Family Values and “Complementarity”

The “family values” defended by religious and social conservatives since the 1960's have been part of American thought since the 1830's when the industrial revolution began to change the roles of men and women in family and society.  The earliest form of “family values” comes from social commentary by doctors and ministers as they addressed anxiety about sexuality and changing family relationships.  A new vocabulary about the different roles of men and women gradually coalesced between the Revolution and the Civil War.  Similar ideals have reappeared at regular intervals during times of cultural stress, notably during the 1890's, after World War II and from the 1960's to the present.“Complementarity,” a phrase favored by some contemporary evangelicals, was coined prior to the Civil War as a way to describe differences between men and women.  Although “complementarity” most often referred to the relationship between men and women, it was also the basis of a social philosophy about the role of family in society.  After the Civil War, many writers believed that “the Christian family” was the most nearly Christianized institution in the social order; as such, it provided the pattern for personal and social relationships that would eventually characterize a fully realized democracy in “a Christian America.”Victorian clergy frequently referred to “the elevated status of a woman,” a term derided by feminist writers of the 1960's as “the angel in the house” or “lady on a pedestal.”  That language should not be dismissed without recognizing that at the end of the nineteenth century a sexual ethic, a marriage ideal, and a family ideal were implied by the term.  The Victorian woman was regarded as a lady on a pedestal because of her moral purity.  Assuming that women lacked the natural sexual passion of men, these writers held that the role of men in the marital sexual relationship was that of “deference of the stronger to the weaker.”Much has been written about the “spheres” assigned to men and women in Victorian America.  It was believed that the “natural” sphere of men was that of the public world of business and work.  Since men were created to support women and children, the complementary role of a woman was that of a “helpmeet” in the domestic sphere of “the home.”  Just as male and female work was assigned to two spheres regarded as “complementary,” the sexual and marital relationship was believed complementary in a way that was “separate but equal.”  Marriage was regarded as a divinely ordained relationship in which two people quite literally became one morally complete personality.Victorian writers held that men and women needed each other for completion, because the sexes possessed dissimilar but complementary characteristics.  The complementarity of a married couple had three dimensions: mental, moral and physical.  A man needed the more intuitive woman to inspire him and evoke his potential.  A woman needed the strength of a man she could admire to complement and evoke her maternal qualities. Because the sexes were regarded as a mental foil for each other, acting as mutual stimulus and restraint, the average couple could reach a true view of any question by mutual consideration and correction.  This belief was used for many years to explain why women did not need “the vote.”Complementarity also meant that “man” needed the moral correction of “woman’s way” as the more aesthetic, intuitive woman needed the mental correction of a man’s force and logic. Victorian clergy referred to marriage between a man and a woman as “the two become one.”  These assumptions can frequently be found in nineteenth century marriage ceremonies.Victorian writers commonly cited the “perfect equality of the sexes” as evidence of the elevated status of woman.  This meant perfect equality in separate spheres: men in the public sphere of their vocational world, and women in the private sphere of the domestic world.  As the work world of men grew more complicated and competitive, the “home” was increasingly regarded as “a refuge from the storm,” a place where a man could find peace and harmony.The social philosophy of “complementarity” was shared by most nineteenth century Protestant evangelicals; conservative revivalists like Billy Sunday and social gospel progressives like Josiah Strong and Walter Rauschenbusch all spoke the same language and shared the same ideals when they talked about character, morals and “the Christian family.”  Their model for all social relations came from the marriage ideal of mutual self-sacrifice with emphasis on the “manhood” ethic of deference of the stronger to the weaker.Possibly the most famous mid-twentieth century revival of “complementarity” comes from “Keepers of the Spring,” a sermon preached by Peter Marshall at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., shortly after the end of World War II.  Marshall sacralized the old notion of separate spheres by declaring the different roles of men and women “God-given.”  The sermon was intended to instruct women about their role in the world lest they forget their proper sphere of influence.  According to Marshall, men cannot carry out their work in the world unless they have a good woman waiting for them at home.  A woman should try to “understand her husband’s work . . . to curb his egotism while, at the same time . . . encouraging all his hopes to establish around the family a circle of true friends .... If she can do all of this . . . she will know that she is carrying out the plan of God.  She will be a partner of the Sovereign Ruler of the universe.” (Catherine Marshall, A Man Called Peter, N.Y., McGraw-Hill, 1951, pp. 56-57)Those who talk about “complementarity” in marriage today may not be aware of its long heritage in American culture.  Yet, application of the ideal of complementary roles for men and woman has not changed.  It remains a way to establish the superiority of men over women and now, to marginalize all who do not represent the complementarity of one man and one woman in marriage.Janet F. Fishburn, Professor EmeritaThe Theological School, Drew UniversityAn extended discussion of Victorian family ideals can be found in chapters two and three of my book The Fatherhood of God and The Victorian Family (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981),  available at 'Religion Online'.