No, Traditional Marriage and Family Are Not ‘Recent Inventions’

Those who hate the traditional married family unit utilise all sorts of means to attack it, denigrate it, and undermine it. One quite common ploy used over the past few decades is to claim that the family structure of mum, dad and the kids, cemented by marriage, is an historical aberration.

They say this is really just a fluke of history, and they even claim that it only really ever existed in the 1950s! This sort of radical historical revisionism and social deconstructionism has been heard far too often by those on the left. But it just happens to be patent nonsense.

It is the same propaganda stunt that Hitler’s Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels spoke about: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” So the leftists, feminists, and homosexual activists have been rehashing this lie for years now.

Let me offer just a few examples of this. One Melbourne University academic and lesbian activist spoke of “the continuation of outdated 1950s family values that are deeply homophobic and fearful of women raising children without men”.

Or as one Australian leftist put it: “The ‘50s were the golden era of the nuclear family. It wasn’t the way it was before or the way it has been since. It’s an historical blip, an aberration”.

We get more of the same from a professor who said that today’s nuclear family is an “aberration” left over from the 40s and 50s. “It’s not functional now, and it never has been. That is why this type of family is surrounded by so much legislation and moral discourse. It needs propping up because it’s not a natural unit.”

So the natural family is an aberration, is not natural, and it is simply a relic of the 1950s! The ability of the ideological left to simply make things up as they go along, and to boldly and blatantly rewrite history is absolutely shocking. But sadly it happens all the time.

So what is the truth of the matter? It certainly is NOT what the activists and militants are trying to tell you. The historical, anthropological and sociological record is quite clear: the traditional family unit, cemented by marriage, is not just a 1950s social construct.

It has in fact been the predominant form of family life in most cultures throughout history. The evidence is all too plain for anyone without ideological blinders to see. Let me offer just a few representative quotes here. Let me begin with sociologist Peter Berger:

“Recent research into the history of the family, both in Western Europe and in northern America, shows that the nuclear family, far from being a product of modernization processes (such as urbanization and industrialization), antedates these processes by centuries”.

Indeed, the family antedates the state as well. Writing two and a half millennia ago, Aristotle put it this way: “Man is by nature more inclined to live as a couple than to associate politically, since the family is something that precedes and is more necessary than the State.”

The family not only spans the centuries, but it extends across cultures as well. Bronislaw Malinowski was the first great anthropologist to live among primitive peoples. After years of research and painstaking observations of the daily habits of these people, he came to see that the family was a universal institution:

Indeed, at first sight, the typical savage family, as it is found among the vast majority of native tribes … seems hardly to differ at all from its civilized counterpart. Mother, father, and children share the camp, the home, the food, and the life… Attached to each other, sharing life and most of its interests, exchanging counsel and help, company and cheer, and reciprocating in economic cooperation … the individual, undivided family stands out conspicuous, a definitive social unit marked off from the rest of society by a clear line of division.

Another important anthropologist, Robert Lowie, notes that communal arrangements in sexuality and child-rearing are the exception, whereas families are the universal norm:

Sexual communism as a condition taking the place of the individual family exists nowhere at the present time; and the arguments for its former existence must be rejected as unsatisfactory … we are justified in concluding that regardless of all other social arrangements the individual family is an omnipresent social unit… [T]he one fact stands out beyond all others that everywhere the husband, wife and immature children constitute a unit apart from the remainder of the community.

Anthropologist George Murdock’s exhaustive investigation into 250 human societies revealed this elementary conclusion:

The nuclear family is a universal human social grouping. Either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit from which more complex familial forms are compounded, it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every known society. No exception, at least, has come to light in the 250 representative cultures surveyed for the present study… In no case have we found a reliable ethnographer denying either the existence or the importance of this elemental social group… The nuclear family is always recognizable and always has its distinctive and vital functions.

Noted sociologist Amitai Etzioni has put it this way: “There never was a society throughout all of history … without a family as the central unit for launching the education of children, for character formation, and as the moral agent of society.”

Harvard University’s James Q. Wilson concurs:

In every community and for as far back in time as we can probe, the family exists and children are expected, without exception, to be raised in one. By a family I mean a lasting, socially enforced obligation between a man and a woman that authorizes sexual congress and the supervision of children. Its style and habits will vary greatly, of course, but nowhere do we find a place where children are regularly raised by a mother who has no claims on the father.

And again, “The family is not only a universal practice, it is the fundamental social unit of any society.” This seems to be the constant pattern of history. As the Times Literary Supplement Editor, Ferdinand Mount has commented,

The family is not an historical freak. If the evidence we have put together is correctly interpreted, the family as we know it today – small, two-generation, nuclear, based on choice and affection…is neither a novelty nor the product of unique historical forces. The way most people live today is the way most people have preferred to live when they had the chance.

Michael Levin, professor of philosophy at the City College of New York, puts the case even more forcefully:

Human beings have always been reared within “traditional” families. It is true that in many cultures children are raised after infancy by communal groups, but these groups are generally composed of mothers who know each other. Not only has there never been an open, democratic society not based on the family, there has never been any society of any sort not based on the family. In every society a child’s upbringing has been the responsibility of close blood relations, with his daily care a female task and his protection a male task. Some societies have favored polygamy, a very few polyandry; in some societies a number of married couples live together under a communal roof, while in others each of the basic units live separately. But no society has tolerated reproductive units with more than one member of both sexes, a temporary bond, or sex outside the reproductive unit.

Given all these claims, one has to ask, why should there be any doubt that the traditional family is the norm? One anthropologist from Boston University looks at why so many social scientists are hostile to marriage and family and are quite happy to ignore or skew the historical record and the social data:

Anthropology – hometown to cultural relativists and all-night diner for disaffected intellectuals – may not be where you would most expect to find good reason to defend traditional American family values. But anthropology, in fact, guards a treasure house of examples of what happens when a society institutionalizes other arrangements…
The Leftist political convictions of many of my fellow anthropologists tend to keep them silent about some of the scientific findings that have accumulated over 150 years or so of systematic ethnographic study. But these findings strongly suggest that the family is a bedrock institution and that the kinds of modifications to the family advocated by gays, feminists, and others who speak in favor of relaxing traditional restrictions on sexual self-expression will have huge consequences.

Thus in spite of the ideological musings of some intellectuals, the family unit is the preferred way of living for most people. It is also the best. No other social relationship comes close to the family unit. It is in the family that all other social relationships are learned and developed.

Without the family, social cohesion would be much more difficult to achieve. As late Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin has said, the family is the “first fundamental form of social relationships.” The words of Simon Leys offer a fitting summary:

The family has stood as the most enduring and successful experiment in the entire cultural history of mankind… In the history of the civilised world, no substitute has ever been found for the family. Any society that allows it to disintegrate, or endeavours actively to destroy it (as we are now doing here) does it at its own horrific risks and costs… That such a matter of common sense could become now a subject for challenge and debate is a telling sign of the times. Chesterton said it well: ‘when common sense ceases to be common, a society is in terminal decay’.

Note: All the information offered in this article is fully documented and referenced in my 2014 book, Dangerous Relations.

[1652 words]

13 Replies to “No, Traditional Marriage and Family Are Not ‘Recent Inventions’”

  1. The excellent Simon Leys quote ending Bill’s article above got me thinking. And I realized this: Isn’t it telling that the Australian political party known as ‘Family First’ has ceased to exist by that name in the very year that ‘same sex marriage’ could become enshrined in law?!

  2. As with most evil the left pushes there is a tiny sliver of truth that is used to then tell a collection of lies.

    The 50’s nuclear family in america at least had a few things that made it historically unique.

    Being somewhat isolated as a unit is a historical aberration, families historically have been a more communal affair with extended family in residence or very close by.

    Likewise the “bored housewife” of feminist obsession are historically somewhat unusual.

    But both of these things are a result of staggering material wealth that meant that single families could afford their own dwelling and didnt need to share and the technological innovation that took a huge amount of labour out of maintaining the house and having enough food etc.

    Far from an aberration in a bad sense, the stand alone nuclear family is aberrant only because we are wealthy enough to be able to afford such opulence as not needing to have extended family all under the same roof to make ends meet.

  3. Well I can trace my family history back around one hundred years, all “traditional” or what I call natural families and we have traced my wife’s history back to the First Fleet, over two hundred years, again all natural families with a husband and wife and children. When we look at the Bible we even see at the time when Joseph was sold into Egypt, that having a wife was such a cultural norm that even Potiphar, who was one of Pharaoh’s eunuchs, had a single wife. (Gen 39). In every society that has remotely prospered it has always been the norm and for a very good reason. It is what our human instincts are designed for. It is only when the “middle class” is destroyed through oppression and despotism reigns that you don’t see the natural family as the norm and the building block of a free society. Respect for the natural family has always gone “hand in hand” with people’s rights and society’s well being and the evidence as to the benefits for children, and hence all society, is profound.

  4. One has to be careful when using the words traditional marriage here in africa. Here that means married in the african tradition, which is certainly not a legal marriage nor is it christian based.

  5. “Man is by nature more inclined to live as a couple than to associate politically, since the family is something that precedes and is more necessary than the State.”

    Exactly, and as any general that has sat on a junta knows that the problem is not the family unit, as the generals protect the family unit from the excesses of the state. The Pinochet junta is a recent example and Venezuela will probably be the next; the state and gay marriage are not necessary.

  6. Some thoughts on LGBTI ‘health’:

    The mental health of LGBTI people:
    * “a disproportionate number experience poorer mental health outcomes and have higher risk of suicidal behaviours than their peers”
    Note the caveat,
    * “these health outcomes are directly related to experiences of stigma, prejudice, discrimination and abuse on the basis of being LGBTI”. (Succinctly: it is our fault)

    In relation to HIV, viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections:
    * “The main route of HIV transmission in Australia continues to be sexual contact between men”
    * “Of the gay and bisexual men attending sexual health clinics, 27% of HIV-positive men had a new chlamydia infection.”
    * “Of the gay and bisexual men attending sexual health clinics, 27% of HIV?positive men had a new gonorrhoea infection.”
    * “Of the gay and bisexual men attending sexual health clinics, 9.7% of HIV?positive men had a new diagnosis of syphilis infection.”

    * “According to health data from the Kirby Institute, a staggering 18,588 cases of gonorrhoea were detected in 2015, up from 8,388 cases in 2006. In just a decade, the number of gonorrhoea cases annually has more than doubled”.

    The ‘counselling for those impacted and mental health’ associated with the trauma of the SSM postal survey.

    Any legalisation of SSM will not fix those problems. The issues are much deeper.
    * “So God gave them over to a depraved mind.”

  7. Thank you Bill – as always your articles show up the absurdities of these (supposedly-educated) “elites”. The following exposes completely dismantle their “real” agendas:

    1. See very important book by Professor Gabrielle Kuby “Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom”… where she describes the homosexual lobby’s strategy in bringing about a world more to their liking … and the extreme dangers to our children, who are – to them- nothing more than “collateral damage.”
    2. See “Transgenderism: A Leftist Weapon Against the Family” http://www.crisismagazine.c
    and see: —
    3. See Andrew Bolt Report on FALSIFIED DATA /distortions where he exposes the SSM strategy and their attempt to justify the the SSM stance. He exposes their most BIZZARE EXTRAPOLATION of (falsified Data extrapolations) to Australia: see
    where supposedly vast numbers of high-school children (i.e., at an age obviously light-years-away-from-being-ready for marriage – and yet also allegedly so profoundly traumatised over the being denied the prospect same-sex-marriage that they have become ‘same-sex-suicidal’ [such severe disorders also not exactly conducive to marital or any success, anyway] ).

    I have a Question: Why would school-age students be even remotely interested in Marriage, but worse — WHY would such students, so badly “emotional crippled,” be even remotely considering themselves ready for marriage, anyway. Surely this would be the furthest topic from their minds! No logic to be found in their weird extrapolation!

  8. In not a few Christian households, both spouses have a career where this is a lifestyle choice, rather than a financial necessity. This makes it easier for the LGBTIQ party to claim there’s no difference between Mums and Dads, since both are competing for the same jobs.

  9. Refreshing to learn that Engels’ Marxist “history” of the evolution of marriage and family via alleged primordial matriarchy into patriarchy, the alleged seed-bed of bourgeois capitalist oppression appears not to have been the real story after all!

    Generalising from atypical forms of marriage and family to build a hypothesis was bound to be a risky business.

  10. But why stop at two? Families come in all shapes and sizes so why not have, as you suggested , Bill, some years ago, a football team?

    Why not have two straight blokes get married ?

    Teresa May, Britain’s Prime Minister, who has sold her soul for a bowl of pottage, thinks marriage is good for everyone because it produces commitment and fidelity . Her tortured and shifty facial expressions are a study in dissimulation itself. God help her.

    However, 50 year old (coming on 13 years) Baroness Tina Stowell disagrees. Marriage now no longer requires fidelity or even consummation.

    And then of course there is Professor Eric Anderson of Winchester University who argues for same sex marriage on the basis that he knows many “Christian” gays who are married, so that knocks the idea of “traditional marriage ” on the head.
    Professor Anderson also argues for the use of pornography because it desensitises partners towards monogamy.

    Eric Anderson believe monogamy is sexual incarceration

    He is happy to reduce Women to baby producing machines.

    Eric Anderson is chief scientific research officer for Ashley Maddison, which gives married people all the thrills of adultery.
    which occasionally results in suicides

    Eric Anderson is also the doorway to paedophilia and pederasty

    But according to evolutionists we are descended from fish so human so earlier forms of family anteceded even the mum, dad, 2.4 children and the dog model:

    David Skinner

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *