How Capitalism Has Changed Our Understanding of Family - Part 1

[James Nored]

In his excellent book, Families at the Crossroad, Rodney Clapp has a chapter entitled, "Advanced Capitalism & the Lost Art of Christian Family." Clapp points out that American families have, of course, benefited in many ways from capitalism economically. However, capitalism has also has a number of profound affects upon the family, many of them negative.

 

First, the industrial revolution helped create the division of life into public (secular) and private (religious). Prior to the industrial revolution, the family or household was all together involved in work and commerce. Together they would farm, or make shoes, or do some type of trade. There were no child labor laws. Parents and children--and servants, the extended households--all worked together, lovingly, to provide for the family. As a family unit, they were also involved in trade, commerce, law, religious, and social activities--purposes outside of themselves.

 

The industrial revolution, however, changed all of this. Men went off to work in factories to provide for the family. Families no longer worked together or had a purpose outside of themselves. The factories were hot with terrible working conditions. Therefore the family and home became a refuge from the world. The daily week in public life was for work, male-oriented, and was absent of God and religion. The home became private, a retreat, religious, and female-oriented. 

 

This created many problems. The Christian life is to be lived for God 24/7, not just on weekends or in the home. This sacred-secular divide is still a huge problem today. Women were relegated to child-rearing, shopping, and domestic duties. While child-rearing is a tremendous blessing, previously this was more of a joint responsibility between men and women. And women used their many gifts and talents through the family in engagement in the larger world (buying and selling the family trade, etc.). Many women missed these larger roles--like that in Proverbs 31, where the worthy woman buys and sells--which led to the rise of the feminist movement.

 

Today, even the home has become largely secularized, as leisure time in homes is filled with television watching and few families have family devotionals, serve others regularly as a family, or have spiritual family practices. And women are caught in a difficult spot. Few families can afford for the wife to not work outside of the home entirely. And those that do stay home entirely may miss the use of their other gifts as was practiced by millenia of women with the husbands in commerce,  interacting with the community, etc., in pre-industrial times. So most women end up working two jobs--outside the home and inside the home, both to help economically and to find fulfillment.

 

Those that idealize the idea of the husband going to work, with little involvement in childrearing, while the while stays home and devotes her entire time to childrearing and domestic duties need to recognize that this was the 19th bourgeois dream and did not exist for milennia. (Incidentally, this is largely how I was raised, and largely how we have raised our children.) Most families worked and raised children together, and this helped spread both the burdens and joys of work and childrearing to both the husband and the wife. Few families can find today such an arrangement like that found in pre-industrial times.

 

Finally, the privatized view of the home has led to the shutting out of neighbors and others, leading to a significant loss of community in people's lives.

 

How can we eliminate the sacred-secular divide that is so common in families' lives today? How should husbands, wives, and children approach work and family life?

[James Nored]

As to capitalism lifting people out of poverty, this may be true. But who defines poverty? Is poverty the lack of material things? Are we really happier in the US with our homes and things than a "poor" villager in Africa? Certainly, I can't imagine living like that. But I bet many of these "poor" villagers don't think of themselves as poor, so long as they have food, water, and shelter.

[James Nored]

Dad, Clapp talks about "advanced capitalism" and, more specifically, the industrial revolution here. So what you are arguing against is not the argument that he makes. And Clapp does not talk at all about a utopian "self-sufficient" family unit. In fact, he says quite the opposite, that families worked together to interact with the broader world in commerce, law, and many other ways, and that without this larger purpose and interaction, it was robbed of its life and richness.

The industrial revolution, on the other hand, most definitely did contribute to massive family changes, for better or for worse. It created an environment in which a sacred-secular divide was easy to slide into. This makes it a contributing factor, not a direct cause. Just like marriages that are under economic distress are more likely to break up. This economic distress is a contributing factor, not a direct cause.

[Lynn S. Nored]

The very title of this book postulates a thesis that does not make sense.  "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets.^[1] Income in a capitalist system takes at least two forms,profit on the one hand and wages on the other."  This system, per se, has nothing to do with our understanding of family.  As has been pointed out both industrialization and consumerism has contributed to how the family see itself.  The Utopian ideal of "self-sufficient" family units is a myth.  "The title is a not so subtle attack on the economic system  coupled with our unique constitutional system granting "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" has done more for lifting people out of poverty than any economic and constitutional system.   In no way does this system by itself lend itself to any breakup of families or contribute to a lack of commitment.  Consumerism likewise is misplacement of values.   Consumerism --the need for more and more "things" can occur under any economic system.  It is just that our system provides these "things" in abundance.   So the problem is a departure from biblical values--not that a particular economic system "caused" this.   

[James Nored]

John, I'm not sure he would say it caused it--certainly not by itself, and we each have freewill--but the industrial revolution was a huge societal force that made it easy for society to slide into a sacred/secular divide.

[John Telgren]

Is Clapp saying that capitalism along with the industrial revolution "caused" the secular/sacred divide?  Or is he simply saying that secularism combined with capitalism has created these problems?

 

[James Nored]

Darin, back when I was at Liberty, I taught this in a class I was doing on the family. As long as you don't sound judgmental, I think that most people find the historical explanation interesting and eye-opening.

 

Yes, many Americans tend to think of capitalism as 100% God-ordained. I like capitalism better than any other economic systems, but it does have its flaws. 

[Darin Hamm]

Sounds very good. I would be interested to know if you have preached this concept. When trying to teach people this idea and point out how our experience is very recent I have had people question me.

 

I always find it interesting when people are more likely to defend capitalism than the teachings of Jesus.