Unreal Tradition

How selective historical memory is used to shape identity or legitimize power

Introduction

In an age where many long for “traditional values” and “the natural order,” the question arises: what do we actually mean by traditional?
People often refer to a past in which men were breadwinners and women cared for home and family — a clear, orderly world of defined roles and duties. Yet a closer look reveals that this image is merely a snapshot, carefully extracted from a far more complex history.

The ideal of a “traditional society” turns out, paradoxically, to be largely a modern invention — a nostalgic projection that reveals more about our present insecurities than about historical reality.

Living Together Before Tradition

In prehistoric societies, cooperation between men and women was a matter of survival, not ideology.
Among hunter-gatherers — the oldest form of human community — men indeed hunted large game more often, but women gathered the majority of food and preserved knowledge of medicinal plants, childbirth, and social rituals. The division of labor was not hierarchical but complementary.

There was no “woman at the hearth,” because there was no hearth without her. The community thrived through cooperation — not domination.

The Elite and the Invention of Roles

With the rise of agriculture, property, and hierarchy came inequality. In the early states, from Egypt to Rome, women lost formal power but remained economically essential.
Only within the elite — where wealth allowed for dependency — could a woman afford to “withdraw” from labor.

That division was later elevated to a moral ideal. The working woman of the common people was rendered invisible, while the idle wife of the upper class was presented as the pinnacle of civilization. Thus, a social distinction was repackaged as a natural order.

The Industrial Illusion

During the Industrial Revolution, this ideal was reborn. While women and children labored under brutal conditions in factories, moral leaders preached about the “sacred housewife” and the “protector of the family.”

In reality, most families survived only through everyone’s labor. But the symbolism of the stay-at-home woman served to maintain social calm — a psychological valve against unrest.
Morality became a political tool, and “tradition” a means of control.

The Short Century of the Traditional Family

After World War II, the ideal finally seemed to come true — at least for a portion of society.
In the prosperous 1950s, many men could support a family on one income, while women stayed home.

But this “traditional family” was not universal: it was a class phenomenon within the white Western middle class. In other parts of the world, and even in the working-class neighborhoods of the same countries, everyone still contributed.

The golden age of the traditional family lasted barely a generation — yet it is often invoked as proof of how things have “always been.”

The Myth of the Past

The call to return to tradition is, at its core, a longing for stability. In times of economic uncertainty, cultural confusion, and rapid technological change, people seek comfort in what feels familiar.
But that “familiar” is often a constructed past — carefully filtered through collective memory, ideology, and political opportunism.

“Tradition” becomes a stage play in which complexity is replaced by simplicity, and power hides behind nostalgia.

Shared Labor, Shared Humanity

History shows that cooperation, not separation, is the human norm.
Across nearly all times and cultures, men and women have worked side by side to survive. The myth that men worked while women cared applies only to a privileged minority — and only for a brief period.

Glorifying this idealized past is not only historically inaccurate; it also diminishes humanity’s true strength — our capacity to complement one another rather than dominate.

Conclusion

What we call “traditional” is often little more than a curated memory, used to affirm identity or legitimize power.
The true tradition of humankind is cooperation — the ongoing search for balance between care and labor, between strength and vulnerability.

Those who wish to return to our origins should not strive for hierarchy but for mutual dependence.
Not for the illusion of order, but for the reality of connection.