Does the Moral Ideal for Families Simply Follow the Economic Ideal?

Question

Until pretty recently (i.e. 1950s+), most people had very limited mobility. It was normal for someone to grow up, marry and find work in the same town or village they were born in, and would come to grow old in.

As people became much more mobile, the concept of a "job for life" disappeared, and it is now much more usual for a person to complete their education many miles from where they were schooled, and to travel to find work flexibly.

It occurs to me that relationships have also become more flexible, as people can choose a partner outside their town of origin, and move between relationships much more easily than they used to.

Have our morals simply adapted to reflect our increased mobility, and the new economics of the labor market?

Is it anything to do with Traditional Values or Feminism at all?

What do you think?

Answer 1

I think you're onto something.  Generally in history, life changes and then ideologies come about to support that change.  It sometime appears that ideologies change life, but they can't make any changes unless people were already leaning towards that belief to begin with.  

     If you lived in a small town, and there were only three potential partners for you, you would pick the one best suited for you and most likely stay married to them for life, because you have no other alternative.

     There is the question of whether more choice actually makes people happier.  Many people are more happy with less choices, because there is less opportunity to regret your decisions, since the decision was made for you by lack of choice.  Choice gives many new avenues to self-fulfillment, but also more opportunities to make mistakes.

Answer 2

I think you have a slightly exaggerated idea of the lack of mobility of people in the past.  If people had been so lacking in mobility there wouldn't be any USA for a start.

Even in medieval times people used to move quite often, hence the growth of towns during this period.

Answer 3

I think the fact that the family is evolving to look less like it did in the 1950s is due to a whole lot of factors, and you've just identified some very important ones.

Life goes on. The two parents and children in a house living alone as a family unit while Dad works and Mom stays home was unique the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

My great-grandmother had nine children, spaced out over 20 years. The whole extended family lived in two houses on the same street. She worked her butt off (household chores, making wine and bathtub whisky during prohibition, tending to a store she and my great-grandfather had, keeping chickens). Her unmarried sisters helped raise her older children. Later, her older children helped raised her younger children. I'm sure there were many days her little kids never laid eyes on her because she was so busy.

Dad plus Mom plus two or three kids and a family dog living in a suburban ranch was only the American family norm for a few decades.

Life moves on.

Answer 4

I think you are linking things that have not really much impacted each other. Okay, so we are NOT traditional. Neither were the traditionalist "traditional" to Cavemen.

Times are changing, mister. Globalization is the key to it all. Unfortunately, even that will not rid all the ignorance of the human mind.

Answer 5

I believe it's mobility, not sure how feminism necessarily ties into it, unless you're implying the increasing number of women in the workforce over the years. As people travel they will form relationships with people of different cultures and ethnicity. Morals are shaped by the society we live..usually. Being exposed to different societal concepts, doesn't necessarily mean you have to abandon you own moral grounds however.

Answer 6

Access to transport changed society greatly, in all the ways you mentioned plus many more. Whether it changed our morals as such.... I think maybe it's more a case of we have 'adjusted' our original moral values to align more with these changes.

People now have better access to education, jobs, travel etc. and so many of us travel away from home to pursue these things at a young age, so we might marry/ have children later in life rather than at a very young age. We have had so many more opportunities than our forebearers and we want to take advantage of those opportunities as much as we can!

Culture and race are not as segregated as they used to be and so our society is much more varied now. But I think we all have the same basic morals that we always had, even if we do structure our lives differently now.

Answer 7

So you think it is immoral to marry outside of your own nationality or race?

Answer 8

Yes, we all have a lot more access to information from the TV, internet etc telling us about new experiences/careers also more courses widely availabe and cheap travel.

So I think that we are all more a hedonistic generation of travelling, studying, having fun etc than just having a job for life, working or being a stay at home parent.

Answer 9

What about the psycological need that children need a loving female and a loving male to nurture them.  And the emotional ideal that people start desireing to support and nurture children when they become adults (believe me.  I am thirty, without kids and love giving things to kids I know and spending time with them.)  And the emotional and sexual needs that males and females have for each other, which leads toward birthing.

Answer 10

I see your point.  I was born and raised in Maryland, but I now reside in Texas.  I have lived all over this part of the state due to job, college, marriage, etc.  Feminism?  Yep, I'm there.  Morality has been influenced by these fators; we have become a "throw-away" society.  "If he doesn't do this or that, kick him to the curb."  There is no reverence to wedding vows, if one even decides to marry.  I spent ten years of my life single just because I could.  I think mobility factors in because we have the whole world open to us now.  I think it was Erma Bombeck who said that "the grass is always greener over the septic tank" back in the seventies, and mobility reflects this ideology.

Answer 11

I'm sure all the factors you mention influence public concepts of 'morality', which is after all itself a constantly changing thing.

Additionally, when it comes to relationships, let's not forget modern medicine ~ even just 50 years ago, celebrating a 50th or 60th wedding anniversary was not as common as it is today.

A century ago, it was a lucky couple indeed that made it to a 'golden' anniversary before one or the other died, of old age (in their 60s, often), of work related illness or injury, in childbirth, etc.

And, many people who were widowed would remarry, often having second families.

Nowadays, people live an extra 30 to 40 years, and it's hardly surprising that a single life partner is a more challenging idea ~ instead of death taking the partner, divorce does the trick.

Cheers :-)

Answer 12

I agree with Louise, in that the mobility has not changed that drastic; people tend to group together--go to the doctor, get groceries, go to the bank...

I personally believe it's extreme Individualism taught by many of the ideologies. Individualism breeds innovation and creativity, but extreme individualism breeds selfishness. When the only thing that matters in life to an individual is themselves, there is no room for morals or how others feel.

One particular ideology actually brags about increasing the divorce rates and claims it to be a good thing.(because the person is their own individual and doesn't have to be part of a family for personal worth)