose who have coitus will use contraception;and fewer who conceive will bear childrenbecause 90 percent will have abortions, ascompared with 30 percent of the low-incomeNegro girls."

There is ample evidence that contracep-tion is disliked and feared by lower-classwhites as well as by lower-class Negroes, and

123ean Pakter, Henry J. Rosner, Harold Jacobziner,and Frieda Greenstein, "Out-of-Wedlock Births inNew York City: ISociological Aspects," AmericanJournal of Public Health, LI (1961), 683-697; "IIMedical Aspects," American Journal of Public Health,LI (1961), 846-865.

18 Howard Stanton, unpublished manuscript.14 H. Paul Gebhard, Wardell B. Pomeroy, Clyde E.

Martin, and Cornelia V. Christenson, Pregnancy,Birth and Abortion (New York: Harper & Bros. andPaul B. Hoeber, Inc., 1958).

346

HERZOG

BIRTH RATES, BY COLOR:UNITED STATES,I940 -1959 (AGE-SEX-ADJUSTED)

I.

41

30

20

10

........0..

..*-...mg,~WWI ... .1/4. ..

*Pe' WHITE...........

_l___I A. I 1 tA II /1__ILIILI_L_ltiO Mt

CHART VI

Source: National Office of Vital Statistics, VitalStatistics of the United States, 1959,Section 3, Natality Statistics, Table 3-E,1961.

far more by males than by females. Manyfind abortion too expensive or too frighten-ing, and to many it is so unthinkable thatthey do not reach the stage of fear.

If the small segment of unmarried mothersabove the lower socioeconomic level werededucted, it would be appropriate to base therates only on the low-income population.But that part of the population represents amuch larger fraction of the whole for thenonwhites than for the whites, as Chart VIIshows. These figures present income forfamilies rather than for individuals. Themessage is familiar, but sometimes a pictureof what we know makes it more vivid. Thepeak of nonwhite family income is between$1000 and $2000 per year. The largest pro-portion of white families fall between $5000and $6000. If we arbitrarily accept $3000as our cutting point, almost one-half of thenonwhite population falls below it, as com-pared with not quite one-fifth of the white.If we cut at $1500, 24 percent of the non-white and 7 percent of the white family in-comes fall below itover three to one. Ifour rates of illegitimacy could be figuredagainst the base that produces most birthsout of wedlock, that base would include amuch smaller proportion of whites than ofnonwhites, and the difference in rates wouldbe reduced by a sharp rise in the white rates.

October 1962 CHILD WELFARE

Unmarried Mothers

TOTAL MONEY INCOME OF FAMIUES, WHITE AND NONWHITE,

UNITED STATES, 1960PIS aNT OF FAMMIS

21%

le%

1% itI

"ILIIaim kenokse 10 AIN UM, WM KM

1111111141111COM locKsiwasS,Kgut vrakIkbour,12.0s. vawavanwAwit.,0,31.%

114141,7StOi0161,411S

NNW Itatil

PAM SUM* pr:: mr.4. MU"

CHART VII

Source: Bureau of the Census, Series P-60, No. 36,1961.

Question Three: What Factors Are Asso-ciated with Births Out of Wedlock?

Our first two questions concerned my re-spondents' urge to check assumptions aboutthe dimensions of a problem and the identityof those most involved. Question three con-cerns their wish to check assumptions aboutfactors contributing to, or associated with,unmarried motherhood. The main challengesto widely accepted ideas cluster about thosetwo iffy factors, cultural background (specifi-cally the Negro-white distinction) and socio-economic status. These are, quite reasonably,the two factors whose contributions to par-enthood out of wedlock my respondentswould most like to understand better. Theywould like to be more clear about the rela-tive and absolute importance of each one,about their manifestations, their interaction,and their shifts through time. These factorshave been studied a good deal and are stillbeing studied, in connection with our presentsubject and with several others. And it segmsclear that some often-heard statements andassumptions about them require modificationin the light of available evidence.

A frequent feature of such statements istheir absolute quality. When historical andcultural factors began to be mentioned asthrowing light on current behavior, it wasby way of counteracting stereotypes. An ef-

CHILD WELFARE October 1962

fort was made to introduce additional con-siderations that might help to explain be-havior in all its complexity. But these addi-tional considerations have somehow becomenew means to oversimplification. A patphrase"it's the culture"is used, not tohelp explain, but to brush aside the need forexplanation. And so in its turn the culturereference becomes a sort of neostereotypethat blurs rather than sharpens our picture.

This rubber-stamp substitute for thoughtfails to do justice io the complexities of cul-ture itself. Among those who have been mostexplicit in reminding about and illustratingthese complexities are John Rohrer and hisco-author.15 I recommend their discussionas an antidote to the oversimplifications Iperpetrate here.

I have said that the two factorsor fac-tor complexesmost compelling to my re-spondents are the cultural and the socio-economic. In our society, however, the cul-ture constellation of each individual is vastlyaffected by his social-economic position. Theinterest of my respondents in the relation ofthis position to unwed motherhood is largely,in fact, an interest in the "culture of pov-erty:, le

Under question three I shall concentrateon cultural influencesethnic or socioeco-nomicpartly because they cover so manyfacets and partly because they represent theoutstanding interest of my respondents. AndI shall comment on only two of the severalstatements and assumptions they challengedor qualified.

1. High on the list comes the slavery-specific culture thesis: that is, the proposi-tion that illegitimacy rates among low-incomeNegroes derive primarily from a "Ne-gro culture" produced by the situation underslavery. One difficulty with this propositionis that slavery is a hundred years behind us.crowded years, during which many influenceshave affected the family life and sex patternsof us all. Another is that some characteristicslumped under the slavery-legacy label are

15 John H. Rohrer and Munro S. Edmonson, TheEighth GenPration (New York: Harper & Bros., 1960).

16 Oscar Lewis, "The Culture of Poverty," presentedat the National Conference on Social Welfare, Min-neapolis, Mirn., 1961; and Thomas Gladwin, "TheAnthropologist's View of Poverty," The Social WelfareForum (New York and London: Columbia UniversityPress, 1961).

.armmi.M.1.11111

347

characteristically found also among low-in-come whites.

This convergence is the less surprisingwhen we consider that much of what is as-cribed to the culture of slavery isand al-ways was inherent in the culture of pov-prty, If Negroes harl tint hoot, dam ;In a

plantation setting but had been in as de-pressed an economic situation as the major-ity of them have been during and since slav-ery, the behavior of the low-income segmentwould probably show some of the elementsnow ascribed to slavery.

In discussing the culture of poverty, thegrinding elements of physical insecurity anddeprivation are occasionally neglectedthough not by those who have actually livedamong the very poor. Aside from these, acharacteristic often noted in report.; on theculture of poverty is lack of commhnd overone's own destiny. The poor, be they deserv-ing or undeserving, are on the whole more atthe mercy of circumstances they cannot con-trol than are the rich. This fact is frequentlylinked to a short, rather than a long, timeperspective. If you feeland to a consider-able extent arethe pawn of circumstance,there is little inducement to planfulness andfuture orientation. You make the best youcan of the moment. This lack of autonomyis at least as native to slavery as to poverty.

Associated with a tendency to presentrather than future orientation, in reports onthe culture of poverty, are a high degree offamily disorganization and a lack of com-mitment to the norms and values accepted bythe great society. I do not wish to belaboror even to explore the point here. I willmerely report that a number of my respon-dents think the influence of ethnic identifica-tion has been overemphasized and that ofsociai-economic status has been underempha-sized. This is not to deny that both exist.

The habit of analyzing data by colorrather than by income level has helped tosupport the slavery-specific thesis. Since amuch larger proportion of Negroes than ofwhites are on the lowest income levels, whatlook like statistically significant differencesbetween Negroes and whites may also looklike significant differences between differentsocial-economic levels. But if the figures arepresented only in one way, we don't find outabout the other,

HERZOG

A few studies have done it both ways, withilluminating results. Clark Vincent, for ex-ample, found differences both by class andby race in the way unmarried mothersdescribed their relationships with the puta-tive fatherwhether love, friendship, or(much less often. than is commo-nly as-sumed) a casual and transitory relation.The income level appeared to be the strongerin this study, but the color influence did notby any means disappear.17 This may, meanthat both are significant, . and I know offew investigators who would deny that bothare, although a good many consider incomelevel the more importantas it appears tobe in Vincent's data and in some otherstudies."

At the same time, almost no study ofunmarried mothers so far has succeeded inan adequate breakdown by income level.There is sometimes a tendency to assumethat the low-income level is homogeneous.Yet it has its own layers, and a much largerproportion of Negroes than of whites occupythe lower ones. A number of investigatorshave succeeded in documentingthough notin exploring fullythe existence of theselayers within layers, as well as their crucialsignificance."

Current evidence, then, indicates thatneither a Negro culture nor an income levelcan be used as a tag to wipe away theneed for looking closer. The label alone willnever tell what we need to know about justwhich elements derive from each, how theymanifest themselves, and how they interact.

2. A corollary of the slavery clich6 is theoften-heard statement that no stigma at-taches to illegitimacy among low-incomeNegroes. This statement usually carries theimplication that no stigma means no penaltyand that this means it doesn't matter whetherone is born in or out of wedlock. Here isthe catch. The evidence does indicate thatthe social stigma for the low-income Negrois nothing like that suffered by the middle-

17 Vincent, op. cit.18 Henry J. Meyer, Wyatt Jones, and Edgar F.

Borgatta, "The Decision by Unmarried Mothers ToKeep or Surrender Their Baby," Social Work, I, No. 2(1956), 103-109; and Henry J. Meyer, Edgar F. Bor-gatta, and David Fanshel, "Unwed Mothers' DecisionsAbout Their Babies," CHILD WELFARE, XXXVIII, No.2 (1959), 1-6.

19 See, for example, Gebhard, et al., op. cit.

34 8 October 1962 CHILD WELFARE

Unmarried Mothers

or high-income Negro or white person. Butto be born in wedlock and to have yourchildren born in wedlock is a decided socialplus, and a gratification; and if it is partof a stable marriage, it can be a tremendoussource of emotional support and pride. Aninterviewer in a Chicago study told aboutthe unwed mother of several children whokept in the honor place of her room a largepicture of her sister in full wedding regalia.She quickly made an opportunity to callattention to the picture, with the greatestpride and gratification, as if her relationshipto a regularly married woman was a statussymbol worth displaying.

Apparently the plus value of regular mar-riage is stronger in some circles than theminus value of no marriage. There is an oldYiddish proverb that says: Money is not sogood as the lack of money is bad. Here onemight say: Lack of marriage is not so badas having a marriage is good.

Yet the lack is by no means a matter ofindifference. Some low-income mothers prayfor boys in order to avoid "trouble" for theirdaughters, and when trouble comes thereis grief and anger, even though there is alsothe strong conviction that you stick to yourown, take care of your own, never turn themaway. There is also a revulsion against forc-ing a marriage between a girl pregnant outof wedlock and the putative father, unlessthey really love each other. Apparently thestigma is not enough to make an unhappymarriage more desirable than an out-of-wedlock birth. On the contrary, a girl maytake pride in waiting until she is "sure sheloves him"even though this assurancecomes after the baby is born. (Some of thesecontrasts between high- and low-income atti-tudes toward marriage offer interesting foodfor speculation about the function of mar-riage for different groups.)

Our purpose here is to note what is chal-lenged, and on what grounds, rather thanto provide the intricate answers required.Some answers are available, however, andsome are being supplied or reinforced bystudies already published or still in process.Among the latter, the study of low-incomefamilies in the District of Columbia, directedby Hy lan Lewis, is one source of challengeto easy generalizations and of informationto fill the gaps left when they topple.2° For

CHILD WELFARE October 1962

me it is a major source, on which I am draw-ing heavily right now.

Among the complex of reasons for thedistortion implicit in the stigma cliché, oneis a prevailing assumption that people havea single, consistent set of values, directlymirrored in their daily lives. Most of usknow this is not necessarily so. In relationto illegitimacy, we have abundant evidencethat prevailing middle-class norms mayrepresent an approved pattern, but one con-sidered unattainable by people who com-fortably continue to act as if those normsdid not exist. "Beggars can't be choosers,"is the way one unwed mother put it. Theexistence of a dual set of values must berecognized in order to make sense. Oneobserver comments that "the lower class sub-scribes to the general values of the societyand also has values unique to itself. . . ."". . . legal marriage and a non-legal union

. . are two types of acceptable maritalpatterns. . . . This is not to say that thesetwo patterns are equally valued." 21 A realis-tic picture of the relation between valuepreference and actual behavior must recog-nize both the acceptability of patterns thatviolate middle-class norms and the highervalues put on those norms.

Efforts To Bring About Change

My respondents did not spell out thebearing of their questions and challenges onreduction of illegitimacy problems, althoughseveral implications are clear. The main one,I think, is the advanta-e of improving ourinformation on the challenged pointses-pecially our information about the cultureof the groups that provide most of our un-married mothers. For experience has shownthat in order to change a culture one shouldknow it. And anyone who wants to reduceproblems relating to births out of wed-lock wants to introduce cultural changeswhether the clulture involved is the cultureof poverty, the culture of nonwhite groups,

zo Hylan Lewis, "Child-Rearing Practices AmongLow-Income Families," Casework Papers, 1961 (NewYork: Family Service Association of America, 1961), .pp. 79-92.

21 Hyman Rodman, "On Understanding Lower-ClassBehavior," Social and Economic Studies, VIII (1959),441-450. See also William J. Goode, "Illegitimacy inthe Caribbean Social Structure," American SociologicalReview, XXV (1960), 21-30.

349

110115MRIRRIIMIEssieNern

or the culture of youthwhich I have de-liberately omitted here. Although full com-prehension of the culture to be modifiedmay not guarantee ability to bring aboutchange, miscomprehension will probablyguarantee inability to do so.

"Know the culture" is the first of fiveaxioms often invoked by those experiencedin effective introduction of culture changeaxioms which are perhaps a collective equiv-alent of some casework axioms. The secondaxiom is: "Know what change you want tobring about, and how." The third is: "In-still motivation for change." A good manyinvestigators, these days, link the behaviorpatterns of low-income levels to currenttheories of anomie and opportunity struc-ture discussed by Merton, Oh lin, Cloward,and others.22 If an individual feels he isnot part of the great society, they say, ifhe feels that the avenues to its rewards areblocked, then he is unlikely to live by therules of that society. Some part of him mayprefer the rules accepted by those whomthe society accepts. But if the goals do notseem accessible to him, he is not motivatedto exercise the self-discipline and energyinspired by belief that something is to begainedor even just that he belongs.

A number of current studies are testingout different facets of this theory in differentways. If it stands up, practical realism wouldfavor trying to apply it. For, unlike some,it concerns a part of the environment thatwe are able to manipulate.

The fourth axiom is: "Show that changeis feasible by giving a taste of success." Thisis a principle effective in underdevelopedcountries, in helping school children catch

. cc See, for example: Robert K. Merton, SocialTheory and Social Structure: Toward the Codificationof Theory and Research (Glencoe, The FreePress, 1951); and Richard Cloward and Lloyd E.Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity (Glencoe, Ill.:The Free Press, 1960).

350

HERZOG

up with their classmates, and also in workwith so-called multi-problem families, amongwhose multi-problems is illegitimacy. lf,in the beginning, tasks and projects are withinthe grasp of the performer, so that he canbelieve success is possible and taste its ("rati-fications and results, the mainspring for mo-tivation to further effort has been achieved.

The fifth axiom is: "We must want changeenough to be willing to pay for itin what7ever currency and amount may be required."This, people are seldom prepared to do.

We have been trying over and over thingsthat do not detach the illegitimacy ratesfrom the total birth rates and bend themdownward. One thing we have tried is ex-hortation, a method in vogue since Biblicaldays. Another is depriving the deprived, andstill another is putting a cash premium onfatherless homes. It seems reasonable to siftthe evidence for leads to more promising ap-proaches.

Summary

I have mentioned a number of points inan effort to make only a few. What I havebeen trying to say can be summed up underthree statements:

1. Seen in context, the rise in illegitimacyrates is substantial but not alarming, meritsconcern rather than panic or rage, and canbe coped with best if viewed without alarm.

2. The behavior patterns responsible formost out-of-wedlock births are related bothto the culture of poverty and to the cultureof an ethric group, but the socioeconomicfactors are probably more significant.

3. If we want to bring about change wemust be clear about what we want to changefrom and what we want to change to, wemust demonstrate the value and the feasi-bility of change to those whose behavior wewant to modify, and we ourselves must wantit enough to put in what it takes.

11. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPRODUCED EXACTLY- AS RECEIVED IRON THEPERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. FONTS OF VIEW OR 03:NIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRES:::NI ()fried!POSITION OR POLICY.

October 1962 CHILD WELFARE

1