Individualism and Family Values.
Individualism and Family Values
This essay will examine the historical evolution of notions of ‘family values’ and ‘individualism’, using historical criticism and semiotic analysis; it will demonstrate how these terms have historically been very fluid and tied to the socio-cultural concerns of their day. Focus will be on establishing a historiography of the key terms, from the late Elizabethan to the modern era. Particular attention will be paid to the Victorian era, wherein, this essay will argue, the true archetype for the modern ‘nuclear family’ was established. This essay will look at key works of art throughout the stated timeframe, works reflective of the era’s common sentiment, in order to establish socio-cultural patterns. The aim of the essay will be to show that the anti-collectivist, increasingly nuclear, and specifically consumer-based nature of modern ‘individualism’ is inimical to traditional conceptions of family values. when considering individualism and its effect on traditional family values, it is important to clarify the understanding of the terms. In terms of Individualism and for the sake of analytical focus this paper shall stick to a relatively modern conception of the word: ‘individualism connotes a dynamic capitalist economic rationality—utilitarian, competitive, and profit-maximising—inimical to the supposed torpor of feudal and tribal mentality alike’ (Meer, 1). On a more fundamental level it could be said that individualism is the opposite of collectivism; it refers to the endeavour, the interests, and, to some degree, the gratifications, of a single person rather than a group of people.
The concept of traditional family values is rather more complex. Even within the confines of the United Kingdom, one family’s notion of ‘tradition’ may vary greatly from another’s. After all, the U. K. is a heterogeneous society, comprised of many religious, cultural, and ethnic groups; which is to say the U. K. is the composite of many
This essay will examine the historical evolution of notions of ‘family values’ and ‘individualism’, using historical criticism and semiotic analysis; it will demonstrate how these terms have historically been very fluid and tied to the socio-cultural concerns of their day. Focus will be on establishing a historiography of the key terms, from the late Elizabethan to the modern era. Particular attention will be paid to the Victorian era, wherein, this essay will argue, the true archetype for the modern ‘nuclear family’ was established. This essay will look at key works of art throughout the stated timeframe, works reflective of the era’s common sentiment, in order to establish socio-cultural patterns. The aim of the essay will be to show that the anti-collectivist, increasingly nuclear, and specifically consumer-based nature of modern ‘individualism’ is inimical to traditional conceptions of family values. when considering individualism and its effect on traditional family values, it is important to clarify the understanding of the terms. In terms of Individualism and for the sake of analytical focus this paper shall stick to a relatively modern conception of the word: ‘individualism connotes a dynamic capitalist economic rationality—utilitarian, competitive, and profit-maximising—inimical to the supposed torpor of feudal and tribal mentality alike’ (Meer, 1). On a more fundamental level it could be said that individualism is the opposite of collectivism; it refers to the endeavour, the interests, and, to some degree, the gratifications, of a single person rather than a group of people.
The concept of traditional family values is rather more complex. Even within the confines of the United Kingdom, one family’s notion of ‘tradition’ may vary greatly from another’s. After all, the U. K. is a heterogeneous society, comprised of many religious, cultural, and ethnic groups; which is to say the U. K. is the composite of many
References: Arnot, M., 2002. Reproducing Gender?: Essays on Educational Theory and Feminist Politics. London: Routledge. Austen, J., 1995 Bengtson, V. L. and A. Lowenstein, 2003. Global Aging and Challenges to Families. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc. Childers, J. W., 2001 ‘Industrial Culture and the Victorian Novel’ in ed D. David,. The Cambridge Companion to the Victorian Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.77-97. De Mooij, M., 2010 Eliot, S. 2001, ‘The Business of Victorian Publishing’ in ed D. David., The Cambridge Companion to the Victorian Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.37-60. Hill Collins, P., 2000 James, H., 2006. Family Capitalism: Wendels, Haniels, Falcks, And the Continental European Model. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. K. de Mooij, M., 2005. Global Marketing and Advertising: Understanding Cultural Paradoxes. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Lal, S., 2006. Reviving the Invisible Hand: The Case for Classical Liberalism in the Twenty-First Century. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Meer, Z., 2011. ‘Introduction: Individualism Revised’ in S Meer, ed. 2011. Individualism: The Cultural Logic of Modernity. Plymouth: Lexington, pp.1-33. Mitchell, K., 2010. History and Cultural Memory in Neo-Victorian Fiction: Victorian Afterimages. Chippenham: Macmillan. Plunkett, J., 2003 Popenoe, D. 2009, Families Without Fathers: Fathers, Marriage and Children in American Society. Brunswick: Transcendental. Shires, L Storry, M., 2002. British Cultural Identities. London: Routledge. Journal Articles Kirkpatrick Johnson, M., 2005