‘The immediate post-war years were depicted as an era of social stability of secure functioning institutions, full employment, benign welfare state and trusted systems of expert knowledge.’ How far do you agree with this claim as an accurate picture of the UK after the Second World War? Did things change towards the end of the twentieth century?

The question requires a two part answer. First, do I agree with the claim regarding the immediate post war years, and second, was there a change towards the end of the twentieth century? First I shall look to the immediate post war years to see if the claim paints an accurate picture of the era in question, and second, I will look at some of the changes which occurred in more recent times.

In the immediate post war years in the UK the traditional nuclear family was a widely accepted concept. The father, as head of the household and the bread winner, would go out to work. In this role he formed the link between the family and the state. The mother’s responsibilities were to take care of the children and the home. Marriage was seen as a heterosexual union and was taken on as a life long commitment. Generally religion and the church would play a part in most family’s lives with religion taught in school during the week and Sunday school or church attendance expected at the weekend. Most men of that era were employed in the manufacturing or industrial sectors and these jobs were generally very secure, widely thought of as ‘jobs for life’. This was also the time when the welfare state was being established. This was intended to provide a good standard of healthcare, unemployment benefit, schooling, pensions and child benefit to the whole population, and would be free at the point of usage. This was touted as a ‘cradle to grave plan’ under an ‘all pay, all benefit’ system (Fergusson and Hughes, 2000, p.122). This system began to function very well under the prevailing conditions of almost full male employment. Crime rates were low and in general the police were respected, doctors were trusted and medical opinions rarely questioned.

All in all this seemed like a period in which the majority of people were content and life in general was good, but was this really the case? For women in particular, life’s choices were severely limited. A wife would be financially dependant on her husband, and through the style of education provided for her she was more or less trapped in the position of housewife or similar low paid domestic work. Even though many women were perfectly happy and fulfilled in these roles, choices for the discontent did not exist. Later research also revealed a hidden culture of violence and abuse towards women within the family (Sherratt and Hughes, 2000, p.50). Even for the man in the workplace, things were not necessarily as rosy as they seemed. Working hours were long and tightly controlled; the jobs were invariably dull and could leave workers feeling somewhat less than fulfilled at the end of a long day. There was a feeling of routine and inflexibility to all aspects of working life and the phrase ‘job for life’ could be seen to take on a whole new meaning, one similar to that of a prison sentence (Dawson, 2000, p.84). The power distribution within the family was unequal and the state was biased towards the man being the breadwinner, legislation made it very difficult for a woman to be independent and single mothers and unmarried women were stigmatized. The family was an institution with deep rooted problems for some of its members, and in failing to recognise this, the claim lacks comprehensiveness.

With regard to the newly created welfare state, this was indeed, at the time, a benign system. Conditions were ideal, with full male employment the contributions were high and as a result unemployment benefit claims were very low. Also this now afforded proper medical care to portions of the population who had previously only had access to home remedies.

The post war period seems to have been one of very little diversity or flexibility. Children were born into what was very much a pre-determined role; however this role would differ greatly depending on whether they were a boy or a girl. From an early age boys would receive different treatment than girls. The education system of the time had many pre-conceived ideas as to the future roles of both boys and girls and the content was geared towards two very different outcomes. In this way identities were somewhat forced upon them, ‘Education has had, and still has, a particular purpose for girls that is different from and inferior to that for boys’ (Gove and Watt, 2000, p.67). So although much of identity formation can be attributed to self-categorization, the influence of social expectations and institutionally constructed paths for boys and girls must also have played a large part. This asserted identity combined with social opportunities played a major role in determining the future of a child growing up in the late 40’s and 50’s.

As we approached the end of the twentieth century changes were occurring in the workplace, more women were seen to be forging successful careers of their own and many of the stigmas previously attached to independent women had disappeared. Educational opportunities were on an equal footing with male colleagues and women could make their career choices from the same range of options as their male counterparts. The state bias that existed previously had been removed, with equal employment benefits available to all, however, the ‘glass ceiling’ – a level at which women found it almost impossible to rise above – still seemed to be a reality. Although all the above have been major factors in the re-invention of the role of women in the workplace, the decline of the UK manufacturing industry must also be recognised as having played it’s part. With the decline of many traditional male occupations, the male unemployment figures rose. The positions which were previously dominated by male workers simply did not exist any more. As the manufacturing jobs disappeared, the number of service industry jobs increased. Whereas men often struggled to retrain and adapt to these new kinds of jobs, women seemed to fit much more easily into these now essential occupations. This created a feeling of uncertainty about the future for many men, in retrospect the security offered by the post war employment situation did in many ways, at least for the male, represent a ‘golden age’. We see much more flexibility surrounding the workplace today. Flexible working practices are becoming the norm with part time work, shift work and working from home becoming commonplace. This is a huge departure from the restrictive practices of post war UK.

If we look at how the structure of the family has changed in the latter years of the twentieth century again there are some striking changes. Apart from the changes in power distribution already discussed, one of the most noticeable changes has been the divorce rate. Research shows an increase from approximately 30,000 per year in 1950 to around 180,000 in 1996 (Sherratt and Hughes, 2000, p.53, Table 2.3). This increase may be partly due to a change in the law in the early 70’s making divorce easier, and partly to greater social acceptance of divorce. What were the reasons behind this greater social acceptance? The latter half fo the twentieth century saw some striking changes in church attendance figures; In1950 approximately 40% of the adult population of England and Wales regularly attended church; however, by 1990 this figure had dropped to around 10% (Thompson and Woodward, 2000, p.54, fig. 2.3). During the same period a great diversity of religious belief was developing with all manner of ‘new age’ religions and Eastern religions growing in popularity. These changed attitudes towards different religions could have been a key factor in the greater social acceptance of divorce, and of co-habitation.

Was there a change in the level of trust associated with systems of expert knowledge? Let us look at the medical profession. As discussed earlier, in the post war era many people had only just gained access to professional healthcare, and as such it was generally accepted without question. As the years have progressed medical science has progressed too and we now have cures for diseases which were once killers. During the same period the level of media reporting into medical research had also increased, and as a result, public awareness of medical issues was heightened. The result of this heightened awareness was a greater knowledge of medical practices and human physiology in general. Armed with this knowledge more people were beginning to question the effectiveness of modern traditional medicine. A good example of this was the medical knowledge surrounding asthma. In the post war era asthma would have been considered to be a natural condition and therefore should be dealt with by consultation with the doctor and compliance with their instructions. A visit to the doctor today may provide some seemingly more effective remedies, but the methodology would still be the same, the focus of the diagnosis would be on the asthma. Alternatively if I were to visit someone practising complementary medicine I would be viewed as a person with asthma, and the focus would be on me as a whole. Looking at an ill person in this way deduces that any particular ailment ‘is a result of the various physical, social, psychological, spiritual and environmental forces surrounding the individual.’ (Smith and Goldblatt, 2000, p.73). These challenges to traditional thinking illustrate a change in the level of knowledge held by the general population, and therefore the amount of trust bestowed on this system of expert medical knowledge.

The immediate post war years were a period of many certainties but showed very little in the way of flexibility or diversity. The claim fails to address many of the problems faced by minority groups and assumes positions which are unsupported by empirical evidence. The end of the century saw a change towards greater uncertainty and diversity, although this uncertainty brought great libratory qualities for women in particular. There were some continuities; the family unit is still a popular concept, although marriage does not always feature and in general, women, in the main, still take responsibility for the daily running of house and home.

1644 Words.

References

Dawson, G. (2000) ‘Work: from certainty to flexibility?’ in Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed).

Fergusson, R. and Hughes, G. (2000) ‘Welfare: from security to responsibility?’ in Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed).

Gove, J. and Watt, S. (2000) ‘Identity and Gender’ in Woodward, K. (ed) Questioning Identity: gender, class, nation. London, Routledge.

Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed) (2000) Ordering lives: family, work and welfare. London, Routledge.

Sherratt, N. and Hughes, G. (2000) ‘Family: from tradition to diversity?’ in Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed).

Smith, B. and Goldblatt, D. (2000) ‘Whose health is it anyway?’ in Hinchcliffe, S. and Woodward, K. (ed), The natural and the social: uncertainty, risk, change. London, Routledge.

Thompson, K. and Woodward, K. (2000) ‘Knowing and believing: religious knowledge’ in Goldblatt, D. (ed), Knowledge and the social sciences: theory, method, practice. London, Routledge.