The paterfamilias: male responsibility, traditional family, and wider society | Sam G. Hall

It is no secret that social attitudes to marriage and the traditional family in western society have been in a state of constant flux since the 1980s. Research from that time had indicated that although there has been a steady increase in non-family, ‘independent’ living, a larger shift in the approach to male and female roles within the family unit was predictable.

Sure enough, we are currently living in the time at which that tree has borne its fruits. The results: confusion and disorder. For example, British research showed that, in 2019, 42% of marriages ended in divorce; the concurrent effect has been separated families, which expose children to an increased risk of negative outcome. In the pursuit of progress and modernity, we are starting to deviate slightly too far from millennia-old norms.

If we are to take a stable family as the foundation of civilised society, as esteemed classical philosophers have done, it stands to reason that these will have unprecedented impact on the national culture. Already, we are bearing witness to its withering: at the current rate, it is predicted that the number of British children born Christian will be zero by 2067. On top of this, it has been found that cultural diversity and overpopulation — and what is related to cultural diversity is usually the product of mass immigration — can lead to reduced sociability, cohesion, and wellbeing. This, as well as meaning integration meets even further obstacles and barriers. Yet all are merely symptomatic of a much larger and pervasive problem. 

How can these damning reports be countered? Immediately, one’s mind could jump to secular reform: tax incentives for married couples (with variables based upon length of marriage, the number of biological children, and so forth), financial reform to target small businesses and local trade, and community-based projects. All of these tend to meet the eye and, most certainly, are valid options. However, the answer lies in something deeper. As opposed to looking at the wider picture immediately, perhaps it would be beneficial to take a step back and look at the epicentre of society: the family unit. 

A large stabilising factor in the family is Christian religiosity. The very virtues and principles found within encourage no less. The unity of man and woman has received its Godly sanction since the earliest days, with Genesis 2: 23-24 saying, “‘This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Furthermore, legal practises from the days of Moses have emphasised the unconditional requirement to maintain the sanctity of marriage (Numbers 5: 12-22). Infidelity and disloyalty had not only received public disapproval, but legal penalisation.

By the days of the Apostles, a cultural phenomenon had emerged — with its justification found in Biblical tradition — known as the paterfamilias. The word translated directly simply means “father of the family”, implying also the authority over the household. Any such title denoting a degree of male authority came with corresponding duties and responsibilities over the household. The Apostles of the New Testament are crucial here, because their writing — at a time when the paterfamilias was a recognised concept — combines traditionalism and Christian sensibility, and perfectly rounds the argument that a loving father binds the family together as paterfamilias. 

First and foremost, the most relevant sections of the New Testament for this purpose are the Pauline doctrines, simply because the epistles directly address the issue of the family. More than that, they directly denote the responsibilities concurrent on man, as father and lead of the household: men are ordered to conduct themselves “sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience;” (Titus 2: 2;) and breaking this is going against Biblical instruction. These are to be passed down to children as well (Titus 2: 6). In marriage, “the husband is head of the wife,” it is written, “as also Christ is head of the church; and He is Saviour of the body.” (Ephesians 5: 23.) Moreover, husbands are commanded to “love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,” (Ibid.: 5: 25; cf., Colossians 3: 19) and, “to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.” (Ephesians 5: 28.)

A man embedded in Christian social teaching honours his wife and the roles that she fulfils as the creator and sustainer of his entire world on earth, as is noted by G.K Chesterton. And the clear link to Genesis 2: 23-24 needs no further comment. Also within the sphere of a paterfamilias’ responsibilities is also found in the willingness to instruct children appropriately. It is true that fathers are expected to discipline their children (Proverbs 13: 24), but they are also to predominantly instruct them to be the patterns of sober-minded good works (Titus 2: 6), and to be respectful of their family (Exodus 20: 12; cf., Ephesians 6: 2, Colossians 3: 20). Likewise, fathers are not to provoke their children (Colossians 3: 21; cf., Ephesians 6: 4) — in other words, they must raise them sensibly. 

With an embedded distinction of Christian faith, it is clear to see how such a tradition as the paterfamilias is not only grounded but equally self-sustaining. The consequential breakdown of this cyclical order is necessarily symptomatic of wider societal issues, as mentioned within the introduction. Within the context of unhinged diversity, unfamiliar orders come to replace tradition in the cultural power vacuum. Its resolution will involve a broad approach, incorporating Christian social and educational instruction alongside secular, socio-economic reforms aimed at promoting and sustaining traditional family life. It is equally self-evident that the brunt of this responsibility will fall upon men, as it is their role to take, without forgetting the essential guidelines for behaviour and how one ought to compose themselves.

Tradition has withered, not rotted. Its very nature is perennial and therefore liable to re-emergence in the right conditions. Years worth of damage will take a corresponding number of years to heal, but within that framework, restoring the paterfamilias would undoubtedly create a societal ripple. If we wish to see broader changes, it is best to begin with the smallest compositional unit of society, i.e., the family itself.