(II) Families and Their Behaviour Over the Last Thirty Years

Carol and Bill planned their family. Although the birth-control pill was not widely available until the late 1960’s, many other methods of contraception were used: the condom, the female cap, various kinds of spermicidal creams, and metal devices inserted into the womb, and sterilisation (after the parents have had the number of children they want). Sterilisation can be performed on both men and women. Abortion was illegal except in very special circumstances until 1967. Since then it has of course been used if a woman becomes pregnant unintentionally, but it is not a normal method of contraception. Preventing a baby being conceived in the first place is the best method.

Carol and Bill, like many couples of their class planned to have three children in the 1960’s. The post-war peak for births in Britain was 1964. Since then the birthrate has declined sharply, and now seems to have levelled out at ‘non-quite-replacement’ for the present population. Even today, though, nearly half of all famalies with young children are ending up with two children, another quarter have three or more children, and only one family in four has a single child. This means that the vast majority of children have at least one brother or sister, so that family relationships are most often ‘clusters’ of ties between parents and children, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters.

The number of single children in Russia astonishes many British visitors, especially the older ones. ‘Where are the brothers and sisters?’ the ask. ‘Isn’t that child in danger of being spoiled?’ ‘Being spoiled’ is a very British concept. It refers to the belief that the child develops badly if he or she is indulged, petted, given too much his or her own way. Such a child will be a horrible nuisance to those around him, and will hurt himself by lack of self-discipline and by not knowing how to work co-operatively with others. Not every mother is suspicious of ‘too much indulgence’ but it is certainly often mentioned as a worry. When, for example, Bill and Carol had to decide which child to send to which set of grandparents for a holiday, Sarah’s wishes did NOT come first. They thought about all the family, and about the needs of grandparents. Although Sarah might have been annoyed on that occasion, she was not surprised. She grew up learning about the beliefs and values of her parents. Also, children in families of brothers and sisters are expected to work out some social rules among themselves. Growing up, certainly, in middle-class homes like that of Bill and Carol, is seen partly as learning to take responsibility.

So how much petting and hugging do small children in Britain have. This varies enormously, depending on the different temperaments of the children, and the wishes of the parents. Physical affection is encouraged. For example, for the last thirty years, fathers have been explicitly urged to help bring up their children and to begin this by joining their wives in the labour wards of maternity hospitals. Watching the baby being born used to be forbidden; now it is rare to find fathers who don’t help their wives in hospital and learn to hug their children from the first hours of life. Thereafter, in some families, the children crawl happily all over everyone; in other families they are taught to restrain themselves, to ‘behave more like grown-ups’. When Carol worried about Sarah’s shyness and Kate’s strange behaviour, which meant that she was bullied at school, she was torn between protecting her children and making sure that they learnt to live with other children – with other people. She did not start from the point of view: every child has to behave in such-and-such a way; clearly children are different from one another. But they have to learn to work out their own rules for living in a community – while being given the love and support of their parents. In general, Russian parents are more protective of their children, British parents are more insistent that their children must learn to cope ... but of course these are tendencies. There is always a dilemma.

Once the children are at school, most debates are essentially about rules and freedom. Both are necessary, but parents and children are in constant conflict about how much freedom, how many rules. Bill and Carol wanted Sarah to take on more freedom for herself and find an important activity outside the family. Eventually Sarah joined an organisation that strongly emphasied rules. More often, as in the case of Peter, parents are unhappy about the freedoms which the children insist are reasonable. Should Bill and Carol have insisted on Peter acquiring more qualifications? Would he have taken any notice? Should they have refused to let him go off swimming at the weekends? Perhaps he should have been studying at home? When he was young and overweight, should they have refused to let him have any cakes or sweets – or would that have been too cruel?

British parents take money seriously. Children from the age of 5 or 6 are normally given weekly ‘pocket money’ – a few pence at first, increasing as they get older. Pocket money is often related to responsibilities about the house. ‘Now you are old enough to help me, you are old enough to have some money of your own.’ Pocket money is not considered to be a payment for work, but a right; and rights go with responsibilities.

Teenage children are often given a clothing allowance; they must buy their own clothes, and budget accordingly. If they spend too much on a small jacket or a fashionable dress, they will have no money for shoes... They are being taught ‘the value of money’. Children from the age of 13 often take part-time jobs – like Peter – to pay for records, electronic gadgets and so forth. Parents usually have mixed feelings. On the one hand, they like to see their children being resourceful and enterprising. On the other hand, they fear that school work will suffer. Teachers do protest that children are working too hard outside school and falling asleep in lessons, but among the majority of teenagers, having things is important: having the ‘right’ clothes, the most popular records and tapes, tickets for popular rock concerts. And in Britain they get these things not by influence, contacts, bribery, or other forms of official evasion, but by buying them. Things are available if you have money. They are not available if you don’t.

Before the war only a few teenagers had money of their own. Most households needed every penny, so once children started earning, they gave most of their earnings to the family. The rest went on basic clothes. In the 1950’s, England steadily began to get more prosperous. Families could afford what was necessary, while at the same time there was a labour shortage. So, young people were offered good money to attract them into jobs (not very interesting working-class jobs, but by the standards of their fathers, well-paid jobs). What would the teenagers spend their money on? Well, some would save their hard-earned money in order to have enough to buy furniture, for example, for in those days many married young. But what else? Here was a potential market. Businessmen began to produce clothes in special teenage fashions; records were made ‘especially for teenagers’. Once things become fashionable it is easy. Everybody wants what their friends have. A market was created. Britain got richer and the teenagers went on earning more money. How about motorbikes? Or more records? Or magazines telling the teenagers to buy the records and the clothes? Videos? Expensive magazines about videos? Computers? ... New, more advanced computers ... Buy! Buy! Buy!

Of course many teenagers actually wanted these things. But even more, they wanted to have what their friends had. And if they didn’t have the money? They worked for it. Often they worked hard at part-time jobs, and did not study properly at school. And then – there was no work. Unemployment! So they tried to sell the ‘new advanced computers’ to someone else. But their friends were also out of work. There was no money to buy or to sell these things. The teenagers were in debt. That is to say, they owed money to the firms from which they had ordered their computers, or, more often, they owed money to the bank. And now, they must find money somehow to pay off these debts. Meanwhile they are getting older, and wanting to move to another area where there is work, but where the cost of renting a room is very high. And they have no oney ... This what happens in a recession.

Meanwhile, the teenagers who go to university and spend several years as students are protected up to a point, because they have less money in the first place. They did not start full-time earning at sixteen, and their student grants (from 18 to 21) are very small. So although they, too, want the records and videos, they wear much cheaper clothes and depend more on student sharing. In the vacations they look for part-time jobs, and because they are (usually) intelligent and literate they can find more skilled, better-paid work, even part-time. And most of their parents are quite prosperous, so they ask their parents for money. And here is another dilemma for prosperous parents of university students: should they insist that their children learn to live on their student grants plus whatever they can earn during the holidays – or do they give them money to buy the clothes and electronic equipment they want? How much should young people in a prosperous society be expected to have? And should they be protected from the recession which is affecting many poorer young people (and poorer old people)? The parents have insisted from early age on ‘responsibility’ and ‘valur for money’. What now? These are problems of a prosperous society getting less prosperous, and of a market economy which puts great pressure on young people to spend money now rather than to save.

What about moral attidudes?