So successful have efforts been to establish this family model that social values research indicates that in spite of the success of the women's movement, support for this type of authoritarian family has been on the rise. In 1992 when Americans were asked if the "father of the family is master of the house," 42% said yes. By 2004 the percentage had risen to 52%. (Comparable data demonstrated that only 20% of Western Europeans agreed with this "traditional value").
If we look at social and economic policies in the Untied States during this same period, we see that they too have by and large followed a regressive course. This is not coincidental. It again verifies the correlation I wrote about in my 1995 book, Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body: that a caring or nurturing parent (stereotypically, the mother) is the model for progressive social and political systems, whereas a punitive parent (stereotypically the harsh father) is replicated in regressive regimes..
If we are serious about democracy, equity, and peace, promoting and supporting family structures that encourage mutual responsibility, accountability, equality, and caring must be a top social and political priority.
********************
Schmookler:
I'd like to try to understand more fully how you are seeing the link between the issue of "family values" and the cast of our politics.
It seems clear that you are saying that what happens in families has a political impact: "It is in families that new members of society - children - receive their primary education about what is normal and moral."
Therefore, you seem to be saying, people who care about politics should also care about what kinds of families are raising the future generations of citizens.
Am I understanding you correctly about this?
Eisler:
I am definitely saying that what happens in families has political
impact. I will go further to say that what happens in families impacts
every social institution - education, religion, politics, economics. Of
course, this is an interactive dynamic, with progressive or regressive
social norms and policies promoting different kinds of families.
As long as we only look at societies in terms of old social categories
such as religious vs. secular, right vs. left, capitalist vs. socialist,
East vs. West, North vs. South, conservative vs. liberal, we don't see
these connections because each of these categories focuses only on a
particular piece of a culture.
This is why, based on two decades of cross-cultural and historical
research, I introduced the new social categories of the /domination
system/ and the /partnership system/. Societies orienting closely to the
configuration of the domination system can be rightist like Hitler's
Germany, leftist like Stalin's Soviet Union, religious, like Khomeini's
Iran or the Taliban, and so on. But they all share the same basic
configuration: top-down rule in /both/ the family and the state or
tribe; a high degree of institutionalized, even idealized, violence; the
rigid ranking of the male half of humanity over the female half; and
beliefs and myths presenting all this as natural, even moral.
So when Hitler came to power in Germany, a Nazi rallying cry was let's
return women to their traditional roles in a traditional family - a
rallying cry that was then implemented through laws that blatantly
discriminated against women in the workplace. When Stalin came to power,
he reversed laws that had been passed under Lenin designed to give women
more rights; for example, abortion again became a criminal offense.
Khomeini and the Taliban are notorious for their regression to
male-dominated, authoritarian families. And the push for "traditional
family values" in the U.S. - again not coincidentally - is a centerpiece
of the rightist-fundamentalist political alliance.
The problem is that when they say "traditional" they are correct.
Because this is the kind of family that was the norm for much of
recorded history, times when despotic tribal chiefs, "nobles," and kings
harshly ruled their "subjects."
The kinds of families that support the more democratic, egalitarian,
less fear-and-force based configuration of societies orienting to the
partnership system are very different. To build the foundations for
cultures of justice, safety, and democracy, we need families where women
and men are equal partners, where children learn to act responsibly
because adverse consequences follow from irresponsible behavior, where
they learn to help and persuade rather than hurt and coerce, where
they're encouraged to think for themselves.
Many progressives are trying to shift in their own families from the
domination model we've inherited to more partnership-oriented relations
between both adults and children. For example, there's the new concept
of an authoritative rather than authoritarian family where parents still
guide children but instill and model real respect rather than fear. We
also see more men taking on the stereotypically feminine role of
feeding, changing, and bathing their babies. And we see more equality
between women and men.
If we look at social and economic policies in the Untied States during this same period, we see that they too have by and large followed a regressive course. This is not coincidental. It again verifies the correlation I wrote about in my 1995 book, Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body: that a caring or nurturing parent (stereotypically, the mother) is the model for progressive social and political systems, whereas a punitive parent (stereotypically the harsh father) is replicated in regressive regimes..
If we are serious about democracy, equity, and peace, promoting and supporting family structures that encourage mutual responsibility, accountability, equality, and caring must be a top social and political priority.
********************
Schmookler:
It seems clear that you are saying that what happens in families has a political impact: "It is in families that new members of society - children - receive their primary education about what is normal and moral."
Therefore, you seem to be saying, people who care about politics should also care about what kinds of families are raising the future generations of citizens.
Am I understanding you correctly about this?
Eisler:
I am definitely saying that what happens in families has political
impact. I will go further to say that what happens in families impacts
every social institution - education, religion, politics, economics. Of
course, this is an interactive dynamic, with progressive or regressive
social norms and policies promoting different kinds of families.
As long as we only look at societies in terms of old social categories
such as religious vs. secular, right vs. left, capitalist vs. socialist,
East vs. West, North vs. South, conservative vs. liberal, we don't see
these connections because each of these categories focuses only on a
particular piece of a culture.
This is why, based on two decades of cross-cultural and historical
research, I introduced the new social categories of the /domination
system/ and the /partnership system/. Societies orienting closely to the
configuration of the domination system can be rightist like Hitler's
Germany, leftist like Stalin's Soviet Union, religious, like Khomeini's
Iran or the Taliban, and so on. But they all share the same basic
configuration: top-down rule in /both/ the family and the state or
tribe; a high degree of institutionalized, even idealized, violence; the
rigid ranking of the male half of humanity over the female half; and
beliefs and myths presenting all this as natural, even moral.
So when Hitler came to power in Germany, a Nazi rallying cry was let's
return women to their traditional roles in a traditional family - a
rallying cry that was then implemented through laws that blatantly
discriminated against women in the workplace. When Stalin came to power,
he reversed laws that had been passed under Lenin designed to give women
more rights; for example, abortion again became a criminal offense.
Khomeini and the Taliban are notorious for their regression to
male-dominated, authoritarian families. And the push for "traditional
family values" in the U.S. - again not coincidentally - is a centerpiece
of the rightist-fundamentalist political alliance.
The problem is that when they say "traditional" they are correct.
Because this is the kind of family that was the norm for much of
recorded history, times when despotic tribal chiefs, "nobles," and kings
harshly ruled their "subjects."
The kinds of families that support the more democratic, egalitarian,
less fear-and-force based configuration of societies orienting to the
partnership system are very different. To build the foundations for
cultures of justice, safety, and democracy, we need families where women
and men are equal partners, where children learn to act responsibly
because adverse consequences follow from irresponsible behavior, where
they learn to help and persuade rather than hurt and coerce, where
they're encouraged to think for themselves.
Many progressives are trying to shift in their own families from the
domination model we've inherited to more partnership-oriented relations
between both adults and children. For example, there's the new concept
of an authoritative rather than authoritarian family where parents still
guide children but instill and model real respect rather than fear. We
also see more men taking on the stereotypically feminine role of
feeding, changing, and bathing their babies. And we see more equality
between women and men.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
