It's the family, stupid

By Dr Don Edgar and Dr Patricia Edgar

Dec 23, 2024

What has gone wrong for the Cultural revolution of the 60s-70s? Is it Trump and the MAGA movement as Robert Manne posits, or is it identity politics out of control, as Nicholas Gruen argues - the extremity of political correctness, me-tooism, cancel culture, social tribalism and wokeism - weaponising discourse and driving us apart. There is a further dimension to this debate. 'It's the family stupid'. For better or worse, in its infinite variety, we are all born into a family.

Any open discussion of minorities, broader cultural causes of inequality, such as social class, or the central role of family life in explaining social change is now taboo. It seems, with the best of intentions, those involved in the cultural revolution triggered the march of the identity politics movement fracturing society today.

Post-War reconstruction saw, for the first time in history, most people marry, have children and build communities. The ideal of the "nuclear family" took root, shaped around the needs of children and the social lives of their parents, who became the Baby Boomers who strove for stability, prosperity and security.

The rise of populism had its roots in the lifestyle of affluence of those born to Baby Boomer parents. These children took for granted the way of life they were born into and moved from the open materialism of the time to the lifestyle issues of freedom and self-expression, to a cry from the individual to be recognised and validated.

In 1992 President Bill Clinton proclaimed: "It's the economy, stupid", a statement which became the dominant ideology, and the central role of families in social and political life was challenged and sidelined as the economy took centre stage. Not much of the current cultural revolution is new; it's just more virulent and aggressive, with public leaders rushing to virtue-signal and try to offend no one.

The central role of families in social and political life remains as valid now as it was before the cultural revolution and in the early 1980s when the Australian Institute of Family Studies was established.

The AIFS was, from the outset, attacked by feminists who saw marriage as the bulwark of patriarchy and the oppression of women; by conservatives who claimed stepfamilies and one-parent families, were not "families", that only the so-called "nuclear family" of two parents with children was a legitimate focus of study, idealistically living behind John Howard's white picket fence. Mothers who were in the paid workforce were "neglectful" and formal childcare was seen as inferior to active parenting. Don, the founding director, who had grown up with a working widowed mother and four siblings who all prospered, knew all poor or one-parent families were not dysfunctional. But even to speak about married family life in the 80s was seen by some to imply a criticism of the unmarried, of other forms of human relationship.

Don was directed not to do research on stepfamilies or one-parent families, yet they were often the logical outcomes of no-fault divorce. Governments of both major parties were unhappy when the Institute produced reports based on the AIFS Family Income Database showing that proposed policy changes would help some family types, size and income levels, but not others, certainly not "families" in a generic sense.

Former federal treasurer John Stone once wrote to Don to stop sending AIFS publications because "Treasury has nothing to do with families", the view being family policy was relevant to welfare and social security matters only. The AIFS urged successive governments to produce "Family Impact Statements" to accompany new legislation, making clear distinctions about which families would be affected positively or negatively by proposed changes. The demands of minority family groups for better social recognition began well before recognition of same sex marriage or the LGBTIQ movement.

Donald Trump's critique of political correctness is not the beginning of a counter-cultural movement, but rather the outcome of years of change as the focus of what it is that holds society and community life together has been overlooked. We need a wider social context to frame discussion in this very confusing time.
Recognising family life as central to politics and social action must become a central part of the agenda. Each of us is born into a family context, which in large part determines our later chances in life ? the values you learn, the resources available to thrive, whether or not you have two parents or one, get proper nutrition and medical care, go to kindergarten/childcare or not, attend an under-funded public or a wealthy private school, get an university education or trade training, a decent job leading to independence and an affordable roof over your head.

Some families offer good life chances, others reinforce dysfunctional behaviour; it's family culture that structures enculturation and socialisation. But wokeness and identity politics demand we cannot publicly discriminate between groups even where the evidence is a strong indicator of dysfunction. To praise intact families is seen as an attack on one-parent families, so there is a fear of offending. Some object to quoting research showing that married people (especially men) are happier than those who don't marry; that separation and divorce involve disruption to schooling, instability in housing, and conflictual damage to children that affects long-term emotions and relationships. We are not allowed to acknowledge that poor parenting is to blame for much disruptive behaviour, or that certain cultural/ethnic groups commit more violence against women than others. Even the biological gender of children comes into question because some forms of sexuality have been vilified and persecuted.

Society has become one of "bowling alone" because the ties of religion, sports and cultural activities - all built around family needs and interests - have been fractured by sensationalised mass media and online interaction. Social media has exacerbated the isolation of individuals in a society with few guardrails. The triumph of psychology and the social panic of "mental illnesses" overshadow the real impacts of our family's social class and structural inequalities. We talk about unemployment and the rising cost of living as though these issues involve only adults, not the well-being of whole families, especially of children. Much marital separation results from financial hardship, as does childhood failure at school and delinquent behaviour.

A cost-of-living crisis is a family policy matter, not merely one of economics and arbitrary formulae about unemployment levels, wages and inflation. Politicians who talk in such general terms and focus on appeasing special interest groups are fuelling the authoritarian backlash around the world. The urge to form lasting relationships through family formation is a primal one and family policy should be recognised as an essential framework for any understanding of economic impact and societal well-being.