Book Review: Hayek's Modern Family by Steve Horwitz

Parental rights, LGBTQ families, and the purpose of families in free societies.

I recently finished reading Steve Horwitz’s Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions (2015). The book lays out a nuanced, classical liberal theory of the family through a Hayekian lens – one that emphasizes local knowledge and natural social evolution. Through this lens, he argues for a heterodox approach to family policy – one that simultaneously defends a robust notion of “parental rights” as well as a socially-progressive view of the “form” of the family. Furthermore, he rejects both the left and the right’s insistence that the family is a “fortress” against the market, instead he argues that the modern family was born out of, and improved by, the market. So, from this lens, how can we think about other issues in family policy – ones that were not on the radar of Horwitz in 2015? How can we think about contentious issues like school choice, gender-affirming care for minors, and fertility? Where does Horwitz’s perspective fall short?

Forms and Functions

Horwitz describes the family as a product of social evolutionary processes that respond and influence the market, institutions, and culture writ large. He adamantly rejects the notion that there was ever a singular “traditional family” form; and that, in fact, what Americans call the “traditional family” (the nuclear family of the 1950s) is fiction. He points out that female labor participation had already been steadily rising before the 1950s, a rejection of “traditional” gender norms. Furthermore, the American family had already experienced several iterations before the 1950s occurred, especially as industrial capitalism created broad wealth and prosperity, freeing children from labor, families from the land, and society from high child mortality rates. 

Horwitz presents a distinction, then, between form and function. He argues that the form of family has been highly malleable; however, up until quite recently, the function of families remained relatively the same – to produce and raise children and provide economic security. 

The function of families would not shift until the 20th century when Maslowian “needs” had begun to be widely met and the family became a source of self-actualization and individual meaning-making. In many ways, this demonstrates that the conservative, “pro-family” sentiment is deeply tied to this modernized and romanticized view of the family (and just to be clear, that that is not inherently a bad thing). 

What I found useful about this form/function distinction was that it created a more cohesive view of family politics and policy. Often I feel the concept of the “family” gets used as a political cudgel when convenient, and that deeply held principles about what it even means to be “pro-family” are absent. Instead, this distinction allows policymakers and political actors to understand that being pro-family is not about supporting a singular view of what a family should look like. Instead, it’s about supporting a vital center for the development of young people, for civil society development, and for self-actualization. It then becomes clear why the family matters, even for the most individualist people. 

Parental Rights

Political fights over parental rights over children have seen a resurgence in American political discourse since the publishing of this book in 2015. This has become even more apparent post-COVID as school board battles over CRT and mask mandates define much of the current debate. Horwitz presents a nuanced view of parental rights; however, he leans pretty heavily on parental rights as a necessary component of Hayek’s “Great Society” – a prosperous society of free individuals. For Horwitz, the best frame for understanding is as a “guardianship” or “stewardship” role without total rights over children as property, but instead as being responsible for the upbringing of responsible citizens.

While Horwitz would not have had the opportunity to address current debates over transgender children’s medical care, he presents a compelling argument that these types of issues should be left to families to decide for themselves. As Republican lawmakers push for legislation that bans gender-affirming care for minors across the US, including many who would consider themselves to be “classical liberals”, Horwitz presents a powerful vision for the importance of local knowledge in these deeply intimate decisions. Unless parents could be proven to be intentionally neglectful or abusive in pursuing medical procedures for children, the state should be uninvolved in these decisions. This isn’t to say mistakes may not occur or some children may grow up and regret it, but that state involvement is likely to fall short due to Hayekian knowledge problems. 

Similarly, Horowitz’s view of parental rights provides important clarity on the current debates on mask mandates in schools and school closures. In many ways, public schools have become an element of the “guardianship” of children. Their role is certainly secondary to the parents and legal guardians; however, the public schooling system in the US has become a totalizing force for children. It is where most US children spend most of their time; they provide childcare, regular meals, and extracurricular activities. In a sense, public schools neglect their guardianship responsibilities when they choose to extend closures and make schooling nearly impossible. This further expands parental rights over children as one element in the full “village” of childhood guardianship becomes moot. It becomes a deep incentive for parents to take more control over their children’s lives and education.

A strange omission: fertility

One topic that Horwitz does not cover is fertility rates. While concern over the developed countries' declining fertility rates was not salient in 2015 politics, in hindsight, pro and anti-natalist politics pose problems for Horwitz’s liberal theory of children and the family. For example, Horwitz argues that one of the key tasks of parents in a liberal society is to raise children for a free society – children who will grow up into respectful members of society. However, as birth rates continue to decline in the US, this poses concerns for the future of living in a liberal society. I lay this argument on two grounds: first, birth rates pose a threat to economic dynamism that allows liberalism to function; and secondly, an important function of the family in a liberal society is to train adults on how to teach others about freedom. 

I’ll start with my first, and easier, proposition. Logically, as the age distribution shifts away from working-age adults to retired adults (even if people retire at older ages) this creates problems for the market economy. GDP slows, innovation declines, and there’s less of an economic “pie” to go around, entrenching zero-sum politics. Furthermore, young people generate new ideas, pushing economies forward and preventing stagnation. This is an easy argument and one example where liberal societies plausibly have a stake in attempting to encourage higher birth rates. The way liberal societies attempt this is likely to look quite different than authoritarian states; however, that should not preclude us from attempting to find these solutions. For example, classically liberal solutions do exist, such as reforms to existing welfare policies that discourage marriage and shifting to a minimum income or negative income tax policy. Furthermore, regulations that hinder population growth, such as restrictive immigration policies and restrictive zoning laws, could potentially make bigger families more feasible. 

I want to; however, make a less empirical claim. I think there is something to be said for having robust institutions that make individuals active participants in recreating liberal societies. I have not seen anyone argue this explicitly so far, but it seems reasonable to me to suggest that teaching a younger generation the tenets of liberalism, democracy, freedom, and tolerance reifies those ideas in one's mind. It also creates a sense that one has a larger stake in the future, at least for their own children’s benefit. I won’t make this argument too strongly because it’s not fully thought out; but, I think this poses an interesting question for classical liberal policymakers. Horwitz argues that the modern market economy may lead to fewer marriages (and, by extension, fewer children), however, he posits that these marriages and family forms might be better than previously. This proposition; however, does not address whether or not the inherent process of family formation is a formative experience for individuals in a free society, and one that should be supported by the liberal state and institutions. 

Conclusion

I highly recommend anyone reading this post to check out this book from their local library or order a copy for themselves. I found it to be a highly illuminating read on a topic that is woefully underexplored by policymakers. This book covers a lot of material I could not fully address in this blog post, so please give it a read!