The term Nuclear family was coined in an attempt to “reset the norm” and address the societal changes that occurred after World War II, which disrupted traditional family structures. Men in advertising were approached and asked to address the issues facing families. The direct issue was with many men either dying, getting injured, or returning from war and struggling to reintegrate into family life, which coincided with women entering the workforce and experiencing newfound independence during the war effort. Thus, relationships and dynamics within families were significantly altered.

The concept of resetting the norm aimed to establish a new standard or ideal for American families in the post-war era. However, this new standard fell short of the broader American ethos, which valued strong family bonds, communities, stability, traditions and shared values. As anyone in advertising knows you are usually trying to tap into one of the above to separate your ad from the rest by invoking a deeply held emotion.

The experiences of war led to many strained relationships, as couples had to navigate the aftermath of separation, loss, and personal transformation. The changing roles and dynamics within families raised questions about gender roles, marital expectations, and the overall fabric of family life. The tension between the desire to reset and redefine family norms and the expectations rooted in the American ethos created a complex dynamic in the post-war society.

But the “nuclear family” set a low standard for the American myth since new norms or expectations that emerged after the war did not meet the ideal of family structures. Since the nuclear family is a smaller unit then what is optimal. What is optimal is having extended families within a community as the backing for the values that are part of a family’s tradition.

Why was the Nuclear Family an improper answer?

If one were to create an American myth, it should be essential to consider the broader aspirations and values of society rather than focusing solely on the smallest common denominator. Setting low expectations often does not inspire individuals to strive for greatness or surpass their basic potential. Instead, it is crucial to establish standards that are both attainable and meaningful, allowing people to envision and work towards a higher ideal in their life and imbue that vision over the generations.

When crafting a narrative about what people should strive for, it is essential to aim for a vision that encompasses more than the nuclear family unit. While the nuclear family has its place and significance (such as families on the frontier or escaping prosecution), an ideal, can be enriched by embracing the concept of an extended family, where a network of aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents form a vibrant community as they are one branch of broader supportive community that shares beliefs’ and values. This broader familial unit not only fosters stronger bonds and intergenerational connections but also provides a sense of belonging and shared responsibility.

However, it is worth noting that consumerism often thrives when individuals are disconnected from their communities. This idea is exemplified in the television series “Mad Men,” where slick, marketing-minded sociopaths manipulate slogans and advertising strategies to drive consumerism and increase profits for their clients. Such narratives underscore the challenges of navigating the balance between genuine human connection and the influence of consumer culture. There has always been an incentive to separate families into bite size units who need to consume more individually than as part of a larger unit. Selling this idea of an independent young adult has its appeals but it is ultimately, a marketing ploy. [1]

In shaping an American myth, it is important to consider the inherent complexities of societal values and the diverse range of values and aspirations that exist. By setting higher standards and promoting interconnectedness within communities, it becomes possible to inspire individuals to strive for meaningful, and purposeful goals while fostering a sense of collective well-being and purpose.

The Marxist critique raises valid concerns about the potential negative impacts of pure capitalism. It highlights how unregulated capitalism can be corrupt. However, one of the several areas where Marxism falls short is in fully understanding and harnessing human nature to inspire and motivate individuals.

While capitalism, in its pursuit of profit and self-interest, can incentivize innovation, productivity, and individual ambition, it also has its limitations. It often prioritizes material wealth and competition, which can neglect other important aspects of human nature, such as community, religion, values, cooperation, and social well-being. While in the perfect world the market corrects for these values. The world is not perfect, and the market has been shaped by carnal desires more than necessities over the past seventy (70) years.

In regards to communities and the extended family the market failed families because single family homes are more profitable then multi-families homes ever will be. Thus, the marketing personalities had a reason (money) to sell to people the dream of owning their own individual home, free of the extended family. This came by way of developing tract housing.

In California for instance, tract housing had an impact on transportation infrastructure. The expansion of suburban neighborhoods necessitated the construction of new roads, highways, and infrastructure to support the increased automobile usage. This led to a reliance on private vehicles and the decline of public transportation systems in suburban areas. Additionally, the social and cultural implications of tract housing were demographic shifts that occurred as families moved from urban centers (often on the north-east coast) to suburban communities, resulting in changing community dynamics and the emergence of new social networks. Tract housing developments often included amenities such as parks, schools, and shopping centers, creating self-contained suburban social communities. Some criticisms and challenges associated with tract housing were concerns about the loss of open space, the impact on natural resources, and the secular homogeneity of suburban neighborhoods.[2]

This marketing ploy was a clever tactic, as it encouraged consumerism by promoting the idea that people needed to buy new things when they didn’t live close to their parents. In a more traditional extended family setup, where relatives live in the same neighborhood or household, borrowing items or using what is available at their house during visits was common.

This way, people don’t need to own everything individually, and resources can be shared within the extended family unit.

The following video is a 1950’s ad for the Suburban life which culminates the point:

“The ideal home of the 1950s was also decorated to nines, with bold wallpapers, room dividers, and colorful kitchens being just a few of the many defining features of the age.” So the wallpaper decades made some “Mad Men” a pretty penny by throwing out the extended family as old news and boring.

If you have ever had conversations with your great-grandparents or grandparents about their parents’ lives and the conditions they lived in, you would be amazed at how many people at that time could live fulfilling lives with minimal possessions in small living spaces. Despite their limited material wealth, they found meaning, purpose and happiness (contentment) in their close-knit relationships and shared experiences. However, this model of living doesn’t align with the consumerist culture that emphasizes constant product consumption, accumulation and individual pleasure or status chasing above all else.

During the rise of the nuclear family concept, there was also an emphasis on the idea of a modern future. Society was encouraged to embrace progress, secularism, technological advancements, and a more individualistic lifestyle. This vision of the future aligned with the ideals of secular capitalism and consumerism, as it promoted the purchase of new and innovative products to keep up with the (Jones) changing times.

It is important to critically examine the narratives and ideals that are propagated by marketing campaigns and societal norms. While the nuclear family model and the notion of a modern future have their bare minimum of merits, the model does not provide meaning in of themselves, and the way it was amped up was degenerate to society.

What Was Being Sold

In the era of a societal revival, there was a cultural shift in America towards the ideal of the single-family home. This trend was fueled by the allure of customized interiors, with elements like vibrant wallpaper, room dividers, and colorful kitchens becoming readily available for purchase and personalization, all topped off with new consumer items previously unavailable. It was a game carefully orchestrated by marketing experts and advertisers.

This manufactured suburban lifestyle promoted the nuclear family as the epitome of the American dream. Even within my own family history, six of my great-grandparents were drawn to this idea by the marketing and decided to relocate to California. Thereby, leaving family behind, and when they (the extended family) did move to California, they mainly lived in different cities with their own homes. In the case of my great-grandfather, Dan, he suffered from severe arthritis, and his doctors recommended California for its dry climate, which alleviated his symptoms, but he still bought into the single-family home lifestyle.

Even today the suburban life is idealized. However, it is important to recognize that the suburban ideal and the nuclear family model are not without their flaws. The emphasis on materialism and consumerism associated with this lifestyle often overshadowed deeper meanings, connections, and communities. It is interesting to reflect on the stories of our ancestors, and previous generations of family who lived in much smaller spaces, yet found fulfillment and purpose in their lives. The suburban model, driven by the marketing strategies of the time, may have been successful in selling products and shaping societal norms, but it also obscured alternative ways of living and the richness found within extended family structures.

Ultimately, the historical context in which these transformations took place sheds light on the complexities of societal shifts and individual choices. It should remind us to critically examine the narratives presented to us and consider the values, meanings, and purpose we wish to embrace in our own lives, and not just give into the trends because they are catchy and have shallow, yet sexy, immediate rewards.

A Note on Advertising:

The irony of contemporary complaints about personalized ads is worth noting. While some may find the targeted ads on their phones bothersome, they pale in comparison and are the grandchildren of the sophisticated tactics employed in advertising during the 1950’s, and going back to at least the 1930’s. Exploring the works of Edward Bernays and delving into crowd psychology, particularly his book “The Engineering of Consent,” reveals the extent to which people have been influenced by primal motivations over the past several decades.

The intriguing aspect is that many individuals believe they would have opposed the Nazis in Germany, yet fail to recognize that much of modern secular beliefs and feelings are rooted in the themes and techniques propagated by American advertising and psychologists, who drew inspiration from Nazi propaganda via using the same themes and techniques to convince people to buy more products. One such technique involves emotionally hijacking people’s reasoning, leading them to identify with certain emotions and subsequently take any action necessary to maintain that emotional state. For many individuals, emotions hold a higher position in their cognitive hierarchy than logic, making them susceptible to manipulation.

These reflections, and realizations should prompt us to question the extent of personal agency and control over our own thoughts and actions. They underscore the power of persuasive techniques and emphasize the importance of critical thinking in navigating the intricate landscape of information and influence in our modern world.

In the words of a brilliant yet morally corrupt figure, it was stated that there was no point in attempting to persuade intellectuals, as they would remain steadfast but would yield to the stronger force, which is the “the man in the street.” Therefore, arguments needed to be crude, straightforward, powerful, forceful, and appeal to emotions and instincts, rather than appealing to intellect. Since the emotional boorish brutes will force the “thinkers” to step in line. Thus, pursuit of truth was deemed unimportant, taking a backseat to tactics and psychology.

It is rather amusing to observe how a certain political Party excels and has a knack for crafting slogans that captivate the masses such as “planned parenthood,” “reproductive health,” “healthcare for all,” and “workers’ rights.” These slogans possess and carry an inherent appeal, resonating and evoking strong emotions while generating and garnering support. However, when subjected to intellectual scrutiny devoid of emotional bias, it becomes evident or one will discover, that these policies can have detrimental effects on individuals who are competent, and dedicated to the improving themselves.

These observations raise fundamental questions about the interplay between emotions and intellectual analysis in shaping political discourse. It serves as a reminder that catchy slogans and emotional appeals can wield significant influence in mobilizing support, yet they should not overshadow the critical examination of policies and their real-world implications. It highlights the importance of informed, and reasoned deliberation when evaluating political agendas and their potential impact on individuals and society at large. By embracing a balanced approach that respects both emotions but prioritizes logic, we can foster a more nuanced and effective dialogue surrounding important societal issues. But more so by having communities and extended families beyond the nuclear family catastrophe, individuals can have civil discussions that move beyond the emotional triggers, and hopefully to the realization of shared values and commonalities, beyond our small differences.

If you think ads and propaganda are being conflated I implore you to parse the difference without using money as a factor.

---

[1] Young independent women don’t worry, your not the first ones be duped as a marketing ploy.(This demographic spends the most on consumer goods). https://www.inc.com/amy-nelson/women-drive-majority-of-consumer-purchasing-its-time-to-meet-their-needs.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/economy/single-women-economy/index.html . There is a huge incentive to market a young and free lifestyle to everyone, especially young women. But by the time one realizes the jig is up, it’s late in the game, and often one is already locked in by bad decisions. Often married women usually control the purse strings in the relationship, though like this piece shows it can be degenerate too if just for the sake of consumerism, not towards a upholding values or community. Millennial women: “96% list ‘being independent’ as their single most important life goal.” @ https://girlpowermarketing.com/statistics-purchasing-power-women/

[2] https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/ser/tract-housing-in-ca-1945-1973-a11y.pdf (pg 15 amongst others)