From patriarchal to nuclear family. The crisis of traditional values

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Moving on. We have already characterized the patriarchal traditional family. Now the time has come for an industrial revolution and industrialization. Remember from the lessons of history and social studies what an industrial society is? Industrial revolution. England, then continental Europe. And all this is from the 18th and 19th centuries. Did all of them have fives in history?

So, from those characteristics of an industrial society that directly affect our topic, the family, it is worth highlighting:

growth and development of education, science, culture, quality of life and infrastructure;

separately, the development of medicine and the emergence of evidence-based medicine are very important;

urbanization and population transfer to the city;

the formation of private property;

labor mobility of the population, as a factor in the fact that social movements have become unlimited

As for Russia, it is a "second echelon" country. We have the beginning of industrialization - this is the middle of the 19th century. Harnessed for a long time. Then a forced history, when by the end of the 19th century and especially at the beginning of the 20th century, everything was fast, fast. Once, and there is no agrarian way of life. Two, and there is no village.

An industrial urban environment is taking shape. Factories appear, which means that the labor market expands. Occupations appear that can be mastered by representatives of any class. And all these factors affect the patriarchal foundations. A new type of family is gradually beginning to form.

But it doesn't happen on click. Beginning in the mid-19th century, under the influence of trickling industrialization factors, the patriarchal superstructure first came into crisis. And this period from the middle of the century can be distinguished as the beginning of the crisis of traditional values.

Even with Pushkin and Tatyana Larina, it all began. "I am given to another and will be faithful to him for ages." Even then, the trends of the era of romanticism, all these freedom-loving Western romantic poets: Keats, Shelley, Lord Byron, behind which are the philosophers of the Enlightenment. It is under their influence that the primary request for individual experience is formed. A detached feeling of love and affection. First of all, among the nobles and other upper classes. After all, they did not have to work and survive. It was also possible to “suffer with the soul”.

And this formula: "I am given to another and will be faithful to him for ages" - this is the formula of impossibility, in fact. Survival formula. Tatyana Larina completely belonged to her husband and his family. Without a husband, without a surname, without a noble house - she is nowhere and no one. She does not have and could not have any profession and social status, except for "someone's daughter", and then "someone's wife". She had no labor market, except to belong to her husband and go out to social events. And therefore, individualism, as a request, seems to have appeared and she actively expresses it. Onegin also loves this her personal experience, but around it is still patriarchal.

And even in the middle of the 19th century. For example, Ostrovsky and his Katerina: "Why do people not fly like birds." There is also a desire to break free from the shackles of patriarchy. And also the unloved husband and his family, to whom she completely belonged. Constant discrimination by Kabanikha. And at the same time, a personal isolated experience and an affair with Boris. She really wanted to be free somewhere, but there is no her, this freedom.

And why? There, too, her mother raised Katerina without difficulty. She can’t do anything. Nowhere to go. And it seems even the city bourgeoisie. And in theory, it is the urban environment that should change everything. But nothing was ready in our country back in the 60s. Serfdom is just beginning to be abolished.

Another thing is in Europe. There the industrial revolution of the first wave and by the middle of the 19th century there is already a movement. And most clearly these changes can be traced to the work of the Impressionists.

GRASS BREAKFAST

This is Edouard Manet. The forerunner of impressionism. And his scandalous for 1863 painting "BREAKFAST ON THE GRASS". We have Ostrovsky at the same time. And here is a naked woman who sits with men and this half-turn, and a daring, shameless look directly at the viewer.

This was a shock even for Paris. For such behavior among men, a woman would probably be sent to prison. There was a criminal article for provoking men. Inclination to sin, to adultery, and all that. Even from there, yes, all this nonsense about miniskirts and neckline, which provoke men and certainly seduce. But something apparently went wrong with the Parisian society, since they began to allow this, and allowed Manet to paint such a picture. And what went wrong is just that very industrialization and industrial revolution. The influence of external factors.

What is Paris of the 60s? This is the Paris of Baron Haussmann and his transformations. Back in 53, he received carte blanche from Napoleon III to rebuild the city, when he was appointed prefect of the Seine department. And this is the very center. Paris, Saint-Denis and So districts. And how beautiful Paris became under Baron Haussmann! It turned out such a local Sobyanin. Before him, Paris was not the incredible city that we love so much. It was a medieval city. With narrow streets. Small areas. Minimum lighting. Maximum stench, dirt.

But Baron Osman is rebuilding everything. Creates boulevards, parks, alleys. These beams of streets and avenues leading to the main attractions. Builds train stations. The population of Paris has doubled in just ten years. From a million in the 1850s to two million in the 1860s. Thus, a new type of urban dweller is being formed: the "boulevard". Walking man. And it is he who is so eagerly sketched in their paintings by the Impressionists. It is this person who is for them a new trend of the era.

But back to the woman. What does she have to do with it? The thing is that it is women, as the most oppressed and oppressed class, who become those who fill these, albeit small, but niches of freedom, and make the most of new perspectives. Men were already fine. Therefore, it is women who undermine patriarchal foundations, not even at the level of struggle for rights, but at the level of a banal opportunity to survive, not go to prison, not maginalize, get at least some prospects for earnings and social isolation.

We also had similar processes. Only with a delay of 40-50 years.

PORTRAITS BY RUBENSTEIN

This is a portrait of Ida Rubenstein by Valentin Serov. One of his best paintings. Collection of the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg. 1910 year. Our cocky half-turn look. Our crack on the granite monolith of patriarchal foundations.

And, of course, our domestic patriarchal foundations opposed such changes in the position of women no less than French ones. The famous Slavophile Kirieevsky harshly criticized female emancipation, calling it: "The moral decay of the upper class of European society, absolutely alien to Russian tradition and culture." That is, sleepwalking, hard labor of women and complete control - this is Russian culture and the correct position of a woman. Or another great and terrible one. Our light, Leo Tolstoy:

“Look at the society of women as a necessary nuisance in public life and, as far as possible, move away from them. Indeed, from whom do we receive sensuality, effeminacy, frivolity in everything and a lot of bad vices, if not from women?"

"Everything would be fine, if only they (women) were in their place, that is, humble."

“We will see that there is no need to invent an outcome for women who have given birth and have not found a husband: for these women without offices, departments and telegraphs there is always a demand that exceeds the offer. Midwives, nannies, housekeepers, slutty women. No one doubts the need and lack of midwives, and any non-family woman who does not want to debauchery in body and soul will not look for a pulpit, but will go as far as she can to help mothers."

And here is a good illustration of the changes. That the labor market is taking shape. He already exists and of course the woman seeks to choose him instead of the despotism of patriarchal foundations. The centuries-old traditions, when a woman was guilty of sinfulness, fornication, divorce, and quarrels, were coming to an end. Even in the villages, the position of women has become dominant.

The second factor that actively undermined the patriarchal superstructure was the generational factor. The "fathers and children" factor. Only not the Turgenevsky that we procrastinate at school. There is such a boring whim about who is less a nihilist and who is more a liberal, that all this had nothing to do with real problems and changes in society.

It was necessary to reflect on how the older generations mortgaged their children in the villages, depriving them of the opportunity, as adults, to make independent decisions. About daughter-in-law. About how much the power of the parents formed the economic dependence of their children. But the upper classes were not very interested in thinking about the village. But the village fifty years after Turgenev will have something to tell the upper classes during the revolutions.

So a generational break occurred when the “small” family gained economic independence from the “wide” family. When a young man could earn something in the city. Get some kind of accommodation. Then all these age-old shortcomings of the patriarchal superstructure began to overlap the advantages. And the "wide" family begins to disintegrate.

A new type of family is being formed. On the basis of this "small" cell of the "big" patriarchal family. Or kernels. Nucleus. Nuclear family. Mom + Dad + baby. This is a new type of detached family relationship. What we mean by modern marriage came from there. The beginning of the 20th century for Russia.

There is a complete reformatting of all roles within family relationships. The roles of the husband, wife, parent, social function, even biological function are all changing. And the best way to track these changes is through the evolution of marriage. At the same time, we'll talk about what it is.

In principle, the historical phenomenon of marriage and especially its harsh church form, which since the Middle Ages is all mainly about demography. Any social moments or even property ones - they were secondary and were solved outside the context of marriage. The main task that the marriage performed was to unite M and F sexually in order to create conditions for the production of offspring. There was a very high mortality rate, which determined the need for high fertility and maximum survival of the offspring. And the most effective way to provoke this fertility was to severely limit sexual relations between partners. To make them, on the one hand, separate, that is, sex only within marriage, with the condemnation of fornication and adultery. On the other hand, it was necessary to control the sexual life at every stage: sexual intercourse, conception, gestation, feeding, nursing. Create an unbreakable chain from this within one union.

And in order to provoke sex within marriage and force parents to raise offspring - for this, first of all, church laws were written. All these highly moral and highly moral norms of behavior. And this applies to all world cultural and religious traditions. Everyone had a high mortality rate and low survival rate, therefore, strict rules were inherent in all countries and peoples. Those who were not inherent - they were not left on the world map. They were conquered by those who had everything strictly, and therefore effectively.

And in Russia, these rigid norms of traditional marriage were also widespread and affected both the lower strata of society and the upper ones. Equally. Especially after the adoption of Orthodoxy and the widespread spread of this religion. It was she who became the external regulator of marriage relations. The church has projected values and norms necessary for survival into society. Marriage is something sacred. Marriage is forever. Condemnation of divorce. Prohibition of abortion. Together, these are demographic factors. Without them, the agrarian society would have simply died out. We must understand this over and over again.

But as soon as external factors have changed and progress has led to the formation of an industrial society, then the institution of marriage immediately changes. For example, with the advent of evidence-based medicine, mortality is declining. Especially for children, and the risk of mortality in women in childbirth is also reduced. Effective contraception appears and begins its mass use and the formation of a primary contraceptive culture. And this all means that sex no longer means an obligatory risk of pregnancy. Sexual debut was not equated with marriage and is being pushed aside from it. Marriage itself was no longer the only form of sexual relations. Even having a child went beyond the factors of marriage.

And this is all a completely new reality. Then, at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a real sexual revolution took place. Sexual behavior has completely changed. This is especially true for women who have been able to form short-term alliances based on sexual attraction.

Since then, the patriarchal superstructure has condemned this whole thing. But, of course, the story here is not about the decline of morality and ethics, which is so strongly emphasized by the traditional agenda. It's about progress and humanity. The risk of getting pregnant from your husband's father after he raped you is not a good fate. Or lose children one by one. And this has been for centuries. This is tradition! Therefore, choosing a partner for yourself based on your own desires, looking for the desired option, alternating your relationship and determining the moment of the birth of the child yourself is still more moral and human. Here, I think, everything is pretty straightforward.

Another factor that is shaping a new attitude towards marriage is the employment factor. It has become external. Work is no longer within the family, but somewhere out there in society for a salary. In such a massive version. There were variations, but if earlier what the family produced within its household, then this is what it lives on. Now, each family member had the opportunity to work somewhere outside the family, and this formed a different economic component. The roles of the earner, the factors of salary and social security in the selection of partners - it all starts then. And then different options immediately arise. And these options complicate relations in many ways, but the benefits of city life are still greater, which leads to a request to leave the traditional family in the direction of the nuclear one.

And yes, again, as in a traditional family: “children are a problem”. But this time of a completely different kind. With the formation of an industrial society and a nuclear family, the birth rate drops sharply. This is due to the increased survival rate. Previously, demographics pushed for more children and more options for who will survive there, given the factor of high mortality. And now antibiotics, vaccinations, hygiene, and now almost all first-borns are already alive and well. And they also live a long time.

So what is the problem then, since everyone is alive and well? The problem is increased responsibility and increased costs of raising a child. This new model of family and marriage, in which the child is now an important part, is a very demanding story. Costs rise, both purely financial and emotional, physical and social. The period of keeping children by parents is increasing. The role of the mother is being reformatted. From purely biological maternal functions that were inherent in mothers from traditional families: endured, gave birth, fed, and in fact everything. Now the field has expanded and social functions have appeared.

How to raise a child? Then pedagogy is formed. Family psychology. Intrafamily parental interaction. Now the child is not just a utilitarian attitude, when he taught to plow in the field or weave sandals there, and now he is a ready-made person. Now the factor of investing in a person appears. You need to give your child a certain standard of living. The level of education. Socialization. Train him in different social roles. And the world is dynamic. Everything is constantly changing. What to choose? How to educate correctly? A colossal load.

But the main reason why “children are a problem” are economic factors. Dependency lasts two decades or more. And this creates a tough financial conflict. Those who are directly responsible for economic resources - parents - do not invest most of their money in themselves, but spend it on children. What hinders their own development. And as a consequence - an increase in economic resources in the family.

In order to somehow neutralize this detrimental effect, and at the stage of the formation of nuclear families it was simply destructive, these increased requirements for parenting are beginning to be delegated to social institutions. Nursery, kindergarten, school, hospitals. Their massive distribution is due to the fact that without them, this new urban family will sit around the child and spend all salaries only on him. And such a society will not receive any development. But people need to work, improve their qualifications, engage in social development, and the factor of education must go into a separate profession, where their specialists will develop. While mom and dad will develop in something else.

It turns out that initially, at the time of the formation of the nuclear family, these risk factors of a difficult financial situation, dependence on external institutions, a variety of social roles were embedded in it: when there is a mother, a career, a mistress, a wife, and a daughter. When someone is more of a breadwinner, someone is less. And this is all that weighs on us so far. And in fact, with these challenges, we came to the crisis. They are the ones that lead to divorce. To the most severe psychological stress on modern families. And their adjustment is what now makes the nuclear family evolve into more effective models, which we will talk about later.