The Family Structure after First World War

The Family Structure after First World War

TheFamily Structure after First World War

TheFamily Structure after First World War

Theoutbreak of First World War set the stage of countless disruption oflives, property and precipitated new changes right from theinternational scene down to the family units. This marked a fullscale war which saw both men and women brought into the battle zonesacross United States, Europe, and most parts of Asia and Africa(Kuhlman, 2008). Due to the use of sophisticated weapons coupled withthe use of Air power, the border of the war zone extended furtherthereby affecting many countries.

Theimpacts of this war were felt more at the family level. Many familieswere affected as many men were recruited to join the workforce. Womencarried out all the family responsibilities and most of the childrenreceive half parentage which affected their well-being in the longrun. Later, the soldiers at the frontline of the war were joined bythe women due to the increased number workforce required to sustainthe war. Many of the workforces were parents, which significantlyaffected the family structure. The older children took over theresponsibility of household duties and the care of younger children.After the war, majority of the men who survived suffered extensiveinjuries, shell shock or the effects of Mustard Gas (Kuhlman, 2008).

Themen underwent tormenting experiences to the extent that they wereunable to narrate there predicaments, as such it took them longer torecover from the trauma of this war. Children suffered extensivelysuch that they could not come to terms their fathers going to waragain for the fear they would not return home (Kuhlman, 2008). On theother hand, many other children became more confused as they did notunderstand the impacts of trauma undergone by their fathers and whatis more is that they could not talk with them.

Becausethe breadwinners of the families became solely women and oldersiblings coupled with the prevailing economic challenges, mostfamilies became poor and the standard of living went down(Carden-Coyne, 2010). Due to occupation of new territories bydifferent workforce, several families came under the authority ofbrutal soldiers which further elevated their psychological torture.Most women grew to become excellence stewards of families in absenceof their husbands which ultimately led to their recognition by thegovernment.

Thesocial movements’ birth in the 1920s such as the Flapper Culture,Lost Generation among others impacted significantly structural familyset up. For instance, Flapper Culture made women to adopt new form ofdressing particularly younger women, women at this time beganlistening to jazz music, developed new hair style, wore short skirts,involved in smoking, drinking, engaged in more casual sex and drivingautomobiles (Carden-Coyne, 2010).

Thiswas recognized and accepted behavior that sets a new cultural changein most families. Other social movement like Lost Generation gainedextensive popularity in its attempt to address the prevailingdisruption of life in general. Millions of people were killed duringthe war and as a result a generation coming to terms with the realityof the war was lost in the process. These movements to a varyingdegree affected the family dynamics (Carden-Coyne, 2010).

Itis apparent that the life of soldiers who participated in the GreatWar experienced a difficult life, and their families were affectedimmensely. The tragic side was that the families was not prepared forthe torment nor understood the full impacts of the war on their lovedones (Carden-Coyne, 2010). The war ended ultimately but lives ofmillions of people changed forever.


Carden-Coyne,A. (2010). Susan Kingsley Kent. Aftershocks: Politics and Trauma inBritain, 1918–1931. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Pp. 232.$74.95 (cloth). The Journal of British Studies, 49, 1, 216-217.

Kuhlman,E. A. (2008). Reconstructing patriarchy after the Great War: Women,gender, and postwar reconciliation between nations. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.