Was party to a fascinating discussion last night. Visiting with pro-life college kids, a number of which are currently participating in Crossroads, the Catholic Charity in which folks walk across the country (literally) in witness to the Culture of Life. A heated debate erupted between some of the kids and some locals, in particular a very devout Catholic gentleman from a deeply traditional family, who is obviously on the seminary track. Some of the girls in the group took exception to the Seminarian’s defense of the traditional ideal of the Catholic family (Father as breadwinner, Mother at home as child-raiser and not in the workplace). The women didn’t mind the notion of staying at home with the children, but vehemently argued that either it’s sometimes necessary for Mother’s to work, or that if the Mother wants to work and the Father stay at home and raise children, why shouldn’t they? The exact phrase went along the lines of “God individually calls people to things in life, why can’t God call Father’s to be homemakers?”
There was a distressing lack of appeals to Natural Law for a while, but what really struck me was how both sides were arguing from two little boxes of thought, which did not intersect. The starting premises were different, making practical headway in the argument extremely difficult. One side defending the traditional conventional wisdom of Holy Mother Church, the other espousing a modern individualistic interpretation of vocations (individualistic in terms of interchangeable roles, not whimsical pursuits of passion).
Thinking the matter over more, I’m beginning to suspect that both sides were arguing from weak premises, and that the traditional understanding of the family with a Bread-winning Father and Homemaking Mother as its been understood in the last century or so, has problems.
I’m sure some of y’all might contend “last century or so.” Hasn’t that always been the ideal, only recently departed from? I’m not so sure, and I think that to continue to tout that simple formula is to unwittingly fall into a very modern trap, because it views the strength of the family in two separate boxes, one essentially economic, the other essentially educational.
I think the big problem with the typical contemporary understanding of the traditional Catholic family, is that it views the Mother as having little or no economic contribution to the Family income, and thinking that “that was the way it always was, and should be.”
But for most of Human, and Christian history, it very clearly hasn’t been the case. The word “economics” comes from the Greek term for running the household. Athenian ladies were expected to stay at home not simply because the public forum was the place for men, but because the women were expected oversee the economic productivity of the house. Men might have specific trades which brought in income, but women weren’t simply told to sit indoors and sew garments (although the loom could obviously have rather large economic benefits for the household).
The Medieval family didn’t quite live this way either. It wasn’t necessarily common, but in many parts of Europe during the High Middle Ages it wasn’t considered all that abnormal for women to own property, oversee transactions, and to run businesses. Elanor of Aquitaine was not the only politically active women either.
And Christian Civilization over the last two-thousand years has been, broadly speaking, mostly composed of poor farmers and peasants. Women did their fair share of the plowing and planting, and even when they were in the kitchen, they were responsible for overseeing and providing the principle material subsistence which kept the family alive.
The role of the Father in these circumstances is often as material provider, but not always. The Medieval Knight took in money, but the income was secondary to his role as a knight and protector of the estate. The wealth that rich Athenian ladies oversaw enabled their husbands to represent the family in the public forum and protect both the family and the state by political activity.
The real problem is that the social structure has changed over the last two-hundred years or more. A middle class family means at least one parent holding a steady full-time occupation and generating income. Industrialization has transformed material acquisition: it’s easier and much much cheaper to buy almost all of the things that women might have previously provided/created for the family. But cheaper goods still require someone to work for the money to buy them. It’s driven the traditional understanding of the Father/Mother roles into an economic vs. educational split that I don’t think was present in previous eras. Holding fast to this notion is probably doubling down on family structure that’s been imposed by decidedly non-religious impulses.
More thoughts on where to go from here later I hope.
P.S. The built-in spell checker on Word-Press flagged “ladies” for “bias language.”
June 7th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Very good point, Fabius. It is indeed sad that most people think that it is entirely traditional for a man to leave the home every day. This all started to become clear to me from a couple sources. First, I remember Alasdair MacIntyre mentioning this change in family structure in one of his books (I think it’s “After Virtue,” but I’m not certain), when he noted that the women in Jane Austen’s novels were a new appearance in history, in that they were not really elite but still did not have to work to provide for themselves. Second, I remember Christopher Dawson remarking that the home has become a mere dormitory for workers, rather than an oikia.
Here’s a link to an article that should prove interesting:
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/06/radical-homemakers/
June 7th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Fabius and Stephen, some great points. When these discussions come up (as I was in one last week), I find it is always striking to simply point out that throughout the vast majority of history, the vast majority of mankind has lived and died upon farms…which is working at home, and simply put, as dependent upon the woman (as ‘homemaker’ and economic factor) as upon the man.
I think that your distinction about their premises is important, and would love it if you would expand upon it. It seems there are some very important conclusions depending upon such distinctions.
And Stephen, I enjoyed the FPR article. I constantly feel myself rather torn between an FPR or a PomoCon approach, but Deneen is always thought provoking, even if I don’t agree.
June 7th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
i love the post script.
and would like to see this more developed.
i’m confused about the idea that the economic side of things and the educational side of things sound mutually exclusive.
in the households i see working well both spouses run the economic factor(even if the wife doesn’t earn money) she understands how the money works, helps organize bill paying, tithing, budgets, etc.
and the husband helps in the education of the children (even if he doesn’t stay home all day). he helps pick out curriculum, teaches Latin, instructs them in things moral, leads dinner conversations, and tucks them in bed.
this really feels like a false dichotomy…. was that what you were going for? or, are you mainly interested in the cultural developments?
even if the latter, i’m of the mind that no matter which century the family in, they should conduct themselves as one if they want to be successful.
June 7th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Thanks very much for the good thought’s y’all. I think I had MacIntyre floating somewhere in the back of my head when I was writing this. And the FPR article seemed to say something pleasingly similar to what I was going for, only with more clarity. Glad I might be stumbling in the correct direction. And Roland, I know what you mean about the FPR/PomoCon debate, El Cid and I like to kick that one around from time to time. Might be fun to devote a post or two sometime soon to that question?
I know what you mean Dorothy, and I think I was partly hitting at the concept of a false dichotomy. Partly I think we have a rhetorical problem in that proponents of the traditional family unwittingly fall into this false sense of categorization, when, as you clearly lay out, even in traditional families the Husband and Wife do tremendous work which doesn’t strictly fall into either category.
The FPR article Stephen linked had a great description in it explaining how the modern middle class household has become a workers dormitory and not an truly autonomous and self-sufficient social institution in and of itself.
One thing I wonder, is if perhaps the working culture it changing somewhat in beneficial ways. A person no longer has to have a 9 to 5 cubicle job to be a productive member of the workforce. When my siblings and I started attending a two-day a week hybrid private school, my Mother eventually ended up taking a part time job at the school in the admissions department. We all went in for classes two or three days a week. My Mom would go in with us, work while we were in class, and then take us all home, worked out very well.
June 7th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Love your post, Fabius.
An expandatory( I doubt that is a real word) footnote for your comment on the medieval knight. The income of the classic knight errant was, in fact, nil. What money he made came from ransoms, either at tourneys or on the real battlefield. This did not last long, as one must feast ones colleagues and inferiors, i.e. give “largesse”. He survived by attaching himself to a noble house, providing them with service in return for bread and board. The ultimate goal of any knight who desired to raise himself above this station was to marry well. William Marshall, who I recently studied (fantastic book by Georges Duby, I highly recommend it), was considered a second class male until his marriage, when he was over 50. Despite the respect and reknown he won on the battlefield and in service to no less than 4 kings of England, not until his marriage to Isabel de Clare did he gain any real power and authority. Until then, he was merely a knight. Afterwards, he was an Earl, second only to the King.
It is most interesting to note that while most left of center historians would have us label the medieval period as one of vicious oppression by dead white christian males, the power of the realm was in the womb of its women. While it was undoubtedly a male-dominated society, power and authority descended in a maternal line.
June 9th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
This is an excellent post, Fabius. Very well examined.
I think many traditional women are influenced by feminist thought that “they can have it all”. I also think that traditional men are as well, including those pursuing vocations. I see it quite often in vocational advertisements. Vocations are advertised as “choices”, something akin to a sexual orientation. Anyway.
I don’t think men have much capacity for raising children. I think they can help out, but I don’t think that is their primary function. I do, think however it is a woman’s primary capacity: as wife and mother. Teleology aside, I think a woman can work outside the home so long as her heart remains in the home. Women often do have to work outside the home for financial reasons. And some choose, as in the case above, to work voluntarily. I think what is most important, that her heart remains in the home. To make a blanket statement that women should not work outside the home, I believe is false. Further, I believe that it should be examined on a case by case basis, and in particular, between a husband and wife.
By the same token, I do not think a husband should be absent working eighty hours a week to provide for a three car garage and eight bedroom house. Unless, of course, a husband is working eighty hours a week to provide sustenance. I wish to make one final point. I think it is possible for parents to provide for their children without being absent. I think such a sacrifice comes however, at a material loss. It may mean a smaller home, an older car, etc.
I dare ask what is more important, a three car garage or is able to raise children? True, not all circumstances can provide for it, but our society tells us that the three car garage, eight bedroom house and college education is what is critical. It comes at a cost, however- absent parenti.
I have also read, somewhere (cannot recall the source) that the problem with the Church today is that its model for men is as a financial provider and women as provider as heath and home. The article? argued that such a model was doomed for failure because it placed such a shallow and undeveloped of men. Men are no more than wallets. This model supports alimony and mothers taking children in divorce (i.e. the break-up of the family.) Fabius, you have lightly touched on this. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.