|
|
February 17, 2000
Dr. Boyd
Western Civilization II
Changing Bonds:
Essay on The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800
Introduction
The Family, Sex and Marriage in England addresses some very interesting histographical questions while illuminating various changing trends during the time period of 1500-1800 in England. This is a book which bridges the gap between sociology and history by asking key questions about the nature of changing bonds during this time period, and the cultural shifts which contributed to these changes. This book develops in a very readable manner by presenting ideological and histographical concerns early on, while addressing them in detail when particular problems arise in the interpretation of historical data later in the text.
While the book does emphasis the complex widespread cultural interrelationships that emerged from the change in overall religion, social structure, political organization and economics, it also looks at the narrower way these influences affected different subgroups and social stratas. In the introduction, issues of histography set the tone for later analysis by asking the question "What evidence does one focus on when doing history, and what can one trust?" Because of the surviving evidence, this book "biases the book towards a study of a small minority group, namely the literate and articulate." (26) However, this is a problem with most cultural exploration, and isn't limited to this particular analysis.
This book does however point out the immature nature of this particular study. Marriage, family and other social bonds have only recently become a focus of inquiry. This causes methodological problems in these few ways: 1) the excavation of relevant data has been limited; 2) the theories about this field of study are few; and 3) the interaction between this focus and other areas of history has not been established. However, despite this limitation, a relative interpretative freedom in the history of marriage, family and other social bonds has developed for academics interested in this subject. A vast and varied theoretical and methodological tradition can be relied on, while also an expanded interdisciplinary focus (such as the marriage of history and sociology) can be explored. In fact, a new "historian of the family" has emerged who asks interesting questions that otherwise have been ignored.
Affective Individualism
One of the most interesting, and in my opinion, controversial chapters in this book looks at the influence of affective individualism. According to the book, there is an evidence for a new interest in the self which had implications on the changing social bonds of marriage and family. In fact, historical record tends to shift in focus, with the emergence of the diary and other personal narrative presenting a wealth of new data. Additionally, individualism influenced a rising demand for autonomy, shifting the cultural focus from the collective good to the role of the individual in society. One question that can be asked is whether this individualistic spirit could be compatible with a tight-knit family. At this point, the book suggests, families become less interchangeable and more valuable for individuals. This appears to be a paradox: increased individualism and more affective family structures.
One important factor in this shift from the collective to the individualistic spirit was the role that death played through out this time period. First, there was a high level of mortality, and the omnipresence of death colored affective relations at all levels of society. At this point, the concept of the family was of a group of replaceable surrogates. Additionally, very few people actually married, which influenced the instability of the family structure, and the extraordinary delay of marriage caused severe sexual abstinence at the period of maximum sexual drive. From a Freudian perceptive, this was a cultural at the brink of libidinal drives, creating an extreme amount of tension in this society.
With the advent of individualism, this tension began to lesson. Mortality rates slowed, marriage was on the rise, and extreme sexual abstinence began to lesson as cultural morays changed. In turn, the family became more child-oriented.
Another reason a collective emphasis declined was the erosion of various traditional values. A sense of community was challenged by the emergence of the floating urban migrant mass. Community ties at this point became less reliable, and a new dependence on a small familial bond developed.
Questioning the Text
There appears to be a certain hidden bias that over time, cultural shifts have developed in a linear progression. The nuclear family seems to be the norm for the author. Additionally, the affective individualistic perspective appears to signify progress as presented in the book. Perhaps the is due to the limits of documentation. However, in stressing the availability of evidence, the author appears to be taking an easy way out. Other historians with very little written evidence about a culture are still able to posit views about the role of the family and marriage in the society, although often in an indirect manner. Another historian might view the erosion of the sense of community as a decline and not emphasize such individualistic sources (such as diaries and other personal narratives). This historian might in turn look at emerging and changing oral histories, folk tales, and other community based narratives as evidence for views on the family.
Also, the author seems to assume a very homogenous culture with no cultural, racial, political or religious distinctions. England at this time was welcoming a number of immigrants and it had a mixed cultural heritage (Roman, Barbarian, Gaelic, etc.) in the first place. The issue of Protestantism vs. Catholicism is very important in understanding the changing affective structure during this time, however it is hardly addressed.
Related to the issue of a homogenous cultural influence is the lack of cultural comparison. I would have liked to see in this book is a comparison between England of this time period and other cultures. Were the cultural patterns isolated, or widespread, and what implications did it have? Additionally, with the statement "the modern state is a natural enemy to the values of the clan," I wonder if this conclusion could hold true in other cultures such as Roman, Asian, or Russian.
Some epistemological and histographical issues are raised in reading this text. For instance, can we truly understand the past and rid ourselves of our biases? If not, and all you can do is acknowledge those biases and try to stay aware of them while doing history, does the author of this text attempt to do so? In developing this pattern of change in England during this time, and in the analysis and explanation of some massive shifts in world views and value systems, does emphasis on how individuals though about and treated and used each other suggest a built in value judgment. Certainly a Marxist would have a different perspective and view the changes not on a individualistic basis, but within a socially oriented and collective framework. What conclusions would a Marxist then arrive at about affective individualism? Or would that even be a concept introduced?
The Marxist analysis example is also relevant because the author plays around with various Marxist histographies in the text. However, he does not seem to see ideology of the historian, and not just of the time, as playing an integral role in historical conclusions.
Conclusion
The marriage between sociology and history that appears to be advanced in this book on the surface appears to be a worthwhile and fruitful endeavor. However, how does this marriage change our current perspective on the role of history and sociology in methodology and analysis? Historians look more at chronology and documentation, while sociology tends to have built in views about the interaction of human beings. Historians do not necessarily invent theories about human nature and then apply them to cultural analysis as do sociologists. Both views might be valid in understanding history--but are they fundamentally compatible?
Another methodological issue that emerges is the role of cause and effect. Many times it is suggested that certain ideologies (such as affective individualism) influence cultural patterns. However, is this a corollary, a coincidence, or a reversed causal interaction? Or what other ideologies were also influencing this cultural pattern? How do we discern cause and effect in doing history, and on what basis? In developing the methodology of the book, these would have been a pertinent questions.
Also, can patterns in the complexities in a culture actually be discerned accurately? A whole field of chaos theory has developed in response to this question, seeing the complexities in a system as so interwoven that it is difficult to quickly unravel them.
Earlier I pointed out the book's introduction of the issue of what evidence can we trust when doing history. An extension of this question is whether the qualifications we make (such as saying that the evidence is limited or flawed) actually influences the conclusions we arrive at. With the problem of objectivity, we must deal with our own colored lenses--but with a layer of fuzzy documentation and evidence, how clear can our lens ever be?
I appreciated the scope and perspective of this book, especially the methodological inquiries. The information is presented in a thoughtful and readable manner. A wide array of evidence is analyzed and different historical views are examined. However, I would have liked to see some acknowledgment of what ideological biases the author has. But this might be too much to ask for, since we are not always aware what those biases are.