Thursday, December 5, 2019
Individualism and Family Values free essay sample
This essay will examine the historical evolution of notions of ââ¬Ëfamily valuesââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëindividualismââ¬â¢, using historical criticism and semiotic analysis; it will demonstrate how these terms have historically been very fluid and tied to the socio-cultural concerns of their day. Focus will be on establishing a historiography of the key terms, from the late Elizabethan to the modern era. Particular attention will be paid to the Victorian era, wherein, this essay will argue, the true archetype for the modern ââ¬Ënuclear familyââ¬â¢ was established. This essay will look at key works of art throughout the stated timeframe, works reflective of the eraââ¬â¢s common sentiment, in order to establish socio-cultural patterns. The aim of the essay will be to show that the anti-collectivist, increasingly nuclear, and specifically consumer-based nature of modern ââ¬Ëindividualismââ¬â¢ is inimical to traditional conceptions of family values. when considering individualism and its effect on traditional family values, it is important to clarify the understanding of the terms. In terms of Individualism and for the sake of analytical focus this paper shall stick to a relatively modern conception of the word: ââ¬Ëindividualism connotes a dynamic capitalist economic rationalityââ¬âutilitarian, competitive, and profit-maximisingââ¬âinimical to the supposed torpor of feudal and tribal mentality alikeââ¬â¢ (Meer, 1). On a more fundamental level it could be said that individualism is the opposite of collectivism; it refers to the endeavour, the interests, and, to some degree, the gratifications, of a single person rather than a group of people. The concept of traditional family values is rather more complex. Even within the confines of the United Kingdom, one familyââ¬â¢s notion of ââ¬Ëtraditionââ¬â¢ may vary greatly from anotherââ¬â¢s. After all, the U. K. is a heterogeneous society, comprised of many religious, cultural, and ethnic groups; which is to say the U. K. is the composite of many traditions. Nevertheless, for the sake of simplicity, this paer will adopt a working definition, one which roughly approximates a conventional majority of U. K. society. With slight modification, according to the critic Collinsââ¬â¢(2011, 47) the description of a traditional Western family will serve the purpose. Traditional families, then, encompass: ââ¬Ëheterosexual, racially homogenous couples who produce their own biological childrenââ¬â¢ (here, we may append nominal Christian religious affinity). Such families have ââ¬Ëa specific authority structure, namely, a father-head earning an adequate family wage, a stay-at-home wife and mother, and childrenââ¬â¢. Moreover, the traditional family, states Hill Collins, has overtones of being a ââ¬Ëprivate haven from a public worldââ¬â¢ (2011, 47). The obvious temptation in this instance is to dismiss individualism outright as contradictory to traditional family values. On the surface, the family seems after all to be a microcosm of collectivism, the very antitheses of individualism; and, undoubtedly, in large part this evaluation holds true. However, this explanation is somewhat monolithic and irons over some of the more problematic subtleties of the case; indeed, individualism presupposes a kind hermetic insulation that would not be possible in the familial context, and vice versa. The reality is that the two concepts are not so hermetic, and are in fact bound to overlap. Consider that for the majority of history the family unit was very much a strategic entity, a way of forging advantageous marital and blood ties. This particular tradition, as one critic has noted, is a longstanding staple of ââ¬ËEurasian family patternsââ¬â¢ (Lal 2006, 178). Considering that, until very recently, males have monopolised authority within the family unit, it is not too difficult to perceive in the tactical manoeuvres of allied kinship, a distinctly individualistic bent. At every level, notes one critic, ââ¬Ëfamilies looked to dynastic marriage strategies to find greater wealth and powerââ¬â¢ (James, 39). In which formulation, we may safely presume, the will of the father was paramount. The altogether calculated manner of pre-modern wedlock is vividly captured in much literature of the time. Vivid examples include Shakespeareââ¬â¢s Romeo and Juliet, wherein the mutual love of the eponymous protagonists is superseded by a blood feud between their respective families; or in Taming of the Shrew, where the prudent father, Baptista Minola, using his children like bartering chips, cannily withholds permission for his much coveted daughter Bianca to marry, before her shrewish sister Katherina is also wed. There is something decidedly ââ¬Ëunlovelyââ¬â¢, then, about the bulk of history concerning traditional ââ¬Ëloveââ¬â¢. As daughters were exchanged like chess pieces, in a paternal power play, certain other influences ensured a level of valour to these otherwise unromantic unions. ââ¬ËTraditionalââ¬â¢ values concerning ââ¬Ëthe sanctity of marriageââ¬â¢ were ââ¬Ëpreserved through the fierce guilt culture based on sin promoted by the medieval churchââ¬â¢ (Lal, 178). Much of this ââ¬Ëguilt cultureââ¬â¢ survived into the modern day, because Christianity has survived; consequently the Christian tradition of monogamous and (ostensibly) lifelong matrimony is still very much a part of ââ¬Ëmodern family valuesââ¬â¢, even if the religious fervour underpinning it is less ardent and literalistic than before. The necessarily religious tenor of marriage and thus ââ¬Ëthe traditional familyââ¬â¢ obtains not only to a physical collectivism, but a spiritual one also. Christianity, as one critic has it, ââ¬Ësets the values of universal providence and love against the prideful individualism of the sinnerââ¬â¢ (Meer, 47). That said, there is nothing innately selfless about wishing exclusively to possess another person. Contrarily, it is a rather selfish, individualistic act, as is monogamy in general; to pursue such a line of enquiry, however, would be to stray from ââ¬Ëtraditionalââ¬â¢ thought and moral stricture and that is a transgression bearing harsh penalties. In which regard, the unhappy fates of two Daniel Defoe (anti) heroines, the eponyms of Moll Flanders (1721) and Roxana (1724), come to mind: their deliberate transgression of sexual and marital mores provoked public censure. The bedrock of normative matrimony was not easily broken. As the narrator of Jane Austenââ¬â¢s Pride and Prejudice (1813) famously averred, as the nineteenth century commenced, it was yet ââ¬Ëa truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wifeââ¬â¢ (1995, 3). Its is clear that Individualism, does not square with preindustrial ââ¬Ëfamily traditionââ¬â¢, which was largely opportunistic, strategic, and paternally calculated. Moral standards are of course wedded to their social contexts; and, as the Victorian era progressed, the ââ¬Ëtraditionalââ¬â¢ accordingly fell in line with consensus of the day. This accommodated a ââ¬ËRomantic individualismââ¬â¢, which was in part a reaction to Classical and Enlightenment stoicism which ââ¬Ëset universal reason above the merely personal passionsââ¬â¢ (Meer, 47). This ââ¬Ëindividualismââ¬â¢ vaunted subjectivism, imagination, and emotion; it was a kind of self-reflexive solipsism, as opposed to the more modern conception of a strictly self-serving egotism. Thus, for the Romantics, the concept of individual ââ¬ËGeniusââ¬â¢ held great sway; the lone exalted mind in dominion over its environs. Consider Caspar David Friedrichââ¬â¢s painting, Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (1818), with the sober and solitary watcher stood regally atop a rather wild and craggy rock-face. Also Wuthering Heights (1846), a book possessing ââ¬Ëa desiring individualism so violent and transgressive that it crosses the material world into the spiritual realmââ¬â¢ (Shires 2001, 66). This was not in itself inimical to traditional family values; although, it did precipitate a more emotionally involved approach to coupling and romantic love in general. This intellectual sea-change came concurrently with an important societal one: marriage partners, at this time came, to be ââ¬Ëfreely chosen, based on romantic love rather than economics or parental concerns, and the marriage relationship changed from being relatively unemotional and functional to warm and compassionateââ¬â¢ (Popenoe, 2009, 92). The old tradition, of strategic alliance, was supplanted by a new one, marriage for love. This new romantic and Romantic tradition, of truly ââ¬Ëloving unionââ¬â¢, was the precursor for modern traditional family values, as the industrial revolution was for modern mechanised society. As the former shaped family tradition, the latter set the stage for what would become the modern ââ¬Ëindividualââ¬â¢, as it is known today. As J. W. Childers (2001,80) observes, ââ¬Ëthe doctrine of individualism seemed to emerge as the soul of industrial culture . The Victorian era, was ââ¬Ëshaped by the growing power of the bourgeoisieââ¬â¢ (Plunkett, 170); this rising middle-class and their growing wealth, came to vie for influence with the aristocratic classes, as economic power looked to overtake hereditary privilege in terms of societal ââ¬Ëcloutââ¬â¢. Increasing meritocracy gave individual endeavour new credos. The growing force of Capitalism stressed the importance of private property and individual wealth, in leading to a better society. This contention persists today. For example, in a modern economics text book: ââ¬ËWealth leads to individualism, and poverty leads to collectivismââ¬â¢ (De Mooij 2010, 135). Growing urbanisation led, also, to increasingly insulated family units, the origin of the so-called ââ¬Ënuclear familyââ¬â¢. As all this capital-driven individualism transmuted avarice from vice to virtue, the deleterious effects on ââ¬Ëtraditional family valuesââ¬â¢ were unavoidable; this is largely because society overall was changing in ways that would render the ââ¬Ëtraditionalââ¬â¢ somewhat obsolete. The days of alchemy were in their last throes, to be finally supplanted by chemistry; as was astrology to fall to astronomy; Creation to evolution, and so on. In the face of so much fundamental transformation, the old traditions were inevitably at risk. The emergent industrial world also meant that, like today, family relations began to be deeply influenced by workplace relations (Kirkpatrick Johnson 2005, 352). Nevertheless, in the U. K. Queen Victoria, ââ¬Ëwas a pillar of family valuesââ¬â¢ (Plunkett, 170). The monarch utilised modern technology such as; photography, to promulgate a specific representation of herself and her family as ââ¬Ëordinaryââ¬â¢, ââ¬Ëtraditionalââ¬â¢ people. This created a potent paradigm of the traditional family to which others could aspire. Thus was deliberately ââ¬Ëconstructedââ¬â¢ as an ideal of tradition. Whether this ideal tallied with reality is not as important as the idea itself; for this symbolic gesture, toward a contrived ââ¬ËEnglish family traditionââ¬â¢, anticipates modern day mass-produced ideological media. As late as the eighties, Mitchell (2010, p47) states that Margaret Thatcher explicitly urged a return to ââ¬ËVictorian valuesââ¬â¢. One hopes Thatcher did not literally wish to revive the bigoted, disenfranchised, pseudo-scientific, repressed, racist, and colonialist ideals on which Victorian values hinged; it is the spurious, idealised paradigm of morally upright, industrious ââ¬ËGreatââ¬â¢ Britons upon which she presumably gazes back, through rose-tinted imaginings of British history (Mitchell 2010, 47). The precedent set by Victoria is that which prevails today, wherein a national myth is propagated at the expense of true rendition. Thus modern society on the one hand vaunts high ââ¬Ëindividualismââ¬â¢, material possession, and personal wealth as the cultural apotheosis, while, on the other, adverting the rectitude of traditional family values. Thus, in Britain, ââ¬Ëthe family is revered and the popular media are dominated by debates about the falling standard of British parentingââ¬â¢ (Storry 2002, 126). An inherent aradox underlies the above: the materialistic consumerism revered by late capitalism implicitly endorses a self-centred individualism that cannot rightly co-exists with the collectivist leanings of ââ¬Ëtraditional familyââ¬â¢, as either a pre-modern blood alliance, or a modern love-based family unit. Modern society insistently thrusts a materialistic, individualistic, consumer ideal in peopleââ¬â¢s faces and then complains that people are not upholding the traditional family values which that ideal refutes. Moreover, modern pervasive media, the dominance of the screen, and ubiquity of the internet, mean that individuals have more means of remaining isolated than ever before, more ways to be ââ¬Ëindividualisticââ¬â¢. Even still, the myth prevails; research suggests young men in the U. K. hold ââ¬Ëfirmly onto romantic notions of traditional family values and the male breadwinning role, even though many can now speak the language of equal opportunities and womenââ¬â¢s rightsââ¬â¢ (Arnot 2002, 193). The problem is how to reconcile these traditional notions with the un-traditional realities of modern society. The answer is simply to evade reconciliation, by means of obfuscation. The raging greed and individualism unleashed by Thatcherââ¬â¢s deregulatory policies had very little to do with the mythic Victorian virtues she espoused. The true product of her policy was more American Psychoââ¬â¢s (1991) Patrick Bateman, than the improbably virtuous Nell Trent from Dickensââ¬â¢s The Old Curiosity Shop (1841). Although ââ¬Ëtraditionââ¬â¢ is tethered to its epoch and moves accordingly, there are undeniably strains of consistent precept identifiable in traditional family values; sanctity of marriage, heterosexual coupling, productive, patriarchal, child-producing units, and the like. Modern society, wherein marriage is ever less ââ¬Ësanctifiedââ¬â¢ and sex for reproduction hardly the norm, is surely at variance with ââ¬Ëtraditional family valuesââ¬â¢ (not that this is necessarily a bad thing). The truth is that modern capitalist society is geared against the caring collective endeavour that traditional family values entail. The trend, Vern L. Bengtson and Ariela Lowenstein observe, is to ââ¬Ëroll back the stateââ¬â¢ and ââ¬Ëthereby release resources for individualism and free enterpriseââ¬â¢ (106). The removal of state provisions for the under-privileged, the increasing privatisation of education, the obsessive materialism of the modern U. K. is not compatible with traditional family values. Nevertheless, it is doubtless that the true, individualistic tenor of modern society will continue to be glossed over with the mythical and idealistic family paradigm, of what daily appears an increasingly spurious ââ¬Ëtraditionââ¬â¢.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.