Category: 1950s

A typical child in the post-World War 2 period was more likely to be born into a more traditional or nuclear family setting consisting of two parents who were married. It was unlikely that their mother worked outside the family home and their father, who was considered the head of the household, would have worked to provide an income for the whole family. Around this time, due to increased wealth and a rise in living standards, more people than ever owned their own homes. With that came a rise in those getting married and at a younger age. The average age of those getting married lowered and there was a higher rate of these marriages lasting. The baby boom after the war saw the family size rise to an average of almost 3 children.

Family structures since the 1950s have evolved and changed. There are now a great many different types of families evident in the UK today. The nuclear family remains but equally popular are a large number of other family types including single-parent, blended, adoptive, extended, and same-sex parent families. I will look at some of these different types of families and some of the reasons why they have become more popular.

Family size has changed since the 1950’s. Following the baby boom after the war which saw a rise in the population, the period after the 1980’s saw a falling population and consequently a decline in family size. The average number of children for a British family is 1.7.* Several factors can be attributed to this. A change in the role of the woman was probably the most influential factor. Many began to go out to work resulting in less time to have children. Over the years this trend has continued, more women are going into third-level education and having children later in life. Rising childcare costs have also had an effect. In 2014 the average age of first-time mothers in England and Wales had increased by 5 years to 30.2 since 1975. The availability of contraception also added to a lowering in the birth rate.

Although more than half of households today are still nuclear families, this has been declining for some time (ONS 2007-Focus on families) with a fall of over 4% between 1996 and 2006. While marriage is still popular, a larger number of couples are choosing to cohabit. In 1960, just 2% of couples were cohabiting before they got married. However, the Office for National Statistics found that cohabiting couple families were the fastest-growing family type with an increase of 15% from 1996 to 2017. There are several possible reasons for this. More people particularly younger couples are deciding to live together before marriage, possibly to try it out before they enter into a marriage. There is also the idea that marriage is outdated and restricted. As well as this couples find getting married an expensive option since weddings are costly affairs. Another reason may be that many single-sex couples tended to cohabit during this time as marriage was forbidden. Since legislation to allow same-sex marriage only came into force in 2014, it is most likely a large number of those who added to the increase between 1996 and 2017 can be attributed to this sector of the community.

From 1996 to 2017 the number of lone parent families grew by 15.2% (ONS 2017). There are around 1.8 million single parents today which make up nearly a quarter of families with dependent children. This has not been a recent trend but one that has been progressively rising since the 1970s. Perhaps the main reason is the rise in divorce rates primarily due to the Divorce Reform Act (1969) which established irretrievable breakdown as a valid ground for divorce. Another reason may be a change in the taboo of having children out of wedlock.

A blended family or a stepfamily is a family where one or both parents have children from a previous relationship, but have come together to create a new family. This modern type of family would rarely be found in the 1950s unless due to the death of a parent. Today it is much more common due to several factors. A rise in divorce rates has played a role as too has the rise in lone parenting. Another factor that cannot be ignored is advances in medicine. It is much more accessible for single women to have babies through donor eggs. Ferri and Smith 2003 found Stepfamilies to be one of the fastest-growing family forms in the UK

The 1950s were an inauspicious time for women. It was an era that birthed the ideology of living the post-war suburban dream, in which a woman’s place was to serve and obey their husband, often suppressing their needs and desires to marry, bear children, and run a household. Women’s social standing at the time was that they were submissive and inferior beings to men. The play The Season in Sarsaparilla written by Patrick White explores the theme of living the ‘suburban dream’ as well as women and their sexuality and desires.

The home was seen as a sanctity that women had the role to upkeep, White cleverly unmasked this sanctity as being a prison by revealing the inner turmoil locked inside the minds of three separate housewives, and the next generation of women to follow. These characters are of different classes, living side by side, but sharing the same inescapable fate.

We are introduced to Girlie Pogson, a neurotic woman who is seemingly complacent with her role as a housewife. However, as the play progresses we see the effect entrapment has on her overall wellbeing. She is perplexed by her two daughters who are beginning to question the societal structures they have been raised into. Living next to Girlie is Mavis, who spends the entirety of the play feeling uncomfortable due to being heavily pregnant, showing the repercussions of sex that only befalls the woman.

Before the days of contraception, women did not have sexual freedom unless they were barren, which we see in the character of Nola who bears no risk of falling pregnant, allowing her to sleep with multiple men with no string of offspring to show for it. However, a woman with sexual desires like this suffered severe societal stigma, as we see with Nola being the brunt of town gossip.

We also see the repercussions of being a harlot in the character of Julia, a young woman working as a model. She endures the consequence of casual sex as she is impregnated and left to fend for herself. She is labeled as damaged good, unable to fit into society’s idea of what a woman should be, leaving her no choice but to commit suicide.

Patrick White cleverly portrays these women as true victims of the post-war 1950s ‘suburban dream’, struggling to conform to the harsh push for order within Australian society. He raises the issues of educational opportunities for women, pregnancy and the lack of contraception, and marriage and the role of the homemaker.

Educational Opportunities

Educational opportunities in the 1950’s were limited for women. The view generally accepted within society was that higher levels of education were wasted on girls because they would not enter the workforce, and the only certificate they would obtain after school was their marriage certificate. This was mainly due to the Australian government trying to restore order after the chaos of war, and order meant domesticity.

During the war employment for women greatly increased. They were able to work in fields that had previously been male-dominated, giving them a taste of the workforce. However, once the war was over, the men came home and reclaimed their jobs, pushing women back into the home. It was after the war that the strong preference of women for full-time housekeeping was established. (Elkin, 1957)

Up until the year 1956, there was a marriage bar, restricting women from teaching after marriage. Women’s teaching status was restricted to temporary, as after marriage they were thought to be more likely to follow a career path in the home rather than the education department (‘Australian Gender Equality Milestones’, 2019). After extensive lobbying by the Temporary Teachers Club, the marriage bar was lifted for women teachers in schools. This was a vast improvement, however the social stigma attached to these women was gruesome.

Mothers who chose to work, not out of dire financial necessity, were subjected to cruel judgment within society. They were seen as selfish, putting their own needs before their families. People attributed teenage delinquency to mothers who had ‘neglected’ their family home and responsibilities.

Marriage and Role as a Homemaker

On average, women in the 1950s would get married at twenty years old. This left very little time between graduating high school and becoming a full-time housewife. Due to the lack of contraception, women once they were married faced over three decades of childbearing years, securing their jobs as a mother and homemakers. The man was considered the head of the household as he was in charge of all legal documents, like the mortgage, however, the woman was in charge of the budget, which was an allowance given to her by her husband. The budget would cover everything from groceries to new appliances, anything to aid her role in running an efficient household.

The day-to-day of a housewife primarily consisted of cooking and cleaning. According to an ABC article, a typical 1950s housewife did up to 15 times the amount of housework Australians do today. (ABC) At least four hours a day would be spent cooking to ensure three meals were provided for the family. Shopping needed to be done daily as there was no refrigeration which made storing food difficult. There was no one-stop shop for groceries at this time so they would need to walk to several different stores to purchase their groceries, like the local butcher or bakery. They would go on foot as most families did not own a car.

The convenient household items we know today like washing machines were considered luxuries for women in the 1950s

The Contraceptive Pill and Pregnancy

One of the main components of a woman’s life in the 1950s was to produce children and start a family with her husband. Before contraception, women on average faced three decades of childbearing. The social stereotype of women being the ‘babymaker’ became very quickly apparent in the “fifties with the highest birth rates of the century labeled the ‘baby boom’, along with the age of marriage rapidly decreasing for both men and women.” (Martin, 2003)

Mavis Knott’s character is a perfect portrayal of the discontent within the women of this time during pregnancy, with the real status quo bubbling underneath the surface of the placid peaceful society. Mavis’s character is written as a very loving and caring young woman who continuously puts her husband’s needs before her own even whilst heavily pregnant.  

The concept of family has been a topic of considerable discussion for social scientists. In particular, they have analyzed the changes and continuity that are happening within family structures. Family is defined as a group of people related by blood, marriage, or adoption (Richardson,1993). From a sociological aspect, changes in the family are a result of post-industrialization which has led to traditional changes in social life (Gillies,2003). This essay aims to outline the key changes in the family since the 1950s and identify what has stayed the same. Comparisons of differences and similarities between families will be analyzed based on past and contemporary ages. This essay will then continue to outline the changes in women’s roles, the rise in the number of single-parent families, and the emergence of same-sex families. In conclusion, the idea of family remains relevant in the UK’s society despite various changes.

Sociologists referred to the 1950s as the Golden Age. There were two classifications of families in the 1950’s, the nuclear family and the traditional family. The nuclear family consisted of two biological parents and children who were related by ties of partnership and parenthood (Bengtson,2004). People who lived in the 1950s had very idealistic views, meaning that the concept of patriarchy was largely practiced. Men dominated women in the power of structure and women were viewed to hold a subordinate role as compared to the men and were seen as less important. There was also a clear marital division of labor between husband and wife in a household, fathers were seen as family patriarchs as they were expected to be providers of the family, earning money to support the household (Coltrane, 1996). The husband was seen as the head of the household, while women stayed home to do housework and childrearing (Connell,1987).

The first aspect of change within a family is the change in women’s roles. In the 1950s, the concept of domesticity was largely imposed on women, and family was seen to be the center of women’s lives. Women played a crucial role in a nuclear family, by taking on the household role of caring for their husbands and children, keeping a family strong and united (England & Farkas, 1986). The 1950s was viewed as a period where both men and women conformed to the rules of family structure and expectations of society (Khan Academy, n.d). During this period women were not accepted at a social level, the concept of patriarchy posed challenges for women to progress in society as a patriarchal society gave absolute privilege to men, and women were deprived of their legal rights to express and practice their abilities (Sultana, n.d). Inequality was still prevalent during this period, and women were not employed for jobs that were considered as jobs for men hence many women were isolated from society and were limited to their domestic roles and were left without a voice in the public sphere (Shah,2015). However, during the occurrence of the world war, restrictions on the employment of women in the workforce were removed. British women were encouraged to take on jobs that were limited to men in the past, to make up for the lack of men in industries during the war (Dale & Joshi, 1992). According to (Hatton & Bailey, 1988) during the interwar period, the percentage of females in the labour force rose from 27 percent to 39 percent from 1881-1981.

In contemporary society, feminist theories have given more equality to women, encouraging and enabling them to speak up for their rights, and giving them more voice in decision-making (Dixon,2016). The main aim of feminist theories is to make women equal to men, erasing the differences between genders and creating a gender-neutral society (Bock & James, N.D). Women are said to possess the same capacities of moral reasoning as men and can even perform tasks and take up jobs that were limited to men in the past. Today, more women are entering the workforce and are even taking up highly skilled professional occupations. According to research conducted in 2018, women occupied 22% of high-skilled professions while men only occupied 19% of high-skilled professions (Powell, 2019). Several reasons have caused the change in women’s roles in contemporary society. Firstly, more women are becoming educated and are taking up extra qualifications to be competitive in the employment market. The benefits of women’s education are often linked to faster economic growth and better-educated families (Aikman & Unterhalter, 2005). Women with higher education are usually associated with having higher social class, making them more likely to be employed as compared to uneducated women (HBS, 2017). In the 1950s many young women left school early at the age between fifteen and eighteen (Spencer,2005). Many of them took up household roles to prepare them for the role of married women. Therefore, they were denied the opportunity to pursue an education at a young age, making them less desirable for employment. Secondly, gender equality has made it possible for more women to enter the workforce. This is because, more men are taking up domesticated roles within a family, enabling women to work. Over the years, there has been an increase in the number of stay-at-home dads as more men take on a woman’s role of looking after the home and family (Rudgard, 2017).

The second aspect of change is the rise in the number of single-parent families. In the 1950s divorce was uncommon, divorce was stigmatized by society as failing at marriage. Divorce rates were low in the 1950s, as women largely depended on their husbands financially and thus divorce was not an option for many women (England & Farkas, 1986). Another reason why there were fewer divorces in the 1950s is because married couples understood the importance of a strong family and valued the sanctity of marriage. The young adults of the 1950s witnessed the effects of the great depression and the war as they grew up. Therefore, they viewed a strong family as being fundamental and desirable during hard times, as hard times had weakened so many families (NY, 1981). In contemporary society, the number of single-parent families has almost tripled over the last 40 years (Grady, 2013). Statistics show that Britain has the highest number of single-parent families in the European Union, with more than 1.8 million single-parent households (Martin, 2014). The difference between the 1950s and the contemporary age is the increased number of divorce cases and single-parent families. Sociologists suggest that divorce is caused by psychological problems such as marital disharmony (Stewart & Brentano,2006). According to Sigmund Freud, (2006) “Divorce was the result of conflict that was inherent in the passion of close relationships in any family” (As cited in Stewart & Brentano,2006). Today, divorce proceedings have been made simpler and quicker, and social attitudes have also changed, making divorce more acceptable by society, which has contributed to the rise of divorce rates and the increase of single-parent families (Stewart & Brentano,2006).

The third aspect of change is the emergence of same-sex families. The 1950s was described as a period of intense sexual conservatism (Bauer & Cook, 2012). Society views same-sex relationships as unacceptable and illegal. The criminal justice system in the 1950s imposed harsh punishments on homosexuals, prosecuting those involved in homosexual activity in the UK (Liberty Human Rights, 2013). According to the Home Office of the United Kingdom, approximately 50000 such offences were allegedly reported from the 1950’s until 2000 ( Schraer & D’Urso, 2017). In contemporary society, same-sex relationships have become more socially acceptable by society. According to a BBC survey conducted in 2016, 64 percent of the public agreed that same-sex marriages were not unjust, quadrupling from 17 percent in 1983 (Schraer & D’Urso, 2017). Therefore, the change in society’s perceptions and the prevalence of same-sex relationships has brought about a rise in the number of same-sex adoption couples. In 2002, the Adoption and Children Act enabled gay couples to adopt children (Liberty Human Rights, 2013). This has enabled many same-sex couples to become part of the adopting community and start their own families. According to Barnardo Cymru, a children’s charity based in Wales, 13% of children placed with adopters were LGBT couples (Houghton, 2015).

This essay has tried to analyze the changes within family structures. In particular same-sex families, single-parent families, and women’s roles in the family. However, it is important to acknowledge that what has stayed the same since the 1950s is that the nuclear family is still in existence today. In the contemporary age, most dependent children still live together as a family with their two parents. The married nuclear family is still the predominant type of family in the contemporary age. According to (Thompson, 2016) there are more than 4.7 million of Nuclear family households in the UK today.

It can be concluded that the family plays a significant role as a social institution that contributes to the order of society. The concept of family through a sociologist has been considered a phenomenon that represents both continuity and change. This essay has outlined the key changes in the family since the 1950s, highlighting the differences in the change of women’s roles within a family, the rise of single-parent families, and the emergence of same-sex families. Family constitutes one of the most important structures of any society. Therefore, any changes in the family would lead to changes in social structure. These transitions have led to changes in society, and therefore we have same-sex families which has led to an open society, free from discrimination and inequality. However, we still see that the nuclear family exists and is still the main structure of the family in the contemporary age.

Reference List

1. Aikman,S & Unterhalter, E, (2005). Transforming Policy and Practice for Gender Equality in Education. Oxford: Oxfam publishing. [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XC1jGwGLiVwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA15&dq=women+and+education&ots=8R6D3pPvcN&sig=M3OZHW8vUs03VT3gtPa2QTFqDJQ#v=onepage&q=women%20and%20education&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
2. Bock, G & James, S (N.D). Beyond Equality and Difference: London and New York: Rutledge. [ Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wM-IAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=femenist+theories+more+equality+given+to+women+compared+to+the+past+britain&ots=kf1YHJ99O4&sig=Y1W4pd8xeD9r8v8GsqE_YhB9lPo#v=onepage&q=femenist%20theories%20more%20equality%20given%20to%20women%20compared%20to%20the%20past%20britain&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
3. Bauer. H & Cook. M, (2012). Rethinking Sexuality in the Postwar Years. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5a5Q6HNj0SQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=homosexuality+was+seen+as+a+crime+in+1950s+uk&ots=MjsO8rsX96&sig=5ynDOB8J5BLIBuWAUSQr91gfq3M#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20was%20seen%20as%20a%20crime%20in%201950s%20uk&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
4. Connell, R. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DoZuDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=patriarchy+men+dominated+the+power+structure+in+the+1950s&ots=S3Cl2hXB1q&sig=nE3ZhhEHPUCgO6XCRPQqrzcHSiw#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
5. Coltrane, (1996) Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. United States of America : Oxford University Press, Inc. [Online]. Available at :https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b3FYAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=men+held+important+roles+in+the+1950s+of+providing+for+the+family+financially&ots=kZS2LeFIb-&sig=_LGRwICo0r9LzQr79IO5ZlT8sv4#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
6. Cherlin, A, (1981). THE 50’S FAMILY AND TODAY. [Online]. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/18/opinion/the-50-s-family-and-today-s.html [Accessed 18 March 2019]
7. Dale A., Joshi H. (1992) The Economic and Social Status of British Women. Physica-Verlag HD. [Online]. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-48800-9_3#citeas. [Accessed 18 March 2019].
8. Dixon, A.,(2016). Equal opportunity for women benefits all. [Online] Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/equal-opportunity-women-benefits-all [Accessed 18 March 2019]
9. England, P & Farkas, G (1986) Households, Employment, and Gender. New York: Transaction Publishers. [Online]. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351515023. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
10. Gillies, V (2003) Family and Intimate Relationships: A Review of the Sociological Research : [Online]. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Val_Gillies/publication/242676020_Family_and_Intimate_Relationships_A_Review_of_the_Sociological_Research/links/0deec5346c3381c01d000000.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2019]
11. Hatton, T.J & Bailey, R.E, (1998). Female Labour Force Participation in Interwar Britain. Oxford University Press. [Online]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2663037?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. [Accessed 18 March 2019].
12. Houghton, T., (2015). Huge rise in same-sex couples adopting in Wales. [Online]. Available at: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/huge-rise-same-sex-couples-10360511]
13. Khan Academy, (N.D). Women in the 1950’s. [Online]. Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1950s-america/a/women-in-the-1950s [Accessed 18 March 2019]
14. Liberty,(2013). Liberty’s Committee Stage Briefing on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Commons. [Online]. Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/liberty-s-committee-stage-briefing-on-the-marriage-same-sex-couples-bill-feb.pdf. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
15. L. Bengtson, V, (2004). Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds. [Online]. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x [Accessed 18 March 2019]
16. McGinn, K & Oh, E, (2017). Gender, social class, and women’s employment. [Online]. Available at:https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/McGinnOh_GenderSocialClass_COPSYC_495_201708001331892896_75165458-c7d9-495a-b87b-cc77fe85ded1.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2019]
17. Martin, D, (2014). A quarter of British children are being raised by a single parent, new figures reveal. [Online]. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540974/Britain-fourth-highest-number-single-parents-EU.html [Accessed 18 March 2019]
18. O Grady, S, (2013). Rise of the single-parent family. [Online] Available at: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/382706/Rise-of-the-single-parent-family [Accessed 18 March 2019]
19. Powell, A, (2019). Women and the Economy. [Online]. Available at: research briefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
20. Rudgard, O, (2017). Several stay-at-home dads fall as the novelty of being a ‘new man’ wears off. [Online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/13/number-stay-at-home-dads-falls-novelty-new-man-wears/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]
21. Richardson, D. (1993). Family rights for unmarried couples. [Online]. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/kjpp2&div=46&id=&page= [Accessed 18 March 2019]
22. Stewart, A & Brentano, C, (2006). Divorce: Causes and Consequences. New Haven & London. Yale University Press. [Online] Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VFkdZdHvjtEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=reasons+for+divorce+1950s+uk&ots=xMjQG5F9_1&sig=T2S8LgkzhgqfCGN9PulZWGjqOck#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
23. Schraer, R & D’Urso J, (2017). Gay rights 50 years on 10 ways in which the UK has changed. [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40743946 [Accessed 18 March 2019]
24. Sultana, A (N.D). Patriarchy and Women’s Subordination: A Theoretical Analysis [Online]. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1a1/956fe39a514e5128ec48b29fab7f45b1848e.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2019]
25. Shah, D. (2015) The evolution of women in the workforce. [Online]. Available at: http://workingwomen.web.unc.edu/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]
26. Thompson C.H, (2008). Lone parent families. [Online]. Available at: https://sociologytwynham.com/2008/07/08/lone-parent-families/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]
27. Thompson, K, (2016). Families in the UK – Seven Interesting Statistics. [Online]. Available at: https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/15/families-uk-interesting-statistics/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]

The concept of family has been a topic of considerable discussion for social scientists. In particular, they have analyzed the changes and continuity that are happening within family structures. Family is defined as a group of people related by blood, marriage, or adoption (Richardson,1993). From a sociological aspect, changes in the family are a result of post-industrialization which has led to traditional changes in social life (Gillies,2003). This essay aims to outline the key changes in the family since the 1950s and identify what has stayed the same. Comparisons of differences and similarities between families will be analyzed based on past and contemporary ages. This essay will then continue to outline the changes in women’s roles, the rise in the number of single-parent families, and the emergence of same-sex families. In conclusion, the idea of family remains relevant in the UK’s society despite various changes.

Sociologists referred to the 1950s as the Golden Age. There were two classifications of families in the 1950’s, the nuclear family and the traditional family. The nuclear family consisted of two biological parents and children who were related by ties of partnership and parenthood (Bengtson,2004). People who lived in the 1950s had very idealistic views, meaning that the concept of patriarchy was largely practiced. Men dominated women in the power of structure and women were viewed to hold a subordinate role as compared to the men and were seen as less important. There was also a clear marital division of labor between husband and wife in a household, fathers were seen as family patriarchs as they were expected to be providers of the family, earning money to support the household (Coltrane, 1996). The husband was seen as the head of the household, while women stayed home to do housework and childrearing (Connell,1987).

The first aspect of change within a family is the change in women’s roles. In the 1950s, the concept of domesticity was largely imposed on women, and family was seen to be the center of women’s lives. Women played a crucial role in a nuclear family, by taking on the household role of caring for their husbands and children, keeping a family strong and united (England & Farkas, 1986). The 1950s was viewed as a period where both men and women conformed to the rules of family structure and expectations of society (Khan Academy, n.d). During this period women were not accepted at a social level, the concept of patriarchy posed challenges for women to progress in society as a patriarchal society gave absolute privilege to men, and women were deprived of their legal rights to express and practice their abilities (Sultana, n.d). Inequality was still prevalent during this period, and women were not employed for jobs that were considered as jobs for men hence many women were isolated from society and were limited to their domestic roles and were left without a voice in the public sphere (Shah,2015). However, during the occurrence of the world war, restrictions on the employment of women in the workforce were removed. British women were encouraged to take on jobs that were limited to men in the past, to make up for the lack of men in industries during the war (Dale & Joshi, 1992). According to (Hatton & Bailey, 1988) during the interwar period, the percentage of females in the labour force rose from 27 percent to 39 percent from 1881-1981.

In contemporary society, feminist theories have given more equality to women, encouraging and enabling them to speak up for their rights, and giving them more voice in decision-making (Dixon,2016). The main aim of feminist theories is to make women equal to men, erasing the differences between genders and creating a gender-neutral society (Bock & James, N.D). Women are said to possess the same capacities of moral reasoning as men and can even perform tasks and take up jobs that were limited to men in the past. Today, more women are entering the workforce and are even taking up highly skilled professional occupations. According to research conducted in 2018, women occupied 22% of high-skilled professions while men only occupied 19% of high-skilled professions (Powell, 2019). Several reasons have caused the change in women’s roles in contemporary society. Firstly, more women are becoming educated and are taking up extra qualifications to be competitive in the employment market. The benefits of women’s education are often linked to faster economic growth and better-educated families (Aikman & Unterhalter, 2005). Women with higher education are usually associated with having higher social class, making them more likely to be employed as compared to uneducated women (HBS, 2017). In the 1950s many young women left school early at the age between fifteen and eighteen (Spencer,2005). Many of them took up household roles to prepare them for the role of married women. Therefore, they were denied the opportunity to pursue an education at a young age, making them less desirable for employment. Secondly, gender equality has made it possible for more women to enter the workforce. This is because, more men are taking up domesticated roles within a family, enabling women to work. Over the years, there has been an increase in the number of stay-at-home dads as more men take on a woman’s role of looking after the home and family (Rudgard, 2017).

The second aspect of change is the rise in the number of single-parent families. In the 1950s divorce was uncommon, divorce was stigmatized by society as failing at marriage. Divorce rates were low in the 1950s, as women largely depended on their husbands financially and thus divorce was not an option for many women (England & Farkas, 1986). Another reason why there were fewer divorces in the 1950s is because married couples understood the importance of a strong family and valued the sanctity of marriage. The young adults of the 1950s witnessed the effects of the great depression and the war as they grew up. Therefore, they viewed a strong family as being fundamental and desirable during hard times, as hard times had weakened so many families (NY, 1981). In contemporary society, the number of single-parent families has almost tripled over the last 40 years (Grady, 2013). Statistics show that Britain has the highest number of single-parent families in the European Union, with more than 1.8 million single-parent households (Martin, 2014). The difference between the 1950s and the contemporary age is the increased number of divorce cases and single-parent families. Sociologists suggest that divorce is caused by psychological problems such as marital disharmony (Stewart & Brentano,2006). According to Sigmund Freud, (2006) “Divorce was the result of conflict that was inherent in the passion of close relationships in any family” (As cited in Stewart & Brentano,2006). Today, divorce proceedings have been made simpler and quicker, and social attitudes have also changed, making divorce more acceptable by society, which has contributed to the rise of divorce rates and the increase of single-parent families (Stewart & Brentano,2006).

The third aspect of change is the emergence of same-sex families. The 1950s was described as a period of intense sexual conservatism (Bauer & Cook, 2012). Society views same-sex relationships as unacceptable and illegal. The criminal justice system in the 1950s imposed harsh punishments on homosexuals, prosecuting those involved in homosexual activity in the UK (Liberty Human Rights, 2013). According to the Home Office of the United Kingdom, approximately 50000 such offences were allegedly reported from the 1950’s until 2000 ( Schraer & D’Urso, 2017). In contemporary society, same-sex relationships have become more socially acceptable by society. According to a BBC survey conducted in 2016, 64 percent of the public agreed that same-sex marriages were not unjust, quadrupling from 17 percent in 1983 (Schraer & D’Urso, 2017). Therefore, the change in society’s perceptions and the prevalence of same-sex relationships has brought about a rise in the number of same-sex adoption couples. In 2002, the Adoption and Children Act enabled gay couples to adopt children (Liberty Human Rights, 2013). This has enabled many same-sex couples to become part of the adopting community and start their own families. According to Barnardo Cymru, a children’s charity based in Wales, 13% of children placed with adopters were LGBT couples (Houghton, 2015).

This essay has tried to analyze the changes within family structures. In particular same-sex families, single-parent families, and women’s roles in the family. However, it is important to acknowledge that what has stayed the same since the 1950s is that the nuclear family is still in existence today. In the contemporary age, most dependent children still live together as a family with their two parents. The married nuclear family is still the predominant type of family in the contemporary age. According to (Thompson, 2016) there are more than 4.7 million of Nuclear family households in the UK today.

It can be concluded that the family plays a significant role as a social institution that contributes to the order of society. The concept of family through a sociologist has been considered a phenomenon that represents both continuity and change. This essay has outlined the key changes in the family since the 1950s, highlighting the differences in the change of women’s roles within a family, the rise of single-parent families, and the emergence of same-sex families. Family constitutes one of the most important structures of any society. Therefore, any changes in the family would lead to changes in social structure. These transitions have led to changes in society, and therefore we have same-sex families which has led to an open society, free from discrimination and inequality. However, we still see that the nuclear family exists and is still the main structure of the family in the contemporary age.

Reference List

1. Aikman,S & Unterhalter, E, (2005). Transforming Policy and Practice for Gender Equality in Education. Oxford: Oxfam publishing. [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=XC1jGwGLiVwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA15&dq=women+and+education&ots=8R6D3pPvcN&sig=M3OZHW8vUs03VT3gtPa2QTFqDJQ#v=onepage&q=women%20and%20education&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
2. Bock, G & James, S (N.D). Beyond Equality and Difference: London and New York: Rutledge. [ Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wM-IAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=femenist+theories+more+equality+given+to+women+compared+to+the+past+britain&ots=kf1YHJ99O4&sig=Y1W4pd8xeD9r8v8GsqE_YhB9lPo#v=onepage&q=femenist%20theories%20more%20equality%20given%20to%20women%20compared%20to%20the%20past%20britain&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
3. Bauer. H & Cook. M, (2012). Rethinking Sexuality in the Postwar Years. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishers Ltd [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5a5Q6HNj0SQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=homosexuality+was+seen+as+a+crime+in+1950s+uk&ots=MjsO8rsX96&sig=5ynDOB8J5BLIBuWAUSQr91gfq3M#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20was%20seen%20as%20a%20crime%20in%201950s%20uk&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
4. Connell, R. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. [Online]. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DoZuDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=patriarchy+men+dominated+the+power+structure+in+the+1950s&ots=S3Cl2hXB1q&sig=nE3ZhhEHPUCgO6XCRPQqrzcHSiw#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
5. Coltrane, (1996) Family Man: Fatherhood, Housework, and Gender Equity. United States of America : Oxford University Press, Inc. [Online]. Available at :https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b3FYAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=men+held+important+roles+in+the+1950s+of+providing+for+the+family+financially&ots=kZS2LeFIb-&sig=_LGRwICo0r9LzQr79IO5ZlT8sv4#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
6. Cherlin, A, (1981). THE 50’S FAMILY AND TODAY. [Online]. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/18/opinion/the-50-s-family-and-today-s.html [Accessed 18 March 2019]
7. Dale A., Joshi H. (1992) The Economic and Social Status of British Women. Physica-Verlag HD. [Online]. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-48800-9_3#citeas. [Accessed 18 March 2019].
8. Dixon, A.,(2016). Equal opportunity for women benefits all. [Online] Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/equal-opportunity-women-benefits-all [Accessed 18 March 2019]
9. England, P & Farkas, G (1986) Households, Employment, and Gender. New York: Transaction Publishers. [Online]. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351515023. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
10. Gillies, V (2003) Family and Intimate Relationships: A Review of the Sociological Research : [Online]. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Val_Gillies/publication/242676020_Family_and_Intimate_Relationships_A_Review_of_the_Sociological_Research/links/0deec5346c3381c01d000000.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2019]
11. Hatton, T.J & Bailey, R.E, (1998). Female Labour Force Participation in Interwar Britain. Oxford University Press. [Online]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2663037?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. [Accessed 18 March 2019].
12. Houghton, T., (2015). Huge rise in same-sex couples adopting in Wales. [Online]. Available at: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/huge-rise-same-sex-couples-10360511]
13. Khan Academy, (N.D). Women in the 1950’s. [Online]. Available at: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/postwarera/1950s-america/a/women-in-the-1950s [Accessed 18 March 2019]
14. Liberty,(2013). Liberty’s Committee Stage Briefing on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in the House of Commons. [Online]. Available at: https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/liberty-s-committee-stage-briefing-on-the-marriage-same-sex-couples-bill-feb.pdf. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
15. L. Bengtson, V, (2004). Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds. [Online]. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x [Accessed 18 March 2019]
16. McGinn, K & Oh, E, (2017). Gender, social class, and women’s employment. [Online]. Available at:https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/McGinnOh_GenderSocialClass_COPSYC_495_201708001331892896_75165458-c7d9-495a-b87b-cc77fe85ded1.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2019]
17. Martin, D, (2014). A quarter of British children are being raised by a single parent, new figures reveal. [Online]. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540974/Britain-fourth-highest-number-single-parents-EU.html [Accessed 18 March 2019]
18. O Grady, S, (2013). Rise of the single-parent family. [Online] Available at: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/382706/Rise-of-the-single-parent-family [Accessed 18 March 2019]
19. Powell, A, (2019). Women and the Economy. [Online]. Available at: research briefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06838/SN06838.pdf. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
20. Rudgard, O, (2017). Several stay-at-home dads fall as the novelty of being a ‘new man’ wears off. [Online]. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/13/number-stay-at-home-dads-falls-novelty-new-man-wears/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]
21. Richardson, D. (1993). Family rights for unmarried couples. [Online]. Available at: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/kjpp2&div=46&id=&page= [Accessed 18 March 2019]
22. Stewart, A & Brentano, C, (2006). Divorce: Causes and Consequences. New Haven & London. Yale University Press. [Online] Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VFkdZdHvjtEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=reasons+for+divorce+1950s+uk&ots=xMjQG5F9_1&sig=T2S8LgkzhgqfCGN9PulZWGjqOck#v=onepage&q&f=false. [Accessed 18 March 2019]
23. Schraer, R & D’Urso J, (2017). Gay rights 50 years on 10 ways in which the UK has changed. [Online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40743946 [Accessed 18 March 2019]
24. Sultana, A (N.D). Patriarchy and Women’s Subordination: A Theoretical Analysis [Online]. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1a1/956fe39a514e5128ec48b29fab7f45b1848e.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2019]
25. Shah, D. (2015) The evolution of women in the workforce. [Online]. Available at: http://workingwomen.web.unc.edu/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]
26. Thompson C.H, (2008). Lone parent families. [Online]. Available at: https://sociologytwynham.com/2008/07/08/lone-parent-families/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]
27. Thompson, K, (2016). Families in the UK – Seven Interesting Statistics. [Online]. Available at: https://revisesociology.com/2016/08/15/families-uk-interesting-statistics/ [Accessed 18 March 2019]

Discovery is a better name for the 1950s, thanks in part to the Disneyland theme park. The popularity of Disneyland helped Walt Disney spread happiness and joy during a decade of discovery.

Disneyland in California was first opened in 1955 by WED Enterprises. Disney created his theme park to make his visitors feel that Disneyland was truly the happiest place on earth. Due to the technological innovations made by the Imagineers and Walt Disney, Disneyland is one of the most popular vacation trips. Disney had made a huge effect not only in one small city but the whole country. Its popularity attracted people from all over the nation who also wanted to visit this new idea of a theme park. Although this decade had struggles with war and economy, that did not stop Disney from finding a way to create happiness through his ideas.

A few reasons why Disneyland became very popular is because of its films, TV debuts, and advanced technology. Disney used certain items of technology, such as the multiplane camera, to create many amazing animated films. One of the greatest inventions in the 1950s was the television in which Walt Disney promoted many of his films and shows. Some of the most iconic films that Walt Disney produced were ‘Cinderella’ and ‘Peter Pan’, both created in the 1950s. One of Disneyland’s most popular features is its audio-animatronics. Animatronics are robotic figures that are able to move, talk, and act like living beings; they were built by Disney’s design teams. A few popular animatronics at Disneyland are the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, ‘Enchanted Tiki Room’, and ‘Haunted Mansion’. Disney’s creation of animatronics is still some of the most popular films being watched today. His discoveries allowed him to be able to attract his audience by using storytelling. The innovative technology that was used made this theme park a fairytale. Those who were able to visit had never experienced anything like Disneyland.

Walt Disney’s creative imagination was a major factor in his life that helped him become extremely successful. He was born in Chicago Illinois, then later in his life moved to Hollywood, California. Disney grew up on a farm with his four other siblings. He was an extremely well-known founder of Disneyland theme parks, family entertainment enterprises, animator, and producer of television films and motion production. When Disney was younger, he loved cartoon animations and commercial art. He moved to Hollywood later in his life and started working on his first successful creation of Mickey Mouse. Disney’s discovery of all that he has created has led him to huge successes to this day. He had a dream when he was young, he worked hard and dedicated his life to doing what he loved and his dream had come true. He inspired many to keep pursuing their dreams.

The 1950s was undeniably a decade of discovery. America had been struggling with economic issues and stress from the Korean War. Disneyland opening truly had a positive impact on America. ‘The Decade of Discovery’ is the best title for the 1950s because this was America’s time of growth, development, and creativity. There were new ideas being made and different inventions being created all in hopes that they would be useful in the future. The discoveries made in the 1950s have been extremely effective and continue to be beneficial to this day.

With the end of the Second World War in 1945, came the revival of romanticism and haute couture within the world of fashion. After a period of rationing everything from food to fabrics and styles such as the ‘Utility Dress’ being the trend during the war, the revival of romanticism was greatly welcomed by many. Although the previous era focused on loose silhouettes and boxy fittings, fitted clothing, and the hourglass figure made a strong comeback. Designers such as Christian Dior, Balenciaga, Givenchy, and the return of House Chanel were the prominent fashion leaders of this period. Although the war had ended there was still a shortage of resources around the world, one of these being fabric. Many designers had to adapt and create with as little fabric as possible due to the shortages. Although not all designers respected this, one of them being Christian Dior. The two designers that will be examined are the House of Dior and the House of Chanel.

In 1905, Christian Dior was born in Granville, Normandy. His beginning was unlike other fashion leaders. He studied political science in college and opened an art gallery at 21, selling works by artists such as Salvador Dali and Braque. He first entered the fashion world when his family lost their fortune. With this huge loss, Dior also lost his apartment after selling all his art pieces, he was forced to sleep on a friend’s floor, “Christian Dior’s dark days living rough and of a pauper’s diet resulted in him contracting tuberculosis and he had to have a year in convalescence.” (Christian Dior (1905- 1957), 2020). Dior was known as one of the best fashion illustrators of the century (Christian Dior (1905-1957), 2020) and sold fashion sketches to houses such as the House of Worth and many other big names, which then led to Dior being trained by Piguet and Lelong. By 1946, Dior opens his own couture house at 30 Avenue Montaigne with the aid of a wealthy industrialist, Marcel Boussac.

In 1947, Dior released his first collections, En 8 and Corolle, which were soon known as the “New Look”. Dior wanted his collection to be an escape from a “Poverty-stricken, parsimonious era, obsessed with ration books and clothing coupons”. (Donaldson, 2020)This collection was inspired by three aspects; his childhood surrounded by luxury and seeing his mother’s dresses, “The Barretts of Wimpole” play also played a huge role with its references to femininity, softly draping fabrics, and flattering hats, however, “the true inspiration came from Berard and the sketches he made with Dior about what the collection should say.” (Christian Dior (1905-1957), 2020) Dior wanted to revive the romanticism that was so present in the 1820’s and 1830’s.

His famous “The Bar Suit” outfit from the “Corolle” line, 1947, was highly controversial when it was released. This suit consisted of a silk peplum jacket and a wool skirt. This was a very bold choice from Dior since the majority of the world was still rationing and there was a shortage of fabric. His choice of silhouette was also going against the new “norm” which was loose, draping, and almost boxy silhouettes. Dior decided to bring back the small waist which was immensely popular up until the late 19th Century. The “Bar Suit” was a clear and loud rejection of the 1920’s and 1930’s style. This created a strong divide amongst women, with feminists being outraged that he would bring back the restrictive style that they fought so much to shake. However, many women were huge fans of the style and silhouette believing that he successfully brought back romanticism and femininity after such difficult and dark years previous. The suit does not fail to impress, with its hand-stitched, pleated black crepe fabric which was very heavy and 5.5 meters long, sparing no expense with the shortage of fabric during this time. The teacup suit jacket was made using shantung silk with cotton padding on the front to give the jacket its peplum shape. (V&A · Fashion unpicked: The ‘Bar’ suit by Christian Dior, 2019)The suit is exactly what I would imagine as the essence of upper-class femininity. It is elegant, flowing, and subtle yet eye-catching.

Thanks to Dior and many other designers, Haute Couture, and romanticism were on the rise yet again. In 1939, just before the war, Chanel closed her salon. She reopened it in 1953 at the age of 71, challenging Dior’s “New Look”. Chanel, like other designers, was not keen to welcome back the silhouettes that Dior had revived. “Chanel felt his designs were neither modern nor suitable for the liberated women who had survived another war” (Krick, 2004). Instead, she made her come back with her famous tweed suit which was not a complete success, however, she persevered onwards adjusting the suit and eventually becoming the icon for the new generation. Her suits were exceedingly popular due to their non-restrictive and light fabrics. The suits successfully merged two worlds; femininity and comfort, which were a huge hit with the majority of females.

With her status and customers returning in large volumes, she had succeeded in her comeback and fashion revolution. Now that Chanel had returned, she released a bag, which was so popular the style is still used to this day. The iconic bag was known as 2.55, named after the month and year it was released, and it was a quilted handbag. She brought a new style to the shoulder strap bags which, like her suits, were strong yet lightweight. (Inside CHANEL, 2020). Chanel continues to be the symbol of one of the highest forms of elegance.

Here is an image of Chanel’s famous tweed suit worn outside the Chanel Salon. This suit was the first professional suit made solely for women. The suit was originally made from tweed however with growing popularity and adjustments to fit the new generation, the suit was also made in solid fabrics too.

The suit is a very modern feminine outfit and embodies luxury and elegance associated with higher-class women, even to this day I would associate Chanel clothing with the upper classes and the very wealthy.

It was a very lightweight and practical suit, which was a breath of fresh air for women who wore the last 19th century clothes. The suit is so light it has a gold chain in the hem and around the collar to add weight and keep its shape.

Below are two evening gowns, one created by Chanel in 1958 (right) and the other created by Dior in 1949 (left). Although there are many clear differences, the two dresses embody the highest form of elegance and sophistication. Both dresses also have a form of layering, with Chanel’s being at the bottom and Dior’s cascading from the waist. Chanel continues to create lightweight clothes whilst Dior opts for heavier and much more fabric for his clothes.

Although Christian Dior and Gabrielle Coco Chanel were complete opposites, they have both paved the path for today’s fashion and have stood against the test of time. Chanel has very much remained with their style and values from the beginning, creating high-end luxury fashion and supplying practical elegance for those who can afford it. Dior has changed their style greatly over the years adapting to the changing world in which we live. I believe Dior is as popular, if not more than they were when they first began. Christian Dior has managed to keep their Haute Couture status whilst also entering the fast-growing world of street fashion. By signing Asap Rocky to be their face of the street fashion within Dior they have successfully cemented themselves as one of the many pillars of this culture. (DeLeon, Klanten and Niebius, 2018).

I believe without Christian Dior and Gabrielle Coco Chanel’s creations the fashion in the 1940s and 1950s would not have been so revolutionary in the revival of romanticism, feminism, and Haute Couture itself. Both designers succeeded tremendously with the revivals in their ways. The post-war period benefitted greatly from the two extremely different designers challenging the norms of their time.

References

1. (Anon, 2020) Metmuseum.org. 2020. [online] Available at:
2. (Christian Dior (1905-1957), 2020) The Business of Fashion. 2020. Christian Dior (1905-1957). [online] Available at:
3. (Design is fine. History is mine., 2020) The design is fine. History is mine. 2020. Design Is Fine. History Is Mine.. [online] Available at: https://www.design-is-fine.org/post/65541357270/coco-chanel-evening-dress-1958-paris-v-a-this
4. (DeLeon, Klanten and Niebius, 2018) DeLeon, J., Klanten, R. and Niebius, M., 2018. The Incomplete. 3rd ed. Berlin: Gestalten, pp.115,116.
5. (Donaldson, 2020) Donaldson, S., 2020. The New Look And Its Impact.
6. (FMP Research: CoCo Chanel’s impact on feminism, 2020) Sophia. 2020. FMP Research: Coco Chanel’s Impact On Feminism. [online] Available at:
7. (Krick, 2004) Krick, Jessa. “Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel (1883–1971) and the House of Chanel.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/chnl/hd_chnl.htm (October 2004)
8. (Pin on Fashion Inspo, 2020) Pinterest. 2020. Pin On Fashion Inspo. [online] Available at:
9. (V&A · Fashion unpicked: The ‘Bar’ suit by Christian Dior, 2019) Victoria and Albert Museum. 2019. V&A · Fashion Unpicked: The ‘Bar’ Suit By Christian Dior. [online] Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/fashion-unpicked-bar-suit-dior

The growth and spread of consumerism was a mass culture ideology that was accepted by many due to the promises it gave and how it reshaped the economy. Consumerism has been implemented into American society since the 1920’s when Herbert Hoover was in office. Consumerism in the 1950s was a cultural ideology that, in addition to social changes, brought us our convenient economy and our modern ideas about American life. From the end of the Great Depression to the end of the 60s, the American people had this desire to reshape their economy for the future. This was because they wanted to set America to a new frontier and this was the perfect time to do so. After World War II, America witnessed an economic boom unlike any other, and due to the prior position many Americans were in they wanted to prosper and pass this new life throughout the family. America was looking a lot more promising, adults were finding good paying jobs, students were graduating college at a higher rate, and children became the focus of this new economy, but why and what were they being promised?

The postwar period saw an increase in Americans’ access to financial products. Throughout the 50s and into the 60s virtually all measures to promote commercial goods, consumer demands, financial products, and services have become more widely dispersed. This started the dispersion of the ideology of consumerism, which started in the 20s but became largely available to all in the 50s. A larger variety of assets was held by more and different types of US families, especially those with lower incomes and net worth, as well as among racial and ethnic minorities.

With a growing economy and new industries making their way into America it was more than likely to carry credit card debt over this period. Consumers at nearly all income levels had more mortgage debt, although again there was the least change in the top quintile. This was supposed to happen though and the banks ended up rewarding people if they were to spend enough on their credit cards eventually, this ideology that was made possible by the adults in America soon targeted the youth of America. The shift to revolving credit that took place in the 1950s and early 1960s allowed borrowers to customize their repayment plans. Suddenly, consumers could choose whether they would repay the entire balance or only a required minimum. By the 1980s, required minimum monthly payments were dramatically reduced, such that a consumer could finance a dinner at a restaurant over the years.

Consumerism came closely involved with patriotism. This is seen right after the war this ideology was mass spread, and this was because Americans were required by law to spend a portion of their income every year. Americans were making more money than before, and that was a reason for the spread of consumerism after World War II. Ads started targeting children and adults saying that the reason to buy this was because it was better and more efficient and they wouldn’t just say that they would prove it by showing all smiles of the people who have the product, infomercials did the same, but at the end the sole purpose was to support your homeland in any way possible.

The realties that the American people could grasp at this time were more extended than the money in their account. This is what fueled the American people in knowing and being encouraged to get the latest and greatest product and in turn, they would be helping their country. Assets were held by more U.S. families than your typical family, such as ones with lower incomes as well as racial and ethnic minorities. This ideology reached a lot further than your typical Caucasian family and the determination to get what you wanted was possible for all and was encouraged. The new intended target audience went from adults to children.

In this time the most important thing was buying and having the feeling of having the newest and most efficient product so in turn paying the bank back was the topic for many families. This further supports the idea that banks wanted families to spend more and to keep this ideology in their heads to hopefully influence the next generation, which worked. The fact that families could choose to pay for a dinner in 6 months tells you that interest was really low and that this would only encourage consumers to spend more even if they might not have the money available at that time. The question of who was really in charge of the money, the bank or the borrowers didn’t seem to affect anyone. The bank was good at making the consumer feel that money was nothing and this new idea of credit would soon take over and so in the end everyone feels like they have control over their cash that comes in and out.

It was smart for a family to capitalize on this because interest rates were really low. This is because they wanted Americans to buy and buy after the fall of the market and how the Great Depression brought about a harsh reality for all American people. No one wanted this to happen again, so banks gave the people what they wanted, which was encouraging them to buy and buy even if they couldn’t afford it at the moment because interest rates were low and credit cards were introduced. In return, people bought and bought and contributed to the new growth of America’s economy to ensure that it would never happen again.

Expendability was indeed a central aspect of much of the culture of the 50s & 60s: it was both a physical fact of many products and a symbol of belief in the modern age. Obsolescence was not only accepted by the fashion-conscious young, often it was positively celebrated. An awareness of the role, meaning, and significance of expendability is, therefore, crucial to a full understanding of 1960s culture. But ‘style obsolescence’ was not a 1960s invention: it can be traced directly back to the ‘high mass- consumption’ stage of post-Second World War consumerist America and has its origins even earlier in the century. The idea that one disposes of artifacts or products before one needs to to buy a more up-to-date or desirable version is at least as old as consumerism and capitalist society. It is only in the twentieth century that products themselves have been designed and manufactured with some form of conscious style obsolescence.

The social changes are what was expected to come from this new way of living, the “throw-away” culture. This presents the fact that during the 50s and throughout the decade expendability was part of the culture of the time. This means that the good could be used a certain amount of time productively and efficiently until it would finally become obsolete. This is what fueled consumerism and what was believed to be a symbol of the modern age. Obsolescence also plays a big role in understanding why consumers wanted more from the businesses and thought there was no need to keep this product because the new one introduced something else. This is what created competition between businesses and introduced the competitive market we know today of always innovating and re-creating to survive.

Obsolescence then helps establish an understanding of what was ideology back then and how strong of a presence it had on the American people. The loss of frugality and the introduction of excessive spending is quite evident, this is because the people have placed their wants in front of their needs and this is purely for self-gain and to prove oneself in this new society. This idea that one should throw away their old product to buy the new one most likely means that the American people have always wanted to buy and spend excessively. Americans before this era weren’t in the financial position to do so or just didn’t find the old American market to be as efficient or productive as imagined. This explains why consumerism just found its way into American society and wasn’t forced and that’s because we’ve always wanted it and were just waiting for the businesses to appeal to more people and steadily produce and produce more goods and to bring about these goods something they wouldn’t have done before by taking more risks in whichever way the consumer saw fit.

Large corporations also developed holdings overseas, where labor costs were often lower. Workers found their own lives changing as industrial America changed. Fewer workers produced goods; more provided services. With such changes, labor militancy was undermined and some class distinctions began to fade. Farmers, on the other hand, faced tough times. Gains in productivity led to agricultural consolidation, as farming became a big business. Family farms, in turn, found it difficult to compete, and more and more farmers left the land. Other Americans moved too. In the postwar period, the West and the Southwest continued to grow — a trend that would continue through the end of the century. An even more important form of movement led Americans out of inner cities into new suburbs, where they hoped to find affordable housing for the larger families spawned by the postwar baby boom. Using the techniques of mass production, Levitt cut costs for both sides. Levitt’s houses were prefabricated, or partly assembled in a factory rather than on the final location. As suburbs grew, businesses moved into the new areas. The number of these centers rose from eight at the end of World War II to 3,840 in 1960.

Many Americans at this time had the realization that with consumerism came a demand for fast repetition and similar quality through and through and if it can be repeated then it can be replaced. This made the workers use their skills to survive and move from working in the factories by producing goods for 10+ hours a day, and then assessing their skills by finding services that many Americans would want. This drastic change caused smaller businesses to fall behind and corporate businesses to grow bigger, this is because the bigger businesses moved to more prosperous cities and busy suburbs to meet the demand of the consumers. This ends up creating a monopoly causing small businesses to leave and go further out from the populous cities to try there.

The growth in production benefits the people who want to live and fulfill the ideals of the American life. William J. Levitt an American real estate developer, who wasn’t new to the idea of consumerism and made houses for the people living in the suburbs and throughout populous cities. To save money for himself, the houses were all identical and this allowed for them to be mass-produced. Since they were mass-produced, these houses didn’t have premiums or upgrades to add on, which allowed for a non-competitive price for the consumer. Houses during this time were important and one wanted to live in the city because they were close to all the businesses and companies and didn’t have to wait for a long time. At this time the ideology of consumerism made everyone have an interest in buying and then in turn selling or disposing of the goods.