Tim Lott's family column Traditional families are not the only preserve of moral values . Tim Lott very Saturday in the Guardian, a feature called My Family Values appears on the same page as this column. It is one of the second best things on the page, but it often prompts me to ask what, in fact, are family values? Normally identified with the right wing, most particularly in the US, “family values” tend to go hand in hand there with God, guns and the idealisation of the nuclear family. In the UK, the cliche is less pronounced, but when you hear a politician talking about family values, it is more often than not from a conservative perspective. David Cameron gave a speech about family values in August 2014, asserting: “It’s family that brings up children, teaches values, passes on knowledge, instils in us all theresponsibility to be good citizens and to live in harmony with others.” Later that year, Tristram Hunt, then shadow education secretary, made a speech affirming that the Labour party should embrace family values, which he defined as “stable relationships and stable parenting”. I don’t know if this is simply political rhetoric. However, when | think of family values, I think of - nothing at all. I can only conceive of values in general. Why should family values be superior to any other values - for instance, those enjoyed by single people or couples who choose to be childless? Certainly, you may pick up positive values from your family, but you might pick up negative ones, too. Families are just collections of individuals connected by blood or emotion living under the same roof (at least some of the time). There are no family values as such - only a group dynamic that can produce both positive and negative outcomes. For instance, no one wants to go through a divorce and it is rarely a good thing for a child to experience - but this is grim reality rather than a matter of values. I don’t think Thave ever met anyone who thought divorce was a good thing, or that stability was a bad thing. Values don’t come into it. Whatever values are on the menu for an individual, they can choose to accept them, remain indifferent to them or forcefully reject them. Families do not pre-program their members, although they might nudge them ina certain direction - as do society asa whole, school, media and a host of other influences. The term family values is exclusionary because most people, when they think of a family, even today, tend to think of a nuclear family and it gives moral weight to that traditional grouping. People in same-sex relationships, or trans, or single-parent families are rarely presented as preservers of family values. Cameron said it was “important that government sends a strong signal that we back marriage”. But I’ve never understood why marriage is good per se - even though there are statistics that claim to prove it makes people more likely to stay together (although correlation is not causation). In fact, staying together is not always a good thing, even for the children. It may just be the least bad thing. “It’s the family where true power lies,” continued Cameron. Family values can certainly be about power and deference. A “good child” does as they are told. Traditionally, a “good wife” was one who was subservient. A “good couple” is married, thus legitimised by the authorities and bound by law.The other phrase that family values is linked with is “hard-working families”. The two are used together as if it is a given that a hard-working family is a good family - which is a value in itself that nicely fits a neoliberal agenda. Why can’t there be good lazy families? It’s all hogwash, surely. What can you source from within a family that you can’t get outside it, that two adults of either sex living together without children can’t share? The idea of family values is itself value laden. It is time it was put to bed - ideally without any supper. @timlottwriter comments (189) This discussion is closed for comments Sortby Perpage Display threads Oldest» 100v Collapsed» Ti h 26 Mar 2016 0:46 2p “Traditional families are not the only preserve of moral values.” Perhaps not but they form a pretty good basis!! Mute Report AnnieGetYourBun Taitch 26 Mar 2016 0:56 nt They're not a basis as such. They're simply part of the picture. Mute Report HenryGeorgeFan‘> Taitch 26 Mar 2016 0:59 42 Really? Why is someone in a family innately more moral than someone who is not?Are orphans automatically immoral? Mute Report sodastream3000° Taitch 26 Mar 2016 1:28 6 + How? I'm married with two kids and granted I'm not a bank robber but | don't see how it improves my morality. Mute Report + Show 5 more rey mazeltoy 26 Mar 2016 0:52 39 Cameron was talking total hooey and so was Hunt. Children need to be brought up by sane and good-enough people who love them. Married or not, black, white, male, female or both, it makes no difference Mute Report Defendant k> mazeltoy 26 Mar 2016 1:31 at That's not true, Family breakdown is damaging to children. Non-married couples separate more than then married ones. Also, children who are not genetically related to their ‘parents’ are at greater risk of abuse Mute Report Bonnemort Defendant_k 26 Mar 2016 3:29 1 For which see this pdf. Mute Report kaff Defendant k 26 Mar2016 3.46 1. Daddy danger. Mute Report + Show 9 more replies