A Memory

 

A recent posting about “homeless” being replaced by “houseless” and its comments brought back a memory.

I was sitting at the kitchen table with my aunt, Raffaela, the “General Pershing” of the large, extended family with whom I had grown up, and her sister-in-law, Anna. My aunt was describing her experience with her grown children.

“When Norma graduated from Radcliffe, she told me she was going to live in New York, because that was where the publishers and writers lived. I said, ‘No you are not. You will live here until you are married.’ So she did. And then she met Jean Pierre, and you know the rest. She has a beautiful family.

Then Chuck came home from the Air Force. He said he was going to move in with some friends. I said, ‘No, you will live at home until you are married.’ So he did. And then he met Angela.

Then Fran graduated from Boston University and said SHE was moving out. I said no. So she stayed. And then she met Ronnie.

Then Dickie got back from California where he had lived with Norma and Jean Pierre while finishing college. He got a job with Pan Am. He said he was moving to Winthrop to be closer to the airport. I said no. But he refused and said he was moving out. And he did. I made his life miserable. I told him, ‘I will never set foot in your apartment and you can’t bring any laundry here.'”

Anna chuckled.

I piped up. “You know, Auntie Raffie, by the time Dickie came along, if he had stayed at home with his parents, people would have thought it strange. In America these days, the idea is that a child should grow up to be autonomous. The psychologists say that autonomy is the goal and the sign of psychological health. You’re not supposed to live with the family.”

“They say that?” she asked, incredulous.

“Yes,” I said.

She slapped her hand on the kitchen table.

“It’s inhuman!

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 22 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    I’ve often been struck by how many adult children live with their parents in old novels about very rich people.

    It seems that rich kids living away from home in high-priced flats was an innovation of the post-WWI “Bright Young Things”.

    The kids thought they were being more “egalitarian” living that way, which is a laugh.

    I wager that the experience of parents who’d served in WWII might also contribute to the trend. If anybody might think their kids are old enough to live on their own at the age of 19 it might be folk who’d been in friggin’ battle at that age.

    • #1
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    But did “living at home until married” come about because people found it was a good idea, or just because children simply couldn’t afford to live on their own until they’d become more independent in other ways?

    • #2
  3. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But did “living at home until married” come about because people found it was a good idea, or just because children simply couldn’t afford to live on their own until they’d become more independent in other ways?

    Or even because virginity (most particularly in women) was expected by a lot of the population. 

    • #3
  4. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Add’ly the prospects of college and careers were less common, while metropolises were not viewed as the only places where meaningful existence could be lived. Sure there was always the lure of the big city, but perhaps less oikophobia than we’ve managed to create with our youth culture. 

    • #4
  5. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But did “living at home until married” come about because people found it was a good idea, or just because children simply couldn’t afford to live on their own until they’d become more independent in other ways?

    The meaning of “family” was different in ye olden tymes.  A family was like a business firm.  One had an obligation to serve the family.  To leave the home meant to leave the family, either because one was starting a new family of one’s own or else because one was running away from one’s obligations to the family. 

    This paradigm started to dissipate largely because of the industrial revolution. As people left the farm for factory work it became much easier to make a living as an individual.

    The upper classes maintained the tradition of living at home until marriage for a long time because the upper classes weren’t really allowed to seek gainful employment as individuals.  The eldest son was expected to inherit the family estates when dad popped off and the only careers outside the family that were permitted to younger sons were the priesthood and the military.

    The paradigm dissipated for the upper classes again because of the industrial revolution, as the industrial class became wealthier than the propertied class.  But still the upper classes held on to the tradition longer than did the working and middle classes.

    The final nail in the coffin for the tradition probably came when Princess Margaret moved into her own flat.

    • #5
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But did “living at home until married” come about because people found it was a good idea, or just because children simply couldn’t afford to live on their own until they’d become more independent in other ways?

    The meaning of “family” was different in ye olden tymes.  A family was like a business firm.  One had an obligation to serve the family.  To leave the home meant to leave the family, either because one was starting a new family of one’s own or else because one was running away from one’s obligations to the family. 

    This paradigm started to dissipate largely because of the industrial revolution. As people left the farm for factory work it became much easier to make a living as an individual.

    Yes, but don’t forget: “Stadtluft macht frei!”  (City air makes one free!)

    This was during the middle ages.  Moving to the city helped one to get free of feudal obligations, which was the main, most direct meaning of the phrase.  But it also removed people from family and village neighbors, where everybody’s business was everybody else’s business.  That type of autonomy has its attractions, too.  

    • #6
  7. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But did “living at home until married” come about because people found it was a good idea, or just because children simply couldn’t afford to live on their own until they’d become more independent in other ways?

    The meaning of “family” was different in ye olden tymes. A family was like a business firm. One had an obligation to serve the family. To leave the home meant to leave the family, either because one was starting a new family of one’s own or else because one was running away from one’s obligations to the family.

    This paradigm started to dissipate largely because of the industrial revolution. As people left the farm for factory work it became much easier to make a living as an individual.

    Yes, but don’t forget: “Stadtluft macht frei!” (City air makes one free!)

    This was during the middle ages. Moving to the city helped one to get free of feudal obligations, which was the main, most direct meaning of the phrase. But it also removed people from family and village neighbors, where everybody’s business was everybody else’s business. That type of autonomy has its attractions, too.

    I ain’t saying it never happened prior to the Industrial Revolution.  But the cultural norm of sticking with the family derives from pre-industrial agrarian culture because a family needed everybody to stick together just in order to survive.

    I wager that there’s a correlation between real estate prices and which cultures maintain the practice longer.  Today the practice seems to survive most in places like Italy and Japan.

    This is another way of thinking about why the practice survived for so long amongst the British upper classes, since for the longest time younger sons didn’t have any property of their own other than what daddy provided, and the careers that were open to an upper class gentlemen generally didn’t pay.  Priests, military officers, politicians, were all unpaid positions until the mid-to-late 19th century (unless you were crooked). A career where one made money was generally seen to be beneath the dignity of the upper class.

    • #7
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    I wager that there’s a correlation between real estate prices and which cultures maintain the practice longer.  Today the practice seems to survive most in places like Italy and Japan.

    Maybe that’s why Japan has such huge demographic problems.  If parents are like others, they barely have space for children even when the children are little, and when the children grow up and get their own place they might only be able to get a tiny little apartment which is also too small to raise children.

    • #8
  9. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    I wager that there’s a correlation between real estate prices and which cultures maintain the practice longer. Today the practice seems to survive most in places like Italy and Japan.

    Maybe that’s why Japan has such huge demographic problems. If parents are like others, they barely have space for children even when the children are little, and when the children grow up and get their own place they might only be able to get a tiny little apartment which is also too small to raise children.

    Indeed. And there is a disconnect between one-child city folk and big family country folk to this day – much impacted by whether you have room for them or not. 

    • #9
  10. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    TBA (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    I wager that there’s a correlation between real estate prices and which cultures maintain the practice longer. Today the practice seems to survive most in places like Italy and Japan.

    Maybe that’s why Japan has such huge demographic problems. If parents are like others, they barely have space for children even when the children are little, and when the children grow up and get their own place they might only be able to get a tiny little apartment which is also too small to raise children.

    Indeed. And there is a disconnect between one-child city folk and big family country folk to this day – much impacted by whether you have room for them or not.

    From what I’ve heard, even country folk in Japan don’t have many kids these days.  If they did, Japan wouldn’t even have that demographic problem.

    They also seem to have a pretty high suicide rate, probably for similar reasons.

    • #10
  11. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    What an absolutely bizarre post.  Get a job and move out of the house.  It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I’ve little regard for a man who doesn’t make his own life and stays, Fetterman-like, in his parents’ home.

    The bigger problem is that a huge percent of the young men are raised solely by their mothers.  I noticed when I was in law school (in my 40’s) that most of the young men there would not use urinals in the public bathrooms. They tended to use the stall to urinate.  I can only imagine they had no father at home.  

    Even if your theory that young adults should live with their parents until married was valid, most young adults in that model would be remaining with their mothers, not their fathers.  

    • #11
  12. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    kedavis (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    I wager that there’s a correlation between real estate prices and which cultures maintain the practice longer. Today the practice seems to survive most in places like Italy and Japan.

    Maybe that’s why Japan has such huge demographic problems. If parents are like others, they barely have space for children even when the children are little, and when the children grow up and get their own place they might only be able to get a tiny little apartment which is also too small to raise children.

    Indeed. And there is a disconnect between one-child city folk and big family country folk to this day – much impacted by whether you have room for them or not.

    From what I’ve heard, even country folk in Japan don’t have many kids these days. If they did, Japan wouldn’t even have that demographic problem.

    They also seem to have a pretty high suicide rate, probably for similar reasons.

    Japan also has the custom of adult adoption. In other societies the parents of a family business needed to have multiple children to increase the odds that one of them would be smart enough to take leadership of the business.  In Japan there’s less incentive to do so because they can adopt an adult with an MBA.

    • #12
  13. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post.  Get a job and move out of the house.  It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    • #13
  14. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans. 

    • #14
  15. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans.

    Can we be wealthy? I like money.

    • #15
  16. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans.

    Can we be wealthy? I like money.

    Only a subset of aristocrats are wealthy.  Most only have the status and the hope to someday be wealthy. 

    • #16
  17. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans.

    Lower divorce rates than the general public. Higher rates of religious attendance than the general public. Much lower out-of-wedlock pregnancy than the general public. Higher education attainment rates than the general public. Much more appreciation for cultural tradition than the current technocratic powers-that-be. Much better taste in architecture than the technocratic powers-that-be. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans.

    Lower divorce rates than the general public. Higher rates of religious attendance than the general public. Much lower out-of-wedlock pregnancy than the general public. Higher education attainment rates than the general public. Much more appreciation for cultural tradition than the current technocratic powers-that-be. Much better taste in architecture than the technocratic powers-that-be. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Describes most of the populists I like! 

    • #18
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Skyler (View Comment):

    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I’ve little regard for a man who doesn’t make his own life and stays, Fetterman-like, in his parents’ home.

    The bigger problem is that a huge percent of the young men are raised solely by their mothers. I noticed when I was in law school (in my 40’s) that most of the young men there would not use urinals in the public bathrooms. They tended to use the stall to urinate. I can only imagine they had no father at home.

    Even if your theory that young adults should live with their parents until married was valid, most young adults in that model would be remaining with their mothers, not their fathers.

    Good point.  And they may very well have had only female teachers too.

    • #19
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans.

    Can we be wealthy? I like money.

    Only a subset of aristocrats are wealthy. Most only have the status and the hope to someday be wealthy.

     

    • #20
  21. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans.

    Lower divorce rates than the general public. Higher rates of religious attendance than the general public. Much lower out-of-wedlock pregnancy than the general public. Higher education attainment rates than the general public. Much more appreciation for cultural tradition than the current technocratic powers-that-be. Much better taste in architecture than the technocratic powers-that-be. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    And yet the royal family has divorce, and the same foibles as the hoi polloi.  We are Americans.  We do not emulate aristrocracy.  That is anathema. 

    • #21
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):
    What an absolutely bizarre post. Get a job and move out of the house. It takes a special lack of gumption to not get out on your own as an adult.

    I dunno. I find that customs that worked for the aristocracy often tend to be a pretty good idea. Not always, of course, but often.

    There is no part of any aristocracy that should ever be emulated by Americans.

    Lower divorce rates than the general public. Higher rates of religious attendance than the general public. Much lower out-of-wedlock pregnancy than the general public. Higher education attainment rates than the general public. Much more appreciation for cultural tradition than the current technocratic powers-that-be. Much better taste in architecture than the technocratic powers-that-be. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    And yet the royal family has divorce, and the same foibles as the hoi polloi. We are Americans. We do not emulate aristrocracy. That is anathema.

    We shouldn’t but we often do.

    • #22
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.