When the “traditional families” would be traditionally segregated at the beach

One of the principle sticking points for current conservative and reactionary political movements are the so-called “traditional values”. By extension, these often take the form of “traditional family values”. As one Hungarian politician proclaimed, “when the values that we take for granted are being questioned in the world, when the European mainstream is constantly eroding these values, it is very important to say that we do rely on the values of family, community, homeland, and God.” The problem here is that throughout history every epoch would produce its own particular social norms. Therefore, one might always inquire over which traditional social values our contemporary conservatives are urging us to defend.

Giving away a daughter from a noble family to another aristocrat in order to safeguard a geopolitical interest was a completely acceptable fact to our ancestors. This used to be a traditional family value. The marriage between Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, for example, was a marriage between members of the same family. Yet another traditional Christian value. Married women existing basically as the property of their husbands could likewise represent an item on the long list of such “traditional values”. All of these social norms would begin to be questioned at particular historical moments, which has ultimately led to their abandonment. Would our dear conservative Hungarian lament their historical erosion? Would she advocate for giving back to the parents the exclusive right of choosing partners for their daughters? And if not, then why not? On what basis are we supposed to choose from all those “traditional values” the ones to uphold and to defend, as well as those to give up?

The crux of the matter here is the constant historical evolution of social consciousness, whereby the social values are equally eternally in flux. There are no universally correct values. What was acceptable yesterday appears ridiculous today, and what we believe in today will in the same manner be judged tomorrow. Of course, it is only natural for a particular individual, or for an entire generation for that matter, to consider precisely their social truths to represent the universal truths. There is no way that they could be erroneous. If their position was wrong, they would obviously switch to the correct one. Hence, our poor Hungarian above would be reluctant to ever consider the fact that the values that she takes for granted are merely transitory products of a particular historical period. Namely, of a period that it just happens to be the one that she was born into. Most likely, she will live through the remaining time of her life being firmly against the equal rights for LGBT or trans persons.

To illustrate the historical relativity of social issues, we may travel some hundred years or so back to have a look at what a certain preceding generation took for granted as “values of family, community, homeland, and God”. For example, “our Victorian ancestors believed men and women swimming together would lead to indecent behaviour. So separate bathing areas were established. This segregation was taken very seriously, and any transgressor would be fined.” Again, we may rest assured that plenty of people at that historical era would continue to believe in “segregated sea-swimming” right up to their deaths. And anyone trying to question such social norms would have been attacked by them for “eroding” traditional values.

Today’s defenders of “traditional family values” are very concerned about the supposedly negative consequences that the so-called woke ideology might have upon these “traditional families”. Ironically, however, the traditional Victorian social norms “made it very awkward for family groups to enjoy time together at the seaside.” And even today on many occasions it appears that our conservatives are less concerned about the well-being of the actual families, but more about the social norms as such. In any case, the gender-based segregation at the beach does not exhaust the list of awkward things regarding the bygone social norms. Here is some more description:

“In the 19th century, female bathing costumes weren’t the fashionable items they are today. A lady would wear a smock-like garment that concealed any possible glimpse of flesh or feminine curve. She would enter her bathing-hut carriage on dry land and the machine was pushed – or drawn by horse – into the sea, allowing her a discreet and private entry to the water.”

Anyone today considering all of this as very silly on behalf of the Victorians must always remember that the same historical judgement equally awaits the current restrictions upon same-sex couples, for instance. We have now obviously come a long way since those days. For even when “dressed in what would look to us like very conservative swimwear today”, in early 20th century US “the women were being arrested for defying a ban on wearing their ‘brief swimsuits’ in public”. In 1908 a professional swimmer and film actress Annette Kellerman “was arrested on a Boston beach for indecent exposure because her swimsuit showed arms, legs, and the neck, a costume she adopted from England, and which was similar to men’s swimsuits of the time.” One can only wonder whether those performing her arrest would have been capable of imagining the way our contemporary generations would dare to dress up on the beaches.

History is full not only of ridiculous laws, social norms or regulations, but also of ridiculous acts by people trying to enforce them. The world-famous historical photos include the attempt by the organisers of the Boston Marathon to forcibly take Kathrine Switzer's bib off her running clothes during the event, or the protests by white students in the USA against the abolition of racial segregation in schools. Photos and actions that do not age well. As far as the issue of female swimming outfits is concerned, one can also find characteristic representations from the 1920s. For instance, pictures showing the policemen in the US measuring women’s bathing suits to check for violations of the bathing suit-length laws. Again, quite likely many of these officers would continue to believe in the righteousness of what they were doing right up until their deaths. As it stands, generational change is a truly positive thing. For were they still alive today, they would probably feel very demoralised to see how pathetic their actions appear in our days.

Every generation tends to preserve their way of living - to which they are attached and which they perceive as the correct one. And while each generation is afraid of the changes to come, the conservative elements project their fears upon the future societies. But our successors will live happily within a world which will be welcoming to people from outside of the “traditional families” and “traditional values”. Just as we live happily today despite the fact that women wear bikinis and share the beaches with men. At the same time, in order to make a case, these defenders of traditions are in need of historical basis. They need to portray things as if they have always been like that.

But social values have never been constant. Therefore, those who try to defend the “traditional Christian family values” today have to pick and choose from a variety of historical features to arrive at their imagined ideal. And, of course, quite a few of the social norms of the past are absent from their vision of the “traditional social norms”. For even to them these appear as too foreign and incomprehensible. Just as their own current notions will appear very foreign and incomprehensible to the future generations.

Sources:
https://hungarytoday.hu/protecting-traditional-values-is-essential-in-these-times-of-crisis-mep-says/
https://www.theoldie.co.uk/blog/olden-life-what-was-segregated-sea-swimming-by-william-freeman
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/women-arrested-bathing-suits-1920s/

Image by Freepik.com