Posted by
Jack Fisher on Friday, July 10, 2009 1:16:15 PM
One of the most popular phrases thrown around in the culture wars is Family Values. It is often the phrase wielded by the side that believes themselves to be the moral cultureal forebearers of America. They seek to counter certain outgroups they deem undesirable or damaging to society. These outgroups include homosexuals, heavy metal bands, goth culture, hippie culture, drug users, new age groups, couples who cohabitate, those who engage in pre-marital sex, abotion groups, and atheists. They also assault products of pop culture they deem damaging and obscene such as violent movies, video games, comic books, rock and rap music, extreme sports like the UFC, pornography, prostitution, divorce, and contraception. A quick rundown of these lists and it's painfully obvious that few have anything to do with families or values. Many cynics will say the family values crowd is against pretty much anything that's fun. There may be a grain of truth to some of these remarks, but like many moral crusades the family values movements has it's roots.
Much of the family values movement began amid the turmoil of the late 1960s. The counterculture movement along with a growing tolerance of different lifestyles created a rallying point for those opposed to such movements. In the 70s and 80s, family values rode on the backs of the religious right and the moral majority to seek to buck the trend of a society becoming more diverse and liberal. Their focus is on the ideal of the family. They argue that the building block of all stable societies centers around the marriage between a man and a woman raising children together in a single, nuclear household. These idealized forms are epitomized in pop culture references like Ozzy and Hariet and Father Knows Best. What is often lost in the conversation is that the idea of the nuclear family being the building block of civilization is entirely misleading.
Historically speaking, the nuclear family is a very new concept that is far from the norm throughout history. In fact, the very notion of family values had a very different meaning in the first half of the 20th century. "Family" as it was defined did not refer to just a married couple in their kids. It was more understood to be "extended family." The idea of family denoted notions of both parents, kids, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins. The nuclear household was not the norm. It was in fact rare for a couple and their kids to live very far from their own parents or close relatives. Family was, and has historically been, much more communally focused. Going back throughout civilization, family values were community values. The traditional notions of one man and one woman raising their kids together was rare especially considering that most unions were between many women and one man. It had to be because for much of history, women died frequently in childbirth. And they had to have more kids because most children didn't live past age five. So in reality it isn't the family that is the bedrock of civilization. It is community.
In the second half of the twentith century a lot changed. Now people were more mobile than they had ever been before. Instead of spending much of one's life in the same area around their family members, people and families had the ability to leave and live life in another locale. The addition of the post-war housing boom also allowed families to separate, which essentially is what made the nuclear family even viable in the first place. It was popular culture and social ideologues that labeled this new innovation a 'value' to be championed. So when society began shifting again, the natural reaction was to try and defend it.
But the way in which to defend such values isn't focused on the families themselves. It's focused on the outside forces that are deemed to be threatening families. Their logic follows that it's not the families themselves that need help. It's because they're being poisoned by outside forces led by deviant groups seeking to obstruct the family. This of course is based on the assumption that people have no ability to rationalize and will react to any outside influence that comes their way, which any basic research into psychology would disprove. But the family values crowd goes for these influences like drugs, pornography, and homosexuality because it's easier and it's tangible. It also is a way for them to gain political power by seeking help from government to impose their values, and this is where the real danger to the free society lies.
When certain groups start catering to government in order to get them to use force to impose a certain ideal, it becomes a source of tyranny and thus loses it's moral highground. By legislating their tastes, they further alienate people and just like the way in which the family values crowd started, they are countered with groups who end up seeking their own government favors. It divides the population and wastes public resources that could be better used at the community level. Research and history shows that when communities are strong, nurturing, and safe people will turn out better regardless of what pop culture creates. They don't have to be ridgedly dogmatic. They just have to be supportive.
For the family values crowd, it is perfectly reasonable in a free society to try and persuade others that drugs, gambling, and pre-marital sex are wrong and should be avoided. But it is not reasonable to forcibly impose those standards with government force. The consequences, unintended or otherwise, only serve to be more destructive to the free society. Whether it is family or community, there is never any value in tyranny.