In the Good Old Days: Fact or Fiction on the Nostalgia Trip
By
Harriet Shaklee, Family Development Specialist
University of Idaho Cooperative Extension
It’s
tempting to lapse into glowing memories of the way things used to be when it comes to
family life. We recall that, in the good old
days, children lived with both parents, extended families were close-knit, families were
self-sufficient, and mom stayed home with the kids while dad supported the family. Whatever our beliefs are about family life in the
past, contemporary family circumstances often pale in contrast, supporting our growing
concerns about home life for today’s children.
Stephanie
Coontz is a historian who reviews American family life since colonial times to evaluate
common notions about times past. Her
conclusion is that memory and reality are at odds all too often. Let’s use the lens of history to examine
several common beliefs about how things used to be. “In the good old days…”
Children
lived with both of their parents.This might have been true if adults had lived
longer. While today, children lose parents
through divorce, in times past, death frequently took one or both parents before children
reached adulthood. In the colonial south,
over ½ of children lost at least one parent before their 14th birthday. About
as many children spend their youth in single-parent households today as at the turn of the
century and far fewer live with neither parent.
Adult life
spans were so short in colonial times that the average length of marriage was only a dozen
years. A couple marrying at the end of the 20th century is more likely to
celebrate their 40th anniversary than one at the end of the 19th
century. Comparing family life across the years, historian Lawrence Stone suggests that
divorce today has become a “functional substitute for death.”
By the middle
of the 20th century, longer lives combined with marital stability to provide a
time when the two-parent family was the norm for American children. However, divorce rates increased rapidly between
the 1960’s and the 1980’s to the point where the majority of American children
in today’s families spend a significant part of their life in a single parent
household.
People were closer to their extended family. Death and geographic mobility
combined to limit extended family ties throughout the American past. The shortened life span of Americans before the
turn of the century meant that aunts and uncles often died before the children were grown,
and few children had living grandparents to get to know.
More Americans than ever before have grandparents living today.
We also
imagine that young families commonly lived with their parents in times past, raising
children under the watchful eye of the older generation. Though young families today
rarely share housing with their other relatives, this was unusual in the past as well. Extended family households reached their peak from
1850-1885, but even then, only 20% of families lived with other kin. Throughout American history, housing of young
families with their parents was more an indication of economic hardship than of strong
family ties.
Family
mobility undermined extended family ties even further.
The past 100 years in this country have seen a rural-urban migration trend, as
people left their homes in search of work. The
westward migration of the 1800’s also separated people from kin, many of whom they
would never see again. We feel like a mobile society, today, but people born in the 20th
century are actually more likely to live near their birthplace than were those born in the
19th century. At the same time,
modern transportation makes it easier today to maintain connections with distant family
members.
Mothers stayed home with their children while fathers
worked to support the family. This is an
image with some validity for subgroups at some points in time, but was never an accurate
generalization for Americans as a whole. Up
until the Civil War, work was home-based, with mom and dad working long days. Child care was no problem because work and home
were the same place, and children were involved alongside their parents in household
production.
After the
Civil War, the industrial revolution and accompanying migration to the cities meant that
work moved out of the home into factories and offices.
For middle class families, mothers stayed at home and built a sanctuary of
nurturance for children, while fathers worked as the sole breadwinner. However, lower income families couldn’t
afford this arrangement, and both parents headed off to work, often accompanied by their
children who also worked in the factory.
At the
turn of the century, paid employment for married women reached a low point, with only 5-9%
of married women in the work force in 1900. However,
this trend turned around as families scrambled for subsistence in the depression. With the shortage of male labor in WWII even more
women went to work, resulting in a 50% increase in working women, ¾ of whom were married. Female employment dropped temporarily after the
war, but was on the increase again by the end of the 1950’s, when over 40% of women
over 16 years old were employed. Between 1940
and 1960, the number of working mothers increased fourfold.
Couples postponed sex until after marriage. A
look at history shows this belief to be faulty as well.
In mid-16th century Concord, MA, 1/3 of children were conceived out of
wedlock, and toward the end of that century 1/3 of rural new England brides were pregnant
when they came to the altar. The rates of
out-of-wedlock pregnancy for white women were the same in 1850 as they were in 1970. Teenage pregnancy rates hit their peak in 1957,
when 97/1000 teenage girls gave birth, compared to only 52/1000 in 1983, doubling the rate
of pregnant brides.
Thus, the
record of history shows that the current generation did not invent premarital sex. However, one difference to note over these years
is that pregnant teenage girls did tend to get married in these earlier decades – the
recent increase in out-of-wedlock births is a new trend for American families. Also, the cost of teenage pregnancy may be
greater today, when premature parenthood disadvantages girls in high school completion and
college education, factors more critical to success today than in times past.
Families were fiercely independent, refusing support
from others. Life in colonial times
was difficult and people regularly relied on others to help them survive. Help was sought from neighbors, churches, courts,
and government for sustenance when disaster loomed. Americans
in the 19th century similarly relied on the assistance of neighbors and
associations to meet family needs. Immigrants
formed lodges to provide assistance to needy families, workers started funeral aid
societies to look out for injured workers and for dependents of co-workers killed on the
job. Even western settlers, known for their
self-sufficiency, cleared land, built homes, and harvested crops, all as a community
effort. Early Americans lived by the sweat of
the brow, but these individuals would never have made it through the hardships ahead
without extensive community support.
Families got
along just fine without government support. Throughout American history, the government
has been involved supporting and subsidizing the American dream for families. Lands for expansion were purchased by government
funds or won through war efforts at government expense, with the property later made
available to settlers at minimal expense. Settlement
efforts in many areas were made possible by government construction of dams, canals, and
irrigation projects, and by the development of the railway, financed largely through land
grants given to the railroad developers. More
recent government support for families includes rural electrification projects, highway
development in support of new home building, home loan support programs, and education
loans and grants.
American families
really enjoyed the good life in the 50’s.
The 50’s certainly were a time when America was family centered.
Average family size increased from 2.5 to 3.5 children per couple, reversing a century
long trend toward smaller families. The
average age of marriage dropped in the 50’s, as men and women made an early
commitment to family life. Marriages were
stable and the two-parent family became the norm for American children. During this decade, family participation was seen
as an index of adult maturity; 80% of
Americans in 1957 agreed with the statement that people who chose not to marry were sick,
neurotic, and immoral.
Many families experienced
increasing prosperity during the 50’s, when per capita income grew by 35%. In the decade of the 50’s, real wages
increased by more than in the previous half century. By the mid-50’s, nearly 60
percent of the population was middle class, compared to only 31% in the 1920’s, also
considered to be a prosperous time for the country. And were did all of the money go? It was spent on family needs and wants. Purchases of household furnishings and appliances
jumped 240% following WWII, while spending on food and clothing increased 33% and 20%
respectively.
Home ownership also increased
during the 50’s, when prosperity allowed newly-weds to establish their own homes at
earlier ages. Between 1940 and 1960, home
ownership increased from 43% to 62% of the population, with 85% of the housing expansion
in the suburbs. The government played a key
role in the expansion of home ownership. Before
WWII, banks often required families to make a down payment of 50% of the home value for a
loan and required payoff of the balance in 5-10 years.
However, the Federal Housing Administration got involved in the home loan business,
changing mortgage practices by financing home loans for a 30 year period with only 5-10%
down and interest rates of 2-3%. The Veterans
Administration made loans available to veterans for only $1 down. These developments lowered the barriers to home
ownership, extending the American dream to more families.
These government-financed programs allowed the development of suburban
communities, where almost half of the families relied on government housing loans.
Government subsidy of education
also contributed to family prosperity in the 50’s.
After WWII, a grateful nation passed the GI bill, making higher education available
to many veterans who would be the first in their family to attend college. Government subsidized loans helped others attend
college during the same time period. A better
educated population contributed to the economic expansion enjoyed by families during this
period. Children benefit as well when parents
are better educated, with positive effects on their own education and earnings, self
esteem, and family formation.
Who got left out? Although the 50’s brought better
times for many American families, those opportunities were not available to all. White American families prospered, but Jim Crow
laws and discriminatory practices cut black families out of the American dream. In many areas of the country, black people rode at
the back of the bus and used different drinking fountains and restrooms from whites. Schools and restaurants were segregated, and
realtors refused to sell property to blacks in white residential areas. Bank practices of “redlining” meant that
black families were unable to get loans to buy homes in minority neighborhoods. Displacement of black families from southern
agriculture in the 50’s led to rising unemployment as families moved to the cities. Job discrimination assured a marginal family
income for those who were able to find work. Parallel
practices similarly sidelined Hispanics and other minorities during this period of
economic expansion for so many other Americans.
Others existed on the margins
as well. Fully one-third of children lived in
poverty during this time of prosperity for so many families. Elders were left out as well, with 60% of those
over 65 living on $1000 or less per year in 1958, well below the $3000 - $10,000 required
for middle class status at the time. Elders
also generally lacked medical insurance. With
neither food stamps nor government housing programs, there was little to cushion the
effect of such poverty. Today’s
government programs of social security and Medicare have largely lifted America’s
elders out of poverty. However, children have
not similarly benefited in recent years, and remain the poorest segment of our population.
Finally, opportunities for
girls and women were limited by strong patterns of gender discrimination in the 50’s. Women were disadvantaged in access to higher
education and employment. School programs
such as athletics were commonly available for males but not for females. Commitment to home and family may have been high
during these years, but alternatives for women were limited indeed.
Memories
of things past. Stephanie Coontz’s review of historical belief shows many
common conceptions about the past to be in error. According
to her analysis, even memories from the 1950’s are biased, a period well within the
memory of many adults today. Why is our memory of the past so often at odds with the facts? A number of factors may contribute to the
pattern.
First,
studies show that our memories for past events change over time. One prominent trend is the tendency for favorable
events of our past to be more easily recalled over time, as negative events become less
available to memory. Many of the beliefs we
reviewed contained much accurate information, but have taken a positive glow over time as
the negative events fade from memory. The
positive images of the 50’s benefit from this tendency, with memories of prosperity
for many American families, but fading images of the racial and gender discrimination
endemic to the time.
In other
cases, a belief accurate for one point in history is over-generalized to other times for
which it was not true. For example, the model
of males as sole family breadwinner was introduced in the latter part of the 1800’s
as work moved out of the home, but we tend to think it was true throughout the American
past. Similarly, children generally lived in
2-parent families in the middle of the 20th century, but we over-generalize the pattern to periods earlier in the
country’s history.
Finally,
popular images of the past as shown in favorite television shows such as the Waltons or
Leave it to Beaver come to stand for the times they are meant to represent. However, a look at today’s popular TV shows
reveal their many biases when compared to current family life. If a future generation judged the present day by
the content of today’s TV shows, how accurate would their conclusions be? We sometimes forget that television
entertainment is no substitute for historical scholarship in understanding America’s
past. Of course, in some cases the television
can help us correct our misconceptions about the past, when history programs help bring
that past to life for the American public.
Reviewing
the historical record, what do we learn about America’s families?
·
History shows the strong hand of economics in family life. Throughout time, job displacement and rumors of
opportunity elsewhere have fueled family moves, weakening extended family ties for
Americans. When the Industrial Revolution of
the late 1800’s moved work out of the home and into the factory, fathers began to
spend long hours away from the family and mothers assumed stronger roles at home as family
nurturer. However, low income families
couldn’t afford this lifestyle as mom, dad, and even the children headed off to the
factory for work. New practices of home
mortgage lending after WWII made home ownership a possibility for more American families,
and underwrote the development of suburban America. These
are just a few of the ways in which economic pressures shaped the life experiences of
American families.
·
Throughout American history, the government has played a strong
role in enabling American families to realize their dreams.
From the programs of westward expansion to the education and home loan
subsidies of more recent years, government investment has paid off in a better life for
more Americans. However, the record also
shows that some families benefited from these programs at the expense of others. The westward expansion of the 1800’s removed
Native Americans from their lands to make way for other Americans. Discriminatory loan and real estate practices of
the 1950’s made home ownership available to white Americans, while minority families
watched from the sidelines.
·
A balanced view of history that includes the negatives as well
as the positives makes a better point of comparison for contemporary life. In contrast to days past, we see important
favorable trends in recent years. Better
nutrition, sanitation, and modern medicine have allowed parents to live long enough to see
their children live to adulthood and to know their grandchildren and even
great-grandchildren. Increases in infant
survival and reduction in childhood diseases have made a better life for child and parent
alike. Modern transportation helps us keep in
contact with our extended family despite our mobility.
Social security and Medicare programs have brought our elders out of poverty
and ensured them access to medical care. Educational
support programs have increased the training of our population, improving family life for
many Americans.
The list
of positive developments for families over the years reminds us of our ability to build a
better future for America’s families. These
lessons of family life from years past should inspire us for the work ahead in the new
millenium.
This
discussion was based on The Way We Never Were by
Stephanie Coontz, New York: Basis Books, 1992.
