Changes in Society: The Erosion on the Family

[John Simkin]

I came across this article written by Charles Whelan for USA Today, September 1996.  It pretty much summarizes what I've been complaining about since 1996, when my position at Brotman was eliminated, and I was offered the option of working per diem, sans benefits.

That fall, in October, Cedars-Sinai also laid off 2500 of their work force.  This was only the beginning of the largest down-sizing to hit the medical field since the mid to late 1980's.  Supply-side economics, indeed!

There were other changes I began noticing in 2000, such as the out-sourcing of help to India, by General Electric, one of our Gamma Camera manufacturers.  If I needed to contact G.E. for service and repair, I would call the 800 number and be greeted by a distinctly English-accented person, who would ferry my request for service back to the U.S., and to the engineer servicing my area.  Upon inquiring as to where my call was being received, I came to find out that it was somewhere in India.  I wondered to myself, how many American positions G.E. had eliminated in order to maintain their "bottom line" by paying cheaper wages to their new employees in India.  I also wondered how this impacted the American families

of those laid off, and how many positions those laid-off U.S. individuals would have to maintain in order to make a living wage, or one equivalent to what they were making with G.E. at the time their jobs were terminated.  This, of course, did not include the loss of medical benefits to themselves and their families. 

How many American families were being forced into marginalization due to this, not so new, concept of laissez faire being perpetrated upon us under this new euphemistic expression known as the "global economy"?  Laissez faire, from what I'd gathered from my social studies classes, was something that existed for a period of time in U.S. history, but had never really taken hold as a permanent fixture of U.S. economic policy. 

It is of course true that capitalists have always sought the cheapest source of labour. With the growth of trade unions and increases in wage-rates, capitalists have established factories in third-world countries. In some cases this has involved the employment of children. Clearly, a worker in a industrially developed country cannot compete against the wages of a child worker in Asia. In recent years this problem has got much worse. As a result, large numbers of jobs in the manufacturing industries have been lost. These were mainly replaced by service jobs.

Modern technology enables a whole range of different jobs to be done in underdeveloped countries. This includes many of the service jobs that were created in the 1980s and 1990s.

This raises several points. It is clearly in the interests of the capitalist to obtain his labour from the cheapest possible source. Is it however in the interest of the government to allow this policy to continue. The answer is probably no as they take the risk of losing votes in the next election. Bush of course has this problem at the moment. It is one of the reasons why he wants the election fought on foreign policy issues.

Some economists have argued that governments are unable to control the flow of capital from one country to another. That might be true, but governments can make this process more difficult. Some European countries have passed legislation that makes it very expensive for companies to close down plants in order to seek cheaper labour.

There is also the option of imposing high taxes on capitalists making these vast profits. This money could then be used to fund increased public spending on areas like education and health care. This would indeed create more jobs in the home market.

As David Clark has argued elsewhere on the forum, there is an alternative economic policy. Clark believes that the US business model, one that the UK has adopted over the last ten years, will create serious problems for the workforce.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1710

Clark points out that in "Gordon Brown's view, the varieties of capitalism debate has been conclusively resolved in favour of the US business model, with its low levels of employment protection, minimal regulation and fixation with shareholder value. Brown's hostility to Brussels reflects the refusal of most continental Europeans to accept what he holds to be self-evident: that the social market economy has had its day.”

Clark argues that France and Germany still embrace the idea of the social market. There is evidence that the social market is in fact for efficient than the US business model. For example, French and German productivity levels per hour are significantly higher than Britain's.

Clark adds:

“The European social model remains the only viable counterpoint to the economic brutalism of the American way. The question for the left should be how best to strengthen it. The answer is for Europeans to work in concert and pool their collective resources more effectively. The European constitution does this by deepening political union, strengthening Europe's capacity to act and declaring in favour of fundamental social rights. It may not go far enough, but it would be foolish to expect that its rejection would lead to something better.”

This of course would not help workers in the United States. It is also unlikely that the UK will readopt the European social model as both major parties favour the US business model.

Globalisation is not only causing jobs to be lost. Competition from the third world is forcing UK and US workers to accept lower pay rates in order to save their jobs. This is usually accompanied by the need to work longer hours in order to pay for basic needs such as housing.

This takes us back to Martin Jacques point at the end of his posting:

Parents are now spending less time with their babies and toddlers. The effects are already evident in schools. In a study published by the government's Basic Skills Agency last year, teachers claim that half of all children now start school unable to speak audibly and be understood by others, to respond to simple instructions, recognise their own names or even count to five. In order to attend to our own needs, our children are neglected, our time substituted by paying for that of others, videos and computer games deployed as a means of distraction. And the problem applies across the class spectrum. So-called "money-rich, time-scarce" professionals are one of the most culpable groups. Time is the most important gift a parent can give a child, and time is what we are less and less prepared to forgo.

It is impossible to predict the precise consequences of this, but a growing loss of intimacy and a decline in emotional intelligence, not to mention a cornucopia of behavioural problems, are inevitable. Judging by this week's survey of the growing emotional problems of teenagers, they are already apparent. Such changes, moreover, are permanent and irrecoverable. A generation grows up knowing no different, bequeathing the same emotional assumptions to its offspring.

[Guest]

I find much of what has been posted thus far about the family to be deeply conservative and in some places sentimentally nostalgic. Indeed Martin Jacques original post may not be too far away from the sort of Tory rant about "Family values" and their erosion which sends my blood pressure to dangerously high levels.

We are to see presumably the institution of the family as some "heart in a heartless world" which is being eroded by pervasive market values extending all areas of our lives. Frederick Engels will be turning in his grave

The nuclear family always has had specific function in modern capitalism - not least in the dual oppression of women - an essential factor in the success and continuation of the capitalist system. Family life has also always had its darker side - abuse, violence, psychological danger.

Fear oppression, obedience and tyranny are, and have always been, just as much "family words" as love, compassion and trust.

Let us not allow ourselves then to drift into this woolly notion of “THE FAMILY” and “what we have lost” as I fear it may be both socially and historically meaningless and also a concept that is more exclusive than it is inclusive.

[Caterina Gasparini]

I find much of what has been posted thus far about the family to be deeply conservative and in some places sentimentally nostalgic. Indeed Martin Jacques original post may not be too far away from the sort of Tory rant about "Family values" and their erosion which sends my blood pressure to dangerously high levels.

We are to see presumably the institution of the family as some "heart in a heartless world" which is being eroded by pervasive market values extending all areas of our lives. Frederick Engels will be turning in his grave

The nuclear family always has had specific function in modern capitalism - not least in the dual oppression of women - an essential factor in the success and continuation of the capitalist system. Family life has also always had its darker side - abuse, violence, psychological danger.

Fear oppression, obedience and tyranny are, and have always been, just as much "family words" as love, compassion and trust.

Let us not allow ourselves then to drift into this woolly notion of “THE FAMILY” and “what we have lost” as I fear it may be both socially and historically meaningless and also a concept that is more exclusive than it is inclusive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree it is absolutely meaningless to regret a past which, anyway, may have been worse than our present, in some aspects at least.

Personally, I have never seen the FAMILY as the heart of society, but rather as the first social group in which most of us happen to live the first part of their lives and where we usually learn the basis of our "social behaviour". The members of this group are linked by mutual feelings which will often include hate and love, attitudes which will include understanding and uncooperative behaviour, oppression and help, but also violence and abuse, as it happens among all people. What we become in our lives will be greatly influenced - but not necessarily determined - by our family experiences.

Can anyone suggest how to replace this period of our "education" with something different and better?

[Jean Walker]

I am not a "Conservative" or a Tory, (not really possible in Australia) but you will never convince me that it is a good thing to be supportive or encouraging of teenage girls having numerous children from unknown and uncaring fathers in order to provide them with an income and a purpose in life, or young men believing it is morally acceptable to father, then leave, numerouis offspring who they will never see, let alone care about. If that is nostalgic and looking back to the past, then so be it - I see as a teacher what that sort of "family" does to children, especially boys, and their development as adults.

[John Simkin]

I find much of what has been posted thus far about the family to be deeply conservative and in some places sentimentally nostalgic. Indeed Martin Jacques original post may not be too far away from the sort of Tory rant about "Family values" and their erosion which sends my blood pressure to dangerously high levels.

Karl Marx has been described as someone who wanted to move society back to its pre-industrial state. Sociologists talk about the tendency for people to believe the “Golden Age” was in their youth. It has been claimed that every so often there are “moral panics” where the media compare the present situation with “30 years ago”. Once again, this is a time when the writer was in his/her youth.

That being said, I think Andy is completely wrong to describe those showing concern about recent changes to the family as being “deeply conservative and in some places sentimentally nostalgic”. To criticise the present is not to praise the past. Nor is it any attempt to regain the past.

The whole point about Martin Jacques article is that the changes in the family can be traced back to changes in the economic system. As a Marxist, Jacques believes that people should not passively look on at these changes. People have power, via the ballot box and their own personal behaviour, to reverse some of these changes.

As Jean Walker points out: “you will never convince me that it is a good thing to be supportive or encouraging of teenage girls having numerous children from unknown and uncaring fathers in order to provide them with an income and a purpose in life, or young men believing it is morally acceptable to father, then leave, numerous offspring who they will never see, let alone care about.” As an educator, Jean believes she has a responsibility to do her best to change this situation. I agree. We cannot do very much, but we can do something.

To explain why a situation is like it is. It is necessary to look at how and why these changes have taken place. This involves looking back into the past. To a certain extent it requires making value judgements about this past. In my view, the family was in a better state in the 1950s than it is today. That no doubt reflects my own experiences (I never experienced what Andy called “abuse, violence, psychological danger” in my family). However, my views are shaped much more by my study of history and sociology. The driving force of so called “progress” is usually the economic system. When a capitalist closes down a factory in one country so he can invest his money in another, he does so without any thought for the social consequences of his actions. That is the way it will always be, but in a democracy you have the potential (I would say the responsibility) to do what you can to protect the good things you are in danger of losing.

I would be interested in hearing what Andy Walker dislikes about modern society? Does he believe he should do anything about this? Or should we stand idly by and just shrug our shoulders?

[Guest]

The whole point about Martin Jacques article is that the changes in the family can be traced back to changes in the economic system. As a Marxist, Jacques believes that people should not passively look on at these changes. People have power, via the ballot box and their own personal behaviour, to reverse some of these changes.

The origin and role of the family can indeed be traced back to the social relations of production. This was however just as true in the 1950's as it is today. John was apparently lucky being born into a nurturing and happy family - plenty, ( I would suggest the majority) were not so lucky.

The nature of the family in general is shaped by societies economic base. This is why for instance it is invariably patriarchical and frequently violent and oppressive. Families are under great strain to fulfill the functions of producing the next gerneration of workers, maintaining and perpetuating the oppression of women and soaking up the frustrations of alienated labour. It is not surprising that throughout history it has therefore failed to live up to its ideology.

This ideology of familism which has seemingly even infected the left leaning posters on this forum, is just that - it is ideology. It bears no relationship to the reality of family life experienced in advanced capitalist society. It is a dangerous, destructive, unattainable and exclusive.

In relation to the quoted paragraph above I would also point out that the history of trying to alter the social relations of production at the ballot box does not have a great track record but it is that sort of fundamental change that will be required to solve the problems Jean and others are quite rightly concerned about.

As to trying to solve the problems of the modern world, I guess my position is that the first step should be to try and understand them properly. Martin Jacques article does not help us down that path one single step.

[Rowena Hopkins]

In response to Johns posting ages ago (!), I do think whether to have children or not is also an issue for the male partner. This is something shared by both members of the couple (thankfully my husband does not want children either), but what it has to do with the rest of the family, I don't know! Parents pushing their children into having children can only be disasterous. It creates a sense of resentfulness which will most likely be directed at the children who of course did not choose to be born.

It is most certianly not something to be decided by society. My husbands grandmoeth had 11 children over the space of 30 years. She was denied access to contraception and with an alcoholic husband there was little she could do to stop herself from being contantly pregnant. By the time she was pregant with her last child her oldest children were threatening to castrate their father! Most of the children were farmed out to other childless relatives and Nuns to bring up. Is this a family?!?

My Mother is law had to beg to be allowed access to contraception after having her third child and not wanting any more children by her (also) alcoholic husband. The panel of doctors did agree to allow her under the circumstances but it does beg the question of who is responsible for their reproductive rights. The woman, or society?

Pharmacists is America have been known to refuse contraception to women on 'moral grounds' because they do not agree with family planning. The birth control pill is now being targetted as a form of abortion. The spin of will of course be more abortions if the pill becomes restricted.

Families are all very well, but they must be wanted, and in the good old golden ages of limited contraception they were not always wanted and placed undue hardship on the parents.

Rowena

[Terry Mauro]

Families are all very well, but they must be wanted, and in the good old golden ages of limited contraception they were not always wanted and placed undue hardship on the parents.

I agree with Rowena as to being realistic regarding society's, as well as one's own family's expectations, and the pressure being exerted by them for one to procreate. What I've observed, over the past 25 years, is a work force of women and men, trying to attain an unrealistic ideal concerning what has been fed to them via the media, as to what their lot in life should be if they wished to be considered successful. I've observed women becoming pregnant and opting for a three month maternity leave, which according to society's standards is the amount of time needed for them to form a successful "bonding" with their infant.

What appears to be absurd is the idea that "bonding" with your child can be pidgeon-holed into a prescribed "window of opportunity" designed by a think tank whose main concern is most likely that of, "How many days can we possibly shrink this "bonding" period of adjustment in order that we end up paying the least amount of money out to this mother, for the least amount of work she will be contributing to the operation of this place of business?" One must remember that this maternity-leave phenomenon has only been around for the last 20 years, at the most, that I can recall. Also, when women of my generation were setting out to start families, we planned on staying home for, at least, the first 6 years before we ever thought of going back to work, or re-entering the job market even on a part time basis, at that. It wasn't considered a luxury, but a necessity to nurture and prepare our children for their first encounter with structured society, as they would begin to know of it, and learn through their first interactions with peers of their own, through kindergarten and grade school. We, as parents, were obliged and responsible for the how well we prepared our children to make this transition into the outside world.

I have witnessed, over the past 20 years, a definitive regression in some of the children who've been shuttled off to day-care centers at the age of three months. I've also observed an increase in certain childhood diseases, invariably leading to more serious conditions, such as encephalitis, and hydrocephalus, as a result of complications encountered by those children, under a year of age, and their early exposure to childhood diseases they would not normally encounter until they had reached grade school, but due to the close quarters, varying ages of the children enrolled in these centers, not to mention the dubious accreditation of some of those running them, the risks of these type of situations occurring cannot be overeremphasized. Another generation or two, and these events will be considered the acceptable norm due to the fact these future generations of working mothers will know of no other alternative.

In the workplace today, whenever I'm informed by a new mother-to-be of the impending blessed event, I'm always prompted to remind her of what I've just related in the above paragraphs. If the woman has a husband who can viably support her and their family for the next five years, without the need of the woman's paycheck, I usually convince her of the imperativeness of her presence during those crucial, formative first three to five years in her child's life. But, more than likely, it will be the one mother-to-be, with a child already enrolled day care, with another one on the way. And, it is for these mothers, already in need of their dual incomes, with the husband working two jobs, that I try to encourage to find alternative forms of day care, be it through a responsible and caring relative, or church group, rather than risk their infant's health and psychological well-being. Plus, there are also abortion, adoption, and birth control alternatives for those in truly desperate straits.

I realize I may sound radical in the options I offer here, and that cultural diversity must be considered, and to what effects my thoughts may have on the subject matter, but I'm merely trying to be realistic in relation to the observations I've encountered in my job-related experiences while working on some of these children who've come through my department, as well as, the apprehensions I've observed of those fellow co-workers upon learning that another child was on the way to an already financially stressed household.

One thing I know for certain, is that it takes time, nuturing, love, and more than a village, to raise a child to be a responsible and caring individual, and I don't see this happening on any kind of a consistent basis in this present day and age, regardless of how much money the household may be generating. People need to take a long, hard, and objective look at themselves in order to weigh which priorities are more important to them, before choosing to subject another human being to a lifestyle which may not be conducive to that individual's well-being, in the long run, no matter what society, and its think tanks have to offer in the way of encouragement.

Rowena, you have a realistic and pragmatic outlook on life. I applaud you for your sensibility. Way to go, Girl!

[David Richardson]

John wrote:

A book has just been published in Britain called Key Issues in Women’s Work. In the book the author, Catherine Hakim, argues that: “For decades we’ve been told Sweden is a great place to be a working parent. But we’ve been duped.” She controversially argues that: “The glass ceiling problem is larger in family-friendley Sweden than it is in the hire-and-fire-at-will US, and it has grown as family-friendly policies have expanded. In Sweden 1.5% of senior management are women, compared with 11% in the US.” Hakin goes on to argue that Swedish women are paid around 20% less than Swedish men. Other European countries have a better record: Italy has a 15% pay gap, Spain a 12% gap and Belgium and Portugal an 8% gap. One of the major reasons for this is that 75% of Swedish women are working in the public sector – traditionally the lower-paid end of the employment market.

--------

I think that Catherine Hakim is overstating her case a little - and missing a couple of crucial features of the Sweden's family policies.

One of the main differences between being a parent in Sweden and being one in the UK or the US must be that the nursery schools actually exist here, and the rights to take time off at 80% of full pay to bring up children are, so far, unchallenged. There's a maximum fee set for full-time childcare which is set at around £250/month too.

I'm sure Catherine's right that there are more female executives in the US than in Sweden, but I'd certainly prefer to be a parent in Sweden than the US! A common experience when showing visitors from the US around is that they take me on one side and ask me where the poor people are. They assume that they're being hidden away to put on a good show, but the truth is that, whereas there are poorer and richer people in Sweden, you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere as poverty-stricken as parts of just about any large city in the US or the UK.

The Swedish system is good at fixing anomalies when they arise - but slow to recognise them. The private sector is on probation at the moment. If they don't redress this gender imbalance on boards of companies voluntarily, the government will probably just impose quotas on them until the imbalance is redressed. Something similar happened to make the Swedish Parliament one of the most equal in the world - the ruling party just decided to make every second name on the list of candidates (in strict numerical order) a woman. At the following election the Swedish Parliament became almost 50% female.

However, to come back to the current discussion on this thread, Sweden's benefits came from hard and consistent political struggle. The opponents of equality, a woman's right to choose, etc, may have acquiesced in their past defeats, but that doesn't mean that they've accepted the rightness of the causes that won. There's a continuing attempt to swing society back to inequality and injustice, which requires the same kind of struggle all over again.

[David Richardson]

Interesting article in today's Observer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1312806,00.html

[Caterina Gasparini]

Interesting article in today's Observer:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1312806,00.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, David. A very good article indeed, and what it says about Italy is unfortunately true. Italians should also start considering immigrants from another point of view, but this is a big issue for many Italians and not a simple question for Europe in general. Am I wrong to think that British immigration is something apart from what happens in countries which are not part of a greater political/economical entity (Commonwealth) or did not have many colonies in the past?

[Terry Mauro]

"However, my views are shaped much more by my study of history and sociology. The driving force of so called “progress” is usually the economic system. When a capitalist closes down a factory in one country so he can invest his money in another, he does so without any thought for the social consequences of his actions. That is the way it will always be, but in a democracy you have the potential (I would say the responsibility) to do what you can to protect the good things you are in danger of losing."

And, I agree with you, John. But, I also believe the capitalistic fascists [AKA, this international cartel of bankers and financiers (the privileged 5%'ers), who've taken over the Federal Reserve system, and served up this bastardized version of it to the rest of the world], are also hell-bent on running the world's economy as they see fit, in this present form, designed to suit their needs, not the needs of the tired, humbled, and teeming masses [the 95%'ers] yearning to breathe free in a democratic society.

I haven't come across anything in the last 20 years that even remotely resembles a democracy in the western world, have you? I don't see my vote amounting to anything more than a piece of paper, but I continue to do so hopefully, but in vain. We've been out-numbered and out-sound bitten by the neocons' with their media giants', "across-the-board", campaign of psychological manipulation, aimed at the basest of all human foibles: greed (for more and better than the next guy has), envy (for more and better than the next guy has), and mendacity (lying and deceitfulness, on the part of the media, that one needs more and better than the next guy has), in order to be successful. The competitive edge, so to speak.

It's a shame we have failed, as human beings, to instill those basic concepts of critical thinking, and responsibility into the mindset of society, that reflect a more realistic view of life and its consequences. Will society ever lose its penchant for this type of class/caste consciousness, no matter which form it is pre-pared, pre-packaged, and pre-sented to them for their consumption? Not in this lifetime. Unless we're able to change the value system of society, we will continually allow ourselves to be lured and coerced into believing we need a certain product, item, or object, in order to survive. This is a skewed way of having to go through life, and unfortunately, remains one of the driving forces contributing to the erosion of the family, a "keeping up with the Joneses", if you will.

I'm still waiting for the human race to evolve another rung up the evolutionary ladder, in the hopes that we might rise above our foibles and recognize them, in order that we not repeat them.

[John Simkin]

Thank you for that David. Great article by Will Hutton. I think this passage is worth looking at in detail:

In Italy, there is an urgent debate about why the birth rate is so low. The Vatican's grip on the country's culture and mores remains fierce, even if attendance at church is in headlong decline; guilt-ridden Italians have children only when they marry. Just 10 per cent of births are outside marriage; in Britain, it is 41 per cent. Moreover, the average 30-year-old Italian man is still living at home, while the average age that an Italian woman has her first child is over 30, compared to under 27 in Britain. Marrying late, Italians necessarily have fewer children.

The most cited reason is housing. Rented accommodation is over-regulated, and buying a house or flat is made impossibly difficult. Regulated Italian banks, protected from takeover by Italy's complex system of family cross-shareholding in Europe's least competitive financial system, are famously hopeless at mortgage lending. While first-time buyers in Britain can expect to borrow as much 100 per cent of the price of their first house or flat, and pay less than 2 per cent in fees and tax, Italian first-time buyers are lucky if they can borrow two-thirds of the value of their first house - and pay an extraordinary 10 per cent in fees and tax. Young Italians have to live at home and save, because their banking system won't take risks.

Clearly there are cultural factors in this situation. However, as he shows in the second paragraph, it is economics that is the main factor. That is Martin Jacques point.

Somehow, politicians have to be forced by the electorate to take measures in order to help achieve a well-functioning family.

Research by John Ermisch (Parent and Adult-Child Interactions) suggests that poor child-rearing is more of a problem for more affluent families. He has discovered that wealthier families are less likely to enjoy close relationships with their parents when they grow up than offspring from poorer backgrounds. He argues that high-earning, double-income parents were often so pressured that they found it difficult to find the time to provide proper support for children.

A study by Glasgow University found that 15 year olds from wealthy areas were more likely to have problems with drugs and alcohol that from deprived areas.

Ermisch argues that it is no coincidence that the children of more affluent families are less likely to see and help their parents when they get older. It seems that giving out money or gifts in childhood is not rewarded in later life. The thing that children seem to need is time and attention. When they don’t get that, they are less likely to give time and attention to their parents when they are old.

[John Simkin]

Speaking at the Labour Party conference in Brighton today, Charles Clarke said the most important challenge involved a "revolution" in early years education and childcare. Every primary school would offer learning, sport and cultural activities from 8am to 6pm. Clarke offered a crusade "to give every child an excellent start in life and parents affordable childcare, to ensure schools inspired pupils to learn, to create the most highly skilled workforce in the world." A criticism of the government's plans for "wraparound childcare" and extended schools is that details have not been given of how they would work and what the likely costs would be.

Wraparound childcare is an attempt to provide the facilities to enable mothers to return to full-time work as soon as possible after giving birth. I can see how this is good for the economy but is it good for the children? It seems a long time for a child to be in the same building. However, good the childcare, the children will not get the close one-to-one relationship that a child gets from a parent. Research suggests that boys in particular suffer from being sent to child-minders, nurseries, etc. I also question the quality of this care. On the news they showed a pilot system being run by a school in London. It showed the children having breakfast at the school. On the table in front of the chills was a box of Coco Pops and a chocolate bar.

[John Simkin]

It was recently reported that marital breakdown costs the UK about £15 billion a year (most of this spent on single-parent benefits). Children of divorced parents are much more likely to do worse at school, commit crimes, go to prison and more likely to commit suicide. Divorced men also live shorter lives than married men. For example, they are much more likely to get cancer than married men.

Bob Geldof recently said:

We hop from product to product, channel to channel, station to station and, most damagingly, lover to lover, trading each one in for a new model as soon as passion fades. Perhaps a lot of it is down to an overblown sense of self. We imagine ourselves to be free people, but we should not be free to destroy others, especially children. We have confused freedom with the idea of choice, we have become voracious consumers, not just of stuff, but of the soul.

Has the need to work hard, to produce, to earn, to spend, become more critical to the government – and perhaps our own emptier selves – than the truer world of the home… Have we so devalued domestic life and its culture of companionship and warmth and nurture and safety and calm to the point of being almost irrelevant. We’re all encouraged to put work first and domestic matters such as our families and our relationships second – and those who don’t are regarded with suspicion.