Engines of Declinenby Allan C. CarlsonnDisturbing the Nest: FamilynChange and DecUnenin Modern Societiesnby David PoponoenHawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter;n390 pp., $49.95 (hardcover),n$24.95 (paper)nDisturbing the Nest is among thenfinest and most readable works ofncomparative sociology published in thenlast ten years, and the most effectivencritique of the Swedish welfare statennow in print. David Poponoe’s careful,nfully documented, and gently devastatingnportrait of modern Sweden surprisesnthe reader, in part, because Poponoenis himself a social democrat and annadmirer of the dream that motivatednthe “middle way” visionaries of then1930’s. He is also a prominent scholar,ncurrently at Rutgers University, andnauthor of the popular college textnSociology.nThe book succeeds because Poponoenis an honest man. He readilynacknowledges the biases found in hisndiscipline, and labors to overcomenthem. He notes that most of his colleaguesnrefuse to acknowledge thenmodern phenomenon of “family decline”nbecause they actually favor thenpassing of paternal authority, and thenvictory of women’s liberation, economicnegalitarianism, and sexual permissiveness:nthe very engines of decline.nThe discipline of sociology, henadds, “consists mainly of secularists.n… It is no secret either that mostnsociologists today are politically leftwingnon most social questions.”nPoponoe crafts a theory of “familyndecline” that rests on the historicalnmovement of Western peoples fromnthe “nuclear family-kinship system,”nrooted in tradition, toward a “postnnuclear-family system.” This new ordernis marked by the disappearance ofnthe extended kin group; a vastly curtailednrole for the nuclear family, withnthe job of childrearing assumed by thenstate; radical individualism; the disappearancenof marriage as a legal andnREVIEWSnsocial form; and a sexual ethic restingnon random liaisons.nThe architects of Sweden’s welfarenstate, he argues, sought to rescue thenfamily from the negative side of modernitynby transferring to governmentnmuch of the risk associated with children.nYet Poponoe’s analysis showsnhow the new system proceeded tondisrupt the very bonds of mutual obligationnit claimed to serve. The pursuitnof gender equality as “family policy”ncut the heart out of family life, asnaffirmative action programs and taxnreform corrupted the economic gainsnenjoyed in marriage. Ironically, thenSwedes thereby sacrificed the naturalnsocialism found in the family (the onenplace where the socialist slogan, “fromneach according to his ability, to eachnaccording to his need” actually works)nin favor of a feminist-guided individualism,na revolution now almost complete.nEven consumption, Poponoennotes, has been individualized in Sweden:nthe man in a household keeps andnspends his money, and the womannkeeps and spends hers, with limitednsharing of goods, while the childrennenjoy various state services and allowancesnfor their support. Gone is thenfamily as a meaningful institutional buffernbetween individual and state.nFamily decline in Sweden spawnednother results undreamed of by the socialnarchitects. Poponoe notes that fewnSwedes any longer care for each other,nin sickness or in health. Some call theirnsystem a “client society,” where “citizensnare for the most part clients of anlarge group of public employees whontake care of them throughout theirnlives.” Voluntary service of any kindnhas almost vanished, leading Poponoento conclude that “volunteerism andnfamilism go together, the one being annextension of the unpaid and informalncare giving that marks the other.”nPoponoe concludes that “the verynexistence of the welfare state compromisesnthe institution of the family.” Henthen compares results in Sweden withnfamily life in Switzerland, New Zealand,nand the United States, and showsnhow different policy choices producedndifferent results. The Swiss, for example,nhave few meddling bureaucrats, annnstrong commitment to local government,nand greater attachment to patriarchynand traditional gender rolesn(when the Swedes sent their wives tonwork in the 1960’s to meet a labornshortage, the Swiss imported moren”guest workers”). In New Zealand andnthe United States, a church-centerednlife and a turn to suburbs composed ofnsingle-family homes resulted, for antime, in strengthened traditionalism.nYet Poponoe concludes that these nations,ntoo, are on the Swedish path, andnthat the “pathologies of modernization”nwill drive them to a similar fate.nWith all that it does well. Disturbingnthe Nest has its flaws. One is thenauthor’s vague determinism, the sensenthat the spread of the “post nuclearfamilynsystem” is inevitable. He positsnevents that might turn the situationnaround (e.g., religious revival), butnwithout much conviction. Runningnthrough the volume is the sense thatnmodern peoples are flotsam, caught innhistorical currents beyond their control.nPoponoe also lets the architects of thenSwedish system off too easily. He arguesnthat “whatever has happened tonthe family as a result of welfare-statenactivities. . . seems largely an undesirednand unintended consequence…nand not an intended outcome.” Innfact, from the early 1930’s on, keynactivist Alva Myrdal pressed consistentlynfor a “family policy” that gave firstnpriority to feminist leveling, then to thensocialization of childrearing and thendestruction of the home economy.nWhile her husband, Gunnar, had somenmisgivings about what their generationnhad wrought, Alva always seemednpleased with modern, post-family Sweden.nFinally, Poponoe cannot shake freenof a lingering attachment to statism, asnwhen he writes that “the path to strongernfamilies ironically may involve increasingnrather than decreasing the interventionnof the state.” This statementnresembles the. “if we try harder, nextntime we’ll get it right” school of thoughtnfound, until recently, among the Marxists;nit also runs against the analysisnfound on the book’s other 389 pages.nBut perhaps it serves as an intellectualnfig leaf, the necessary cover for annOCTOBER 1990/39n