for everyone |
Just like most of the developed world Britain has undergone a massive social transformation over the past 50 years.
Like other secular states Britain has been transformed by the sexual revolution of the 1960s and this has turned the social and moral environment upside down in less than half a century.
Prior to the arrival of contraceptive pill in 1961 marriage and courtship had been the only socially acceptable loci for heterosexual relationships. Homosexuality (male) was not made legal in the UK until 1967, when the Sexual Offences Act decriminalised private sexual acts between men 21 years or over in England and Wales. It never was illegal in Britain for women to be lesbian.
Like other secular states Britain has been transformed by the sexual revolution of the 1960s and this has turned the social and moral environment upside down in less than half a century.
Prior to the arrival of contraceptive pill in 1961 marriage and courtship had been the only socially acceptable loci for heterosexual relationships. Homosexuality (male) was not made legal in the UK until 1967, when the Sexual Offences Act decriminalised private sexual acts between men 21 years or over in England and Wales. It never was illegal in Britain for women to be lesbian.
The minimum age of consent at which a person may lawfully consent to buggery and to certain homosexual acts was subsequently reduced to 16 in England and Wales by the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. This came into force in 2001.
From 1975 birth control was made available free from the National Health Service to all women and men regardless of marital status. By then newly available technologies also included legal abortion, the Intra-Uterine Device and sterilisation. It is estimated that the total fertility rate had fallen to 1.64 by 2001, the lowest point in recorded history.
During this 50 year period there have been enormous changes in the family structure in the UK.
During the 1950s sex was only fully condoned within marriage although it was accepted that courting couples would have sexual relations and there was de facto approval for this, provided those liaisons were a prelude to marriage and fidelity.
It
was commonplace for pregnancy to be the trigger for marriage, the
subsequent establishment of a household and childrearing
responsibilities. Traditionally British people's lives were shaped by
the financial commitment involved in having children. Pregnancy is one
of the great desirable outcomes of sexual behaviour, but prior to the
introduction of effective birth control it was also an uncontrollable
economic risk.
The economic boom from the end of WW2 to the oil crisis of 1973 was the longest sustained period of economic growth in the history of the UK and was the origins of the rise (and fall) of easy credit, which has only recently been reigned in here and across the capitalist world by the so called Credit Crunch.
In the 1960s then we see a greater degree of disposable wealth coupled with more reliable contraception leading to a revolution in sexual expression.
The economic boom from the end of WW2 to the oil crisis of 1973 was the longest sustained period of economic growth in the history of the UK and was the origins of the rise (and fall) of easy credit, which has only recently been reigned in here and across the capitalist world by the so called Credit Crunch.
In the 1960s then we see a greater degree of disposable wealth coupled with more reliable contraception leading to a revolution in sexual expression.
By
the end of the decade not only have heterosexual relations been
liberated from the economic and social burdens of unwanted, or
'illegitimate' pregnancy and all the stigma it carried, but also new
freedoms for the gay community to engage in lawful sexual relationships.
As Hera Smith points out in her paper 'No Turning Back' (2003)* published by History and Policy a British online journal:-
"The proportion of women who remained unmarried in the age group 45-49 fell below 10% for the first time in 1971 census. The average age at marriage reached its lowest point of 21.29 in 1966-70.
These changes in marriage reflected a rejection of sexual restraint and were part of the permissive society."
The term 'permissive society' is now an echo from the past, very few commentators would describe contemporary Britain as permissive today, since it has come to be identified by its Big Brother surveillance culture, that seeks to penetrate more and more of the private lives of individual citizens. There has been an all out assault on privacy by the institutions of the British state.
As Hera Smith points out in her paper 'No Turning Back' (2003)* published by History and Policy a British online journal:-
"The proportion of women who remained unmarried in the age group 45-49 fell below 10% for the first time in 1971 census. The average age at marriage reached its lowest point of 21.29 in 1966-70.
These changes in marriage reflected a rejection of sexual restraint and were part of the permissive society."
The term 'permissive society' is now an echo from the past, very few commentators would describe contemporary Britain as permissive today, since it has come to be identified by its Big Brother surveillance culture, that seeks to penetrate more and more of the private lives of individual citizens. There has been an all out assault on privacy by the institutions of the British state.
Successive British governments have had family policies which have been seen as divorced (if you'll pardon the pun) from sex and sexuality as if families are conjured into existence by any other means. The governments in question have been laughably coy about how babies are made.
When governments legislate on families they are by default commenting of course on sexual relationships, which in turn represent changes arising entirely 'from the ground up, in response to technological developments such as the widespread availability of oral and other forms of contraception and birth control.
There is no evidence of these sexual behaviours changing despite the vastly changed economic circumstances, so in other words family policy is reflective of changing social mores not the other way around, not in any meaningful top down sort of way in any event.
Britain is no longer as 'permissive' a society as it was in the 1960s, but it is now more a 'dismissive' society, where the legitimacy of state institutions have come increasingly into question and have been largely dismissed by a sceptical public as corrupt and self-serving.
Just as sexuality was liberated during the 1960s so have notions of personal freedom changed across the board. Britain has become more anarchic as government has become less effective and to many people more or less irrelevant to the ways we live our lives today.
As Hera Smith says in her paper (link below), "the changes in sexual behaviour taking place deserve to be celebrated not denounced. A small proportion of the population meet partners for life in their late teens but most people do not wish to return to the confines of life-long monogamous marriage. They are still looking for love and enduring relationships, but they also want to engage in other partnerships and more varied forms of sexual behaviour at different stages in their lives. In particular, early sexual activity and experimentation with relationships is a source of excitement and pleasure and an important learning experience in many people's lives."
In my experience state policies on families are pretty much devoid of "excitement and pleasure" and are therefore missing the point of why the traditional family structures have broken down and new ones have formed.
Ms Smith goes on to say that:-
"Historically marriage had marked the start of childbearing for women but increasingly many women used contraception to extend this childless but sexually active period into marriage, further blurring the boundaries between sexual activity within marriage and outside of it. Women marrying between the ages of 20 and 24 in 1961-1965 had had their first baby even faster than those who married between 1956-1960. But this was followed by a sharp fall in the pace at which those married from 1966-1970 produced their first child. This lengthening of the interval between marriage and the first birth continued in the 1970s. Thus, the boundary between married and single women was further blurred. Single women could continue to be sexually active and married women could remain voluntarily childless."
Some
recent changes like the legitimation of 'civil partnerships' for gay
couples have attempted to take account of changing mores, but these only
attempt to reimpose models of marriage and family life upon a society
where the economic and social foundations of sexual relations no longer
apply as they did in the past.
It is my view that the 1960s sexual revolution is an enduring legacy of that time which as Hera Smith points out should be celebrated not denounced, or worse still.... governments should not attempt to legislate on matters of personal choices where no offence against another person has taken place.
Sexual liberation is a measure of much wider changes in the economy and the polity of the UK (and many other late/post capitalist societies) which has reduced the dead hand of the state on individual choice and freedoms with regard to sex between adults.
This is one of the countervailing forces that have brought rapid change to British society and is an indicator of the way in which social change happens.
Nobody in their right mind listens to, or takes any notice of, ministers or civil servants when it comes to private matters bound up with pleasure and such feelings of personal gratification. These are some of the revolutionary principles that have altered social life in Britain over the past few decades and redefined what means to be a self directed individual today.
The revolution to which I refer has weakened the state by compelling it to acquiesce to powerful drives and appetites which are no longer confined by legal or social sanction in the way they once were.
It is my view that the 1960s sexual revolution is an enduring legacy of that time which as Hera Smith points out should be celebrated not denounced, or worse still.... governments should not attempt to legislate on matters of personal choices where no offence against another person has taken place.
Sexual liberation is a measure of much wider changes in the economy and the polity of the UK (and many other late/post capitalist societies) which has reduced the dead hand of the state on individual choice and freedoms with regard to sex between adults.
This is one of the countervailing forces that have brought rapid change to British society and is an indicator of the way in which social change happens.
Nobody in their right mind listens to, or takes any notice of, ministers or civil servants when it comes to private matters bound up with pleasure and such feelings of personal gratification. These are some of the revolutionary principles that have altered social life in Britain over the past few decades and redefined what means to be a self directed individual today.
The revolution to which I refer has weakened the state by compelling it to acquiesce to powerful drives and appetites which are no longer confined by legal or social sanction in the way they once were.
If we were to seek evidence for the increased influence of sexual anarchism in the UK, then how we as a society have changed in our relationship to each other and the effect this has had on the power and influence of the state, is I think a rather good example.
These developments are not of course restricted to the UK, they have had a global impact of which Britain is but one particular example.
In some non-western countries particularly in the Middle East and Latin America such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Columbia and Peru the
state continues to act as an ideological instrument which legitimises
violence against sexual minorities, but even in those countries the
situation is not a static one.*
One instance of resistance to the exercise of state power is the notion of the rights of sexual minorities as human rights.
It is therefore paradoxical that sexual freedom as a human right which has influenced late capitalist societies like Britain and rearranged the social building blocks of families has been the global reach of Big Pharma and particularly the widespread availability of 'the pill'.
Another beneficiary has been the entire sexual aids industry from the purveyors mechanical devices to the pornography industry it has grown out of changing attitudes to sexuality as a human right and a social benefit.
As Hera Smith's paper states there is 'no turning back' from the sexual revolution which has determined British social policy for the past half century and has continually falsified and undermined the family policies of nation states around the world.
Both the women's movement and the gay movement have made massive inroads into the capacity of the state to police social/sexual norms around family formation and sexual behaviours and both have been at the cutting edge of a much wider socio/cultural/economic/political revolution.
My contention here is that the conservative and reactionary backlash against these developments have utterly failed to reverse these trends and in reality are completely unable to do so.
One instance of resistance to the exercise of state power is the notion of the rights of sexual minorities as human rights.
It is therefore paradoxical that sexual freedom as a human right which has influenced late capitalist societies like Britain and rearranged the social building blocks of families has been the global reach of Big Pharma and particularly the widespread availability of 'the pill'.
Another beneficiary has been the entire sexual aids industry from the purveyors mechanical devices to the pornography industry it has grown out of changing attitudes to sexuality as a human right and a social benefit.
As Hera Smith's paper states there is 'no turning back' from the sexual revolution which has determined British social policy for the past half century and has continually falsified and undermined the family policies of nation states around the world.
Both the women's movement and the gay movement have made massive inroads into the capacity of the state to police social/sexual norms around family formation and sexual behaviours and both have been at the cutting edge of a much wider socio/cultural/economic/political revolution.
My contention here is that the conservative and reactionary backlash against these developments have utterly failed to reverse these trends and in reality are completely unable to do so.
This
represents a further diminishing of the influence of the nation
state system and the increasing ubiquity of a revolution in the way
society is organised. As
much as I hate to use the despised S word the sexual revolution has been an
unparalleled and resounding success which has undermined one of the
fundamental building blocks of patriarchy and it's primary political
manifestation in the modern nation state, as guarantor and overseer of
private and public morality.
