Marriage, which used to be the default way to form a family in the United States, regardless of income or education, has become yet another part of American life reserved for those who are most privileged.

Fewer Americans are marrying overall, and whether they do so is more tied to socioeconomic status than ever before. In recent years, marriage has sharply declined among people without college degrees, while staying steady among college graduates with higher incomes.

結婚曾經是美國人組織家庭想當然的方法，與個人收入多寡或教育程度無關，如今卻已成為美國人生活中保留給享有最大優勢者的另一個部分。

整體而言，結婚的美國人變少了，而且是否結婚也比以往任何時候，更與社會經濟地位息息相關。近幾年，沒有大學學位者結婚率銳減，收入較高的大學畢業生結婚率則維持穩定。

Currently, 26 percent of poor adults, 39 percent of working-class adults and 56 percent of middle- and upper-class adults are married, according to a research brief published from two think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute and Opportunity America.

In 1990, more than half of adults were married, with much less difference based on class and education: 51 percent of poor adults, 57 percent of working-class adults and 65 percent of middle- and upper-class adults were married.

根據兩家智庫「美國企業研究所」和「機會美國」公布的研究報告摘要，現今，26％的貧窮成人，39％的工人階級成人，以及56％的中產與上層階級成人屬於已婚族。

1990年，成人中已婚者超過半數，而且階級和教育造成的差異也小得多：51％的窮人，57％的工人階級和65％的中產和上層階級成人已婚。

A big reason for the decline: Unemployed men are less likely to be seen as marriage material.

“Women don’t want to take a risk on somebody who’s not going to be able to provide anything,” said Sharon Sassler, a sociologist at Cornell who published “Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships” with Amanda Jayne Miller last month.

結婚率下降的一大原因：失業男性較不可能被看待成結婚的對象。

康乃爾大學社會學家雪倫．沙斯勒說：「女性不想在無法提供任何東西的男人身上冒險。」上個月，沙斯勒和亞曼達．珍．米勒共同出版了《同居國度：性別、階級，與關係重塑》一書。

As marriage has declined, though, childbearing has not, which means that more children are living in families without two parents and the resources they bring.

“The sharpest distinction in American family life is between people with a bachelor’s or not,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins and author of “Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working-Class Family in America.”

儘管如此，在結婚率降低之際，生育率卻未見下降，意謂有更多的兒童是在非雙親，也沒有他們所帶來的資源的家庭中生活。

約翰霍普金斯大學社會學家安德魯．契林說：「造成美國家庭生活最大差距的，是人們是否擁有大學學歷。」契林著有《勞工失去的愛：美國工人階級家庭的興衰》一書。

Just over half of adolescents in poor and working-class homes live with both their biological parents, compared with 77 percent in middle- and upper-class homes, according to the research brief, by W. Bradford Wilcox and Wendy Wang of the Institute for Family Studies. Thirty-six percent of children born to a working-class mother are born out of wedlock, versus 13 percent of those born to middle- and upper-class mothers.

The research brief defined “working class” as adults with an adjusted family income between the 20th and 50th percentiles, with high school diplomas but not bachelor’s degrees. Poor is defined as those below the 20th percentile or without high school diplomas, and the middle and upper class as those above the 50th percentile or with college degrees.

據「家庭研究中心」Ｗ．布萊德福．威爾科克斯與溫蒂．王所做的研究摘要，與生身父母共同生活的青少年，在貧窮工人階級中略超過50%，中產與上層階級有77%。工人階級母親所生的孩子，有36%非婚生，中產、上層階級則為13%。

研究摘要的「工人階級」定義為調整後家庭收入介於第20到第50百分位之間，有高中文憑但無大學學歷的成人，中產和上層階級的定義則是高於第50百分位，或有大學學歷的成人。

說文解字看新聞

文／王麗娟

文章主要討論大學學位（college degree, bachelor's degree）對美國人婚姻（marriage）的影響。文中的工人階級 （working class）因只有高中畢業，收入（income）較低，因此較難步入婚姻，近幾年結婚率因此陡降（sharply decline），反觀中產階級（middle-class）和上層階級（upper-class）的結婚率則維持穩定（stay steady）。

工人階級因此在婚姻中喪失優勢、特權（privilege），成為部分基本權利被剝奪、弱勢的一群（the underprivileged），而中產和上層階級則成了享有特權與優勢的一群（the privileged），文章標題因此稱婚姻成了優勢的標誌（mark of privilege）。

How do you tell a story about the destruction of the world?

Movie- and TV-makers know how to do it with aliens, of course, or suggest it with invented political intrigue and rogue leaders. But capturing the real global threat of climate change is far harder than filming any spaceship landing. Just ask Darren Aronofsky, whose recent thriller, “Mother!,” buried his climate-change message in allegory.

你會如何講述一個關於世界毀滅的故事呢？

電影與電視製作人當然知道如何以外星人來講述世界毀滅的故事，或以虛構的政治陰謀與乖僻的領導人當故事背景。不過，捕捉真實的全球氣候變遷威脅遠比拍攝任何太空船登陸畫面要困難。這一點， 去問近來推出驚悚片《母親！》、將他的氣候變遷訊息埋藏於寓言中的戴倫．亞洛諾夫斯基就能知道。

“It’s really tough,” said Fisher Stevens, the filmmaker and actor. “It’s not a very sexy subject, and people just don’t want to deal with it and think about it.”

But getting Hollywood movies about climate change made is not easy. And when they do refer to it — as did the Roland Emmerich 2004 disaster flick “The Day After Tomorrow” — they rarely do much to galvanize the public to action. Even well-intentioned filmmakers with carefully drafted cautionary tales often miss the mark, climate scientists say.

導演兼演員費雪．史蒂文斯說：「真的很難。它不是個十分迷人的主題，人們不想去處理和思考這事。」

然而，要好萊塢製作有關氣候變遷的電影並不容易，而即使真的觸及氣候變遷，也鮮少努力喚醒大眾採取行動，2004年羅蘭．艾默里克的災難電影《明天過後》即為一例。氣候科學家說，即便是出於一片好意且擁有精心起草警世故事的電影製片人，也往往未得要領。

Part of the problem is simply plot, said Per Espen Stoknes, the author of “What We Think About When We Try Not to Think About Global Warming.”

“As opposed to terrorism or drugs, there is no clear enemy with climate change,” he said. “We’re all participating in the climate crisis — if there is an enemy, it’s us. And it’s hard to go to war against ourselves.”

《我們對自己嘗試不去思考全球暖化問題的看法》（暫譯）一書作者柏艾斯潘．斯托克尼斯表示，部分問題純出在劇情。

他說：「跟恐怖主義和毒品不同的是，氣候變遷並無明顯的敵人。我們都是氣候危機的參與者。若有敵人，就是我們自己，跟自己開戰是很難的一件事。」

And when climate change is depicted on-screen, it is often in an onslaught of fire and brimstone, an apocalyptic vision that hardly leaves room for a hopeful human response. That, climate researchers and social scientists say, is exactly the wrong message to give.

But that is just the kind of high-stakes film that Hollywood loves to produce — like “The Day After Tomorrow,” which depicted New York City as a frozen dystopian landscape. Or “Geostorm,” due Oct. 20, in which the climate goes apocalyptically haywire, thanks to satellites that malfunction.

當氣候變遷展現在銀幕上時，往往是硫磺烈火肆虐的世界末日景象，幾乎未給人們帶有希望的反應留下任何空間。氣候研究者與社會科學家則表示，這正好釋出了錯誤的訊息。

然而，這恰好是好萊塢喜歡拍的那種高風險電影，例如將紐約市拍成冰封的反烏托邦景象的電影《明天過後》，或是10月20日上映的電影《氣象戰》，片中描述了氣候受到衛星故障影響而大亂的情形。