On this page
Sections
What the Evidence Actually Shows
The empirical question is whether resentment ideologies cause the erosion of agency and family formation, or whether they are merely correlated. Honest inquiry requires saying exactly where the evidence is strong and where it is not.
Where the Evidence Is Strong
On agency, the evidence is strong. Research on locus of control has been replicated for over fifty years. Internal locus consistently predicts better mental health, higher achievement, greater persistence, and lower rates of depression.
On family structure, the evidence is also strong. The correlation between the rise of anti-family ideology and the decline of marriage is well-established historically. The outcomes of father absence — poorer mental health, worse academic performance, higher rates of behavioral problems — are documented across multiple large-scale studies.
Where the Evidence Is Contested
The causal direction of the correlation between ideology and family decline is genuinely contested. Economic factors — the decline of manufacturing employment, wage stagnation for men without college degrees, the expansion of the welfare state — are documented in the same period. Isabel Sawhill and others have argued the economic story explains more of the variance than the ideological one.
What We Cannot Claim
We cannot claim that resentment ideology is the primary driver of family decline. The evidence does not support that.
We cannot claim that all critique of the family is equally corrosive. Some critique has been justified and productive.
We cannot claim that everyone who participates in identity politics is resentful. That would be a stereotype, not an analysis.
What We Can Claim
We can claim, with confidence, that the resentful frame is structurally incompatible with the voluntary, particular, long-term attachments that family life requires.
We can claim that internal locus of control predicts better outcomes across a wide range of measures. We can claim that the pattern observed in the data is consistent with the causal hypothesis, even if it does not prove it.
Orwell and Solzhenitsyn
“It is an astonishing thing that few journalists, even in the Left wing press, bother to find out which names are and which are not resented by members of other races.”
George Orwell, 1943 columnOrwell is not criticizing the reporting of racial grievance. He is criticizing the assumption that grievance is the most important fact about a person — the reduction of a human being to a wound.
“Hatred and resentment will never get you anywhere. They are the most barren feelings in the world.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Candle in the WindA sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.
Proverbs 14:30, KJV
Honest Conclusion
The evidence is sufficient to warrant the claim, but not sufficient to close the question. This is not a weakness. It is the nature of honest inquiry in a domain this complex. What we can say with confidence is that the resentful frame is not neutral — it does something to the person who holds it.
Sources & Reports
Where the evidence is contested, the hedge appears in the text itself.
- Rotter, J. B. Psychological Monographs 80, no. 1 (1966). See also Judge & Bono (2001), Ng, Sorensen, & Eby (2006).
- McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. Growing Up with a Single Parent. Harvard UP, 1994.
- Lacey, R., et al. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2022.
- Sawhill, Isabel. Generation Unbound. Brookings, 2014.
- Orwell, George. Column, 1943.
- Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. Candle in the Wind. 1960.