This document discusses how capitalism changed the structure and role of the family. It argues that prior to capitalism, the family was an economic institution where members contributed to household production. Capitalism separated the home and workplace by introducing wage labor. This privatized the family and led to changes like choosing marriage partners for love rather than arrangement and valuing childhood. It also allowed women more financial independence and role changes. The modern family is seen as a product of capitalism's wealth and the new social norms it facilitated regarding gender, marriage, and child-rearing.

1. Capitalism and the Family
Steven Horwitz
St. Lawrence University
USA

2. The argument
 Prior to the emergence of capitalism, the
family was not an especially nice place
 What we know (and love) as the “modern
family” is a product of capitalism
 This makes both progressives and
conservatives uncomfortable
 The mutual freedom of markets and social life
is consistent with (classical) liberalism

3. Two points about the family
 No such thing as the “traditional” family.
 All social institutions evolve and change
 The post-WW II family was a particular historical
phenomenon, not a universal family structure.
 Important to distinguish the form of the family
from the functions of the family.
 What families look like is a distinct issue from
what families do.
 Confusion and ambiguity around “normal” family

4. The Modern Family
 Marriage by choice & love
 The family is nuclear,
private and insulated
 Chidren are
sentimentalized and
childhood is sheltered
 Equality of the sexes and
women have financial
independence  more
divorce

5. The Pre-modern Family
 The family as an economic institution
 Household = the unit of production
 Family members contributed to production
 This was mostly agricultural, but also small
crafts
 Last names
 Most lived at the margins
 Also a political institution
 Political power for the rich, networks of
cooperation and community for the poor

6. The Pre-modern Family
 Contrast to the modern family:
 Marriage was arranged, but even if chosen, not really
about love
 Women were almost property - Coverture laws
 Children were economic assets
 Labor and old-age support
 Multiple pregnancies
 Lack of sentimentality about children
 Families were public institutions
 Church, state, and community regulations
 What hasn’t changed: family is indispensible as
a transmitter of cultural norms and values.

7. What did Capitalism Do?
 Wage Labor
 Factories hire non-family
 Separates home and work
 Wages and wealth rise
 Family size shrinks
 Women and children to home
 Marriage becomes about love
 Childhood changes
 Along with democracy, this
“privatizes” the family
 The state, the church, and the
community all are restrained

8. The Changing Role of Women
 Growth in female labor
force participation
 Labor demand + Human
Capital = higher wages
 Fall in time needed at home
 Rising wealth = alternatives
 Increase pre-dates 1960s
 Feminist movement was a
result, not a cause
 More important: The Pill

9. Family in the 20th century
 Capitalism’s wealth led to two key trends:
 Women’s financial independence
 Decline in the benefits of specialization by gender
 Thus: marriage offers fewer material benefits
 BUT: larger emotional/psychological role
 It’s now ALL about love
 Rise in divorce rates is one result
 Preferences and constraints
 Wealth and freedom made this inevitable

10. The 21st Century?
 New: the demand for same-sex marriage
 Capitalism and its wealth produced:
 The possibility of surviving outside the family
 Cities that made anonymity possible
 A broder ethos of “anything that’s peaceful”
 The separation of sex, marriage, and kids
 A change in marriage from economics to love
 The demand for SSM is the result of these
 Real revolutionary change in the family was when
capitalism made marriage about love.
 Western civilization needs families as norms
transmitters – the question is whether multiple forms
are able to do so.

11. A final thought
“The liberal position is based on courage and
confidence, on a preparedness to let change
run its course even if we cannot predict where it
will lead.” - Hayek, “Why I am Not a
Conservative”
Free markets produce a social world and
culture that we cannot, and should not try to,
control. Liberalism has a rational optimism that
its results will be desirable.