Uk Society After the Second World War
‘The immediate post-war years were depicted as an era of social stability of secure functioning institutions, full employment, benign welfare state and trusted systems of expert knowledge.’ How far do you agree with this claim as an accurate picture of the UK after the Second World War? Did things change towards the end of the twentieth century?
The question requires a two part answer. First, do I agree with the claim regarding the immediate post war years, and second, was there a change towards the end of the twentieth century? First I shall look to the immediate post war years to see if the claim paints an accurate picture of the era in question, and second, I will look at some of the changes which occurred in more recent times.
In the immediate post war years in the UK the traditional nuclear family was a widely accepted concept. The father, as head of the household and the bread winner, would go out to work. In this role he formed the link between the family and the state. The mother’s responsibilities were to take care of the children and the home. Marriage was seen as a heterosexual union and was taken on as a life long commitment. Generally religion and the church would play a part in most family’s lives with religion taught in school during the week and Sunday school or church attendance expected at the weekend. Most men of that era were employed in the manufacturing or industrial sectors and these jobs were generally very secure, widely thought of as ‘jobs for life’. This was also the time when the welfare state was being established. This was intended to provide a good standard of healthcare, unemployment benefit, schooling, pensions and child benefit to the whole population, and would be free at the point of usage. This was touted as a ‘cradle to grave plan’ under an ‘all pay, all benefit’ system (Fergusson and Hughes, 2000, p.122). This system began to function very well under the prevailing conditions of almost full male employment. Crime rates
The question requires a two part answer. First, do I agree with the claim regarding the immediate post war years, and second, was there a change towards the end of the twentieth century? First I shall look to the immediate post war years to see if the claim paints an accurate picture of the era in question, and second, I will look at some of the changes which occurred in more recent times.
In the immediate post war years in the UK the traditional nuclear family was a widely accepted concept. The father, as head of the household and the bread winner, would go out to work. In this role he formed the link between the family and the state. The mother’s responsibilities were to take care of the children and the home. Marriage was seen as a heterosexual union and was taken on as a life long commitment. Generally religion and the church would play a part in most family’s lives with religion taught in school during the week and Sunday school or church attendance expected at the weekend. Most men of that era were employed in the manufacturing or industrial sectors and these jobs were generally very secure, widely thought of as ‘jobs for life’. This was also the time when the welfare state was being established. This was intended to provide a good standard of healthcare, unemployment benefit, schooling, pensions and child benefit to the whole population, and would be free at the point of usage. This was touted as a ‘cradle to grave plan’ under an ‘all pay, all benefit’ system (Fergusson and Hughes, 2000, p.122). This system began to function very well under the prevailing conditions of almost full male employment. Crime rates
References: Dawson, G. (2000) ‘Work: from certainty to flexibility?’ in Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed). Fergusson, R. and Hughes, G. (2000) ‘Welfare: from security to responsibility?’ in Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed). Gove, J. and Watt, S. (2000) ‘Identity and Gender’ in Woodward, K. (ed) Questioning Identity: gender, class, nation. London, Routledge. Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed) (2000) Ordering lives: family, work and welfare. London, Routledge. Sherratt, N. and Hughes, G. (2000) ‘Family: from tradition to diversity?’ in Hughes, G. and Fergusson, R. (ed). Smith, B. and Goldblatt, D. (2000) ‘Whose health is it anyway?’ in Hinchcliffe, S. and Woodward, K. (ed), The natural and the social: uncertainty, risk, change. London, Routledge. Thompson, K. and Woodward, K. (2000) ‘Knowing and believing: religious knowledge’ in Goldblatt, D. (ed), Knowledge and the social sciences: theory, method, practice. London, Routledge.