Fatherhood: a short history

Summary

History Extra Podcast: "Fatherhood: A Short History" – Detailed Summary

Episode Title: Fatherhood: a short history
Release Date: June 14, 2025
Host: Dave Musgrove
Guest: Augustine Sedgwick, Author of A History of Love and Power
Produced by: Immediate Media

---

Introduction to the Concept of Fatherhood

The episode begins with Dave Musgrove introducing Augustine Sedgwick's exploration of fatherhood throughout history. Sedgwick's book, A History of Love and Power, delves into how the role and perception of fathers have evolved from ancient civilizations to modern times, highlighting pivotal moments and influential figures that shaped the institution of fatherhood.

---

Origins of Biological Fatherhood and Early Representations

Timestamp: [02:37]

Sedgwick discusses the earliest representations of fertility and reproductive power in human history. He references the Venus figurines, prehistoric artifacts dating back 50,000 years across Eurasia, which predominantly symbolize female fertility. These figures suggest that early human societies may have emphasized female reproductive roles over male counterparts.

“The very earliest artifacts of the human cultural record... seem to represent female reproductive power.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [02:48]

Contrastingly, phallic symbols, which represent male reproductive power, emerge much later, around 10,000 years ago. By the time of the historical record (5,000–6,000 years ago), fatherhood is prominently featured in law codes and religious texts, indicating a significant shift in the societal emphasis on male authority and paternal roles.

---

The Code of Hammurabi: Institutionalizing Fatherhood

Timestamp: [04:49]

Sedgwick highlights the Code of Hammurabi, an ancient Babylonian law code inscribed on a phallic pillar of basalt. This monumental structure, consisting of 282 laws, underscores the intertwining of fatherhood with authority and societal order.

“The Code of Hammurabi... was created specifically to travel to the new territories and represent Hammurabi's power and authority.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [05:07]

The laws within the Code enforce a balance between protection and control, granting fathers privileges and responsibilities toward their families while imposing severe punishments for non-compliance. This duality embodies the foundational aspects of patriarchal authority—power combined with care.

---

Ancient Greece: Plato vs. Aristotle on Fatherhood

Timestamp: [07:43]

Transitioning to Ancient Greece, Sedgwick explores the contrasting views of Plato and his student Aristotle regarding fatherhood amidst Athens' perceived decline.

Plato’s Republic: Plato proposes a utopian society where traditional family structures are dissolved. Children are communal, eliminating corruption and inequality by removing personal ties.

“No parent would know his children from any others. And therefore there would be no corruption...”
— Auguste Sedgwick [09:07]

Aristotle’s Politics: In direct opposition, Aristotle emphasizes strengthening paternal bonds to restore societal order. He advocates for fathers to produce children resembling themselves, thereby maintaining the continuity of power and authority.

“The best case scenario was a father who had sons who were like him in every way.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [10:04]

Over time, Aristotle’s emphasis on paternal authority prevailed, laying the groundwork for enduring patriarchal structures.

---

Aristotle’s Fascination with Reproduction

Timestamp: [10:28]

Sedgwick delves into Aristotle's intricate theories on reproduction, where he views semen as the vehicle for passing paternal traits to offspring. Aristotle's empirical approach sought to understand the mechanics of reproduction, believing that optimizing semen quality would ensure the creation of superior children.

“Aristotle was trying to understand the origins of the good... What makes the good good?”
— Augustine Sedgwick [10:28]

Aristotle's initiatives in the Politics include state policies to enhance male reproductive power, reflecting his belief in the male as the primary source of societal good.

---

Ancient Rome: Phallic Symbols and Paternal Power

Timestamp: [12:47]

In Ancient Rome, fatherhood is epitomized through the pervasive use of phallic symbols as protective talismans. Romans adorned their homes and cities with phallic images to ward off the evil eye and ensure the safety of their families.

“Romans tried to ward that danger off with phallic symbols, with the power of the Father to protect and provide.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [13:13]

The patriarch, or paterfamilias, held supreme authority within the household, and the number of individuals referring to him as "father" directly correlated with his social and political standing.

---

Christianity's Transformation of Fatherhood

Timestamp: [14:20]

The advent of Christianity marked a significant shift in the conceptualization of fatherhood. Sedgwick explains how Christian symbolism supplanted traditional phallic representations, positioning God as the ultimate Father and the Church as the new locus of paternal authority.

“The Church supplanted the state as the locus of fatherhood. God supplanted man as the ultimate Father.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [14:34]

St. Augustine, a pivotal figure, propagated the idea of original sin as a patrilineal inheritance, arguing that true salvation required rebirth as children of God rather than remaining under the dominion of earthly fathers. This theological shift redefined fatherhood from a source of both good and control to a more spiritual and benevolent role.

---

Tudor England: Henry VIII and the Crisis of Fatherhood

Timestamp: [18:20]

Moving forward to Tudor England, Sedgwick examines Henry VIII as a case study of paternal crisis. Henry VIII's desperate quest to produce a male heir led him to challenge the authority of the Church, culminating in his establishment of the Church of England.

“Henry VIII gained for themselves the ability to pass on their assets and status by force of will, by last will and testament...”
— Augustine Sedgwick [20:28]

This maneuver not only secured his personal legacy through his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, but also set a precedent for fathers to determine inheritance and succession independently of ecclesiastical law, fostering an era of paternal absolutism.

---

The American Revolution and Shifting Fatherhood Ideals

Timestamp: [21:18]

In the context of the American Revolution, Sedgwick discusses how revolutionary ideals reshaped fatherhood. Influenced by John Locke, American colonists viewed the father's role as preparatory—guiding children towards independence rather than exerting absolute authority.

“...the job of a father is to prepare his children for their own maturity, not to dominate them forevermore.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [21:50]

However, this philosophical shift coexisted with persistent paternal authority over marginalized groups, revealing the complex interplay between evolving ideals and entrenched power structures.

---

Industrial Revolution: The Breadwinner Paradigm

Timestamp: [23:20]

The Industrial Revolution fundamentally altered the economic dynamics of fatherhood. Sedgwick explains the emergence of the breadwinner model, where fathers became solely responsible for providing financial support, a role that redefined familial structures as the economy shifted from agrarian to industrial.

“The family is no longer primarily an economic unit because work now takes place outside the home.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [24:03]

This shift introduced new pressures on fathers, who were now expected to navigate the demands of wage labor while maintaining their roles as protectors and providers.

---

Charles Darwin: Evolution and Parental Influence

Timestamp: [26:48]

Charles Darwin’s theories introduced a biological dimension to fatherhood. Sedgwick highlights how Darwin’s work on evolution and natural selection influenced perceptions of parental responsibility in shaping the fitness of offspring.

“Darwin was exceptionally worried that especially because he married his close cousin, he would pass on to his 10 children some of the ailments...”
— Augustine Sedgwick [27:02]

Darwin’s personal concerns about his children’s health underscored his scientific inquiries into heredity and the role of fathers in ensuring the survival and prosperity of future generations.

---

Sigmund Freud: Conflict and Development

Timestamp: [29:03]

Turning to Sigmund Freud, Sedgwick examines Freud’s psychoanalytic theories, which posit that healthy personal development involves conflict with paternal authority. Freud suggested that the resolution of these conflicts, including the Oedipus complex, is essential for maturation.

“For Freud, human beings developed and grew and matured and became who they were as whole persons in relationship to their parents.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [29:23]

Freud’s ideas framed fatherhood as both a source of authority to be respected and a figure with whom individuals must reconcile personal identity, often involving subconscious rivalry and reconciliation.

---

Post-WWII to Modern Era: The Evolving Father

Timestamp: [31:25]

In the Post-World War II era, the concept of fatherhood took on a more nurturing dimension, influenced by the societal push towards suburban ideals and the nuclear family model. Sedgwick discusses how figures like Bob Dylan symbolize the tension between traditional paternal roles and the desire for more emotionally accessible father figures.

“In the Cold War context, men were encouraged to be dads that their children would like and be friends with.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [34:37]

This shift aimed to reconcile the need for fathers to be both providers and emotionally engaged, though Sedgwick notes the inherent challenges and unmet expectations that persist.

---

Fatherhood and Motherhood: A Comparative Analysis

Timestamp: [36:17]

Sedgwick argues that while motherhood and concepts of womanhood have been extensively studied and understood as socially constructed, fatherhood has lacked a similar comprehensive historical analysis until his work. He emphasizes the need to recognize and deconstruct the man-made ideals surrounding fatherhood to alleviate associated anxieties and promote healthier familial relationships.

“Men have never really developed a historical perspective on manhood and fatherhood in a way that could help men be more generous with themselves.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [36:33]

---

Conclusion: The Future of Fatherhood

The episode concludes with Sedgwick advocating for a more nuanced understanding of fatherhood, informed by its historical transformations. By acknowledging the evolving nature of paternal roles, society can better support men in fulfilling their multifaceted responsibilities without the burden of unrealistic expectations.

“They are mortal creatures. And for mortal creatures, protection and provision are not eternally sustainable.”
— Augustine Sedgwick [34:37]

Sedgwick’s insights invite listeners to reflect on the origins and changes in fatherhood, encouraging a more empathetic and informed approach to paternal roles in contemporary society.

---

Final Note:
Augustine Sedgwick's A History of Love and Power provides a comprehensive examination of fatherhood's evolution, intertwining historical events, cultural shifts, and influential thinkers to unravel the complexities of paternal roles. This episode offers listeners a deep dive into understanding how fatherhood has been shaped by and has, in turn, shaped societal structures across millennia.

---

Unlock Full Access:
For further exploration of historical topics, visit HistoryExtra.com and unlock full access for 6 months for just 99p.

Transcript

[Nordstrom Advertiser]

Summer's here and Nordstrom has everything you need for your best dress season ever. From beach days and weddings to weekend getaways and your everyday wardrobe. Discover stylish options under $100 from tons of your favorite brands like Mango Skims, Princess Polly and Madewell. It's easy too, with free shipping and free returns in store. Order, pickup and more. Shop today in stores [e-mail] or download the Nordstrom app.

[Celsius Advertiser]

5:00Am I'm up with a crisp Celsius energy drink running 12 miles today. Grab a green juice, quick change and head to work. Meetings, workshops One more Celsius. No slowing down. Working late, but obviously still meeting the girls for a little dancing Celsius Live Fit. Go grab a cold, refreshing Celsius at your local retailer or locate [e-mail].

[Nordstrom Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by Amazon Prime. From streaming to shopping, prime helps you get more out of your passions. So whether you're a fan of true crime or prefer a nail biting novel from time to time, with services like Prime Video, Amazon Music and fast free delivery, prime makes it easy to get more out of whatever you're into or getting into. Visit Amazon.comprime to learn more.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.

[Dave Musgrove]

Welcome to the History Extra Podcast. Fascinating historical conversations from the makers of BBC History magazine. What does it mean to be a father? When did people first start talking about men as father figures? And how has the concept of fatherhood changed over the millennia? Augustine Sedgwick has the answers to this in his new book, A History of Love and Power. He spoke to Dave Musgrove to chart the story from the ancient near east right up to the present day, dropping in on Plato, Henry viii, Charles Darwin and Bob Dylan along the way.

[Augustine Sedgwick]

When does the concept of biological fatherhood actually become established as far as you can tell, I. E. The idea that a single act of sex would lead to a pregnancy.

Great question. It's a great question because no one truly knows the answer. The very earliest artifacts of the human cultural record, the very earliest artifacts of human meaning making seem to represent Female fertility. These are a group of figures with large breasts and bellies that are collectively called the Venus figurines. They were found across Eurasia and date to as many as 50,000 years ago. And perhaps even more. They seem to represent and have often been interpreted as representing female reproductive power. Sometimes they've even been interpreted as evidence for prehistoric matriarchies, although those claims have been challenged and are probably ultimately improvable. So that's on the order of 50,000 years ago at the beginning of the human cultural record. Comparatively, there's nothing on that timescale that would seem to represent male reproductive power. The oldest phallic images are something on the order of 10,000 years old. And yet by the beginning of the historical record, between 5 and 6,000 years ago, fatherhood is already everywhere, in everything. It's the focus of the earliest law codes and religious texts. And the question really becomes, well, how do we get from one to the other? How do we get from the Venus figurines to phallic symbols and fatherhood as the center of these earliest known texts? And the answer is that no one really knows who where fatherhood came from within that time frame. There are theories, and I think arguably the most compelling one is that the emergence of fatherhood was linked to animal breeding and specifically cattle breeding, which is an intensely kind of violent enterprise. It has to be managed if it's going to be successful and probably also started around 10,000 years ago. And it could be that managing cattle breeding could have shown men male reproductive power. It could have shown men the mechanics of reproduction, the that one act of sex can lead to one pregnancy in a way that they might not have known before. So that's a theory, but it's just.

A theory moving on a little bit in time from there. There's an argument, I believe, and you talk about in the book, that the origins of fatherhood as we understand it can be seen in the code of Hammurabi. So that's an ancient Sumerian inscription which is interestingly carved on, as you describe, a phallic block of basalt. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

I believe I said it was an immensely phallic pillar. Yeah, it really is. A seven foot tall pillar of black basalt is inscribed with 4,000 impossibly minute lines of old Akkadian cuneiform carving. And these carvings make up a set of 282 dictates or laws which are series of crimes and punishments, the most famous of which is an eye for an eye. That principle which is sometimes Thought to be biblical is actually Hammurabic. The Code of Hammurabi was created by a Babylonian king who had successfully expanded his realm through conquest to vast new territories. And scholars think that this pillar, this carved pillar, was created specifically to travel to the new territories and represent Hammurabi's power and authority. And what's interesting about the crimes and punishments that are carved into this pillar is that they promise well being at the same time as they threaten extraordinary painful punishments. So within the laws that Hammurabi lays out, there was a measure of protection for women and children. Fathers were granted all these privileges and responsibilities. But those privileges and responsibilities that fathers carried did include a kind of measure of protection for women and children as long as they followed the letter of the law, as long as they obeyed the father's word. And if they didn't, well, the worst sorts of punishments were threatened to follow up to and including public impaling. Although it's not clear if any such punishments were ever fully carried out or whether they were meant as a threat. And it's precisely this combination of promises of protection and provision, combined with threats for non compliance that seem to represent something essential about the history of fatherhood. The idea that I know best, so you should do as I say or face the consequences. This is the reason this combination of power and love, of authority and care. It's the institutionalization of this combination of things in the Code of Hammurabi that scholars point to as the kind of earliest institutionalization of patrons patriarchy with its trademark paternalism.

Okay, so if that's the sort of the first place we can see that charge on in time a bit more and talk about ancient Greece, tell me how far fatherhood was embedded as a concept in ancient Greece.

Well, my book looks at moments of crisis in history and how moments when the ground shifted under existing power structures, fathers kind of went into crisis mode and tried to develop new fatherhood that would restore order and sustain the power of the fathers or patriarchy across time. One of those moments, I think arguably the earliest such moment I could find where there was a real debate about what it meant to be a father and how fatherhood could fix what was wrong with society, took place in ancient Athens, in the Athens of Plato and Aristotle. It was a moment when Athens seemed to be imperiled. Both Plato and his student Aristotle agreed that that part of the reasons for Athens decline had to do with fatherhood. But they radically disagreed on how to fix fatherhood. I argue that the differences between Plato's Republic and Aristotle's politics Constitute what we could think of as the first recorded debate about what it meant to be a father in the Republic. Plato puts forward this thought experiment which includes the abolition of the patriarchal family. For Plato, the in the ideal society, in the best case society, no parent would know his children from any others. And therefore there would be no corruption, no reason to treat anyone unequally. Everyone would have the same standing with regard to each other. Aristotle, Plato's student, profoundly disagreed. Aristotle thought that the problem with Athens was that fathers weren't strong enough. So Aristotle proposed in the politics a series of policies that would strengthen fathers relationships to their children and would help fathers produce children who are more like them. In Aristotle's thinking, the best case scenario was a father who had sons who were like him in every way.

So Aristotle's views kind of won out over Plato's in the short term, at least, I would imagine.

I would say in the long term too. And certainly you can recognize that Aristotle's view of enhancing the power of the fathers and using state power to support the power of men in their households and in society more generally, that's more accommodating to the interests of the established elite.

If I read it right, Aristotle was quite interested in semen, the substance of semen, Is that correct?

Aristotle was profoundly interested in reproduction. He was trying to understand the origins of the good. And that led him to think for long stretches of time about the relationship between parents and children. What makes something what it is? What makes the good good? Where does good come from? And how can we make more of it? Is the economic version of that question. To understand those things, Aristotle tried to begin empirically. He tried to understand reproduction by looking first of all at nature, all around him, especially animals. He also tried to understand human reproduction. And there was a challenge at that time. There was kind of taboos prohibiting the dissection of human bodies. But Aristotle did think he could unlock some of the secrets of human reproduction and biology by thinking about reproductive cells which he happened to have at hand. For him, men were the source of the good in the world. For Aristotle, the highest life form was the human male. And he wanted to understand how that had come to be and how men could make more creatures like how the best men could make more creatures like themselves. And his theory about how to do that was to help men concoct the strongest semen. His theory about the mechanics of reproduction, where that semen met female reproductive fluid, menses. And in the ideal case, the semen was more powerful than the menses. And so encoded the child with the father's features. This is exactly what Aristotle wanted to happen. So in the politics proposes a series of policies whereby the state actually helps men concoct the best possible semen, such as by encouraging reproduction in the correct seasons, when the temperature and air quality is right, and all these things like this.

It's fascinating to see these ideas develop, but we need to move on because I want to cover a lot of ground. So let's move on to ancient Rome. You explain in ancient Rome that there was a particular fascination with penises. You describe a preponderance of phallic symbols that were essentially used to ward off the evil eye and keep infants safe from harm. And you posit that this may have been linked to the fact that in Rome you were either a father or subject to the power of a father. So can you unpack that a little bit for us?

Yeah. In Rome, a father was the most powerful thing a person could be. Your social and political standing was based in part on how many people in your extended family called you father. The patriarch of a family was generally the oldest surviving male member, and everyone in following generations would call him father. And the more the better. For Romans, this was the highest form of social and cultural power. This, I think, was expressed in this kind of fetish that they had for phalluses. They made phalluses into necklaces and strung them around their necks. They made phalluses, especially around the necks of their boy children, as kind of pendants to ward off evil and harm. They made phalluses into lamps and used them to light their homes. They put phallic sculptures up at particularly dangerous corners of cities. Everywhere there was danger, Romans tried to ward that danger off with phallic symbols, with the power of the Father to protect and provide.

Let's move on again in time, quickly, because your next chapter talks about Christianity. How did the coming of Christ Christianity to Rome changed the way fatherhood was seen? And I think you use sort of St. Augustine as our exemplar.

Right. My thinking there is that there is a way in which the cross supplanted the phallus as the fetish that we use to mark those things we want to keep safe. In other words, the Church supplanted the state as the locus of fatherhood. God supplanted man as the ultimate Father. St. Augustine lived, of course. He was born in Africa, Roman North Africa. He was a professor in Milan, and he sought political power in the capitals of the Roman Empire. Before converting to Christianity and entering the Church somewhat reluctantly. Augustine's Christian church was much different from the Christian church of today. It was a small and relatively precarious institution that was threatened to split internally and threatened externally, especially in North Africa, where Augustine was a bishop of hippo. One way Augustine tried to expand and fortify the power of his Christian church was by arguing that everyone, even babies, needed to be baptized, needed to be reborn again as the children of God. His justification for baptism, for universal baptism, especially for infant baptism, was the idea of original sin. For Augustine, original sin was a patrilineal inheritance passed down from Adam to subsequent generations of men who pass it down to their children through the very act of sexual in other words, for Augustine, fatherhood was a source of evil, whereas for Aristotle and for Romans too, fatherhood had been a source of good. Augustine said that no fatherhood is the origin of evil in the world, and to save ourselves we need to be reborn as sons of God. As children of God, we need to accept God as the ultimate father rather than our earthly fathers.

[Celsius Advertiser]

You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart Choice Progressive loves to help people make smart choices. That's why they offer a tool called Auto Quote Explorer that allows you to compare your Progressive car insurance quote with rates from other companies so you save time on the research and can enjoy savings when you choose the best rate for you. Give it a try after this [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy.

[Shopify Advertiser]

If you've shopped online, chances are you've bought from a business powered by Shopify. You know that purple shop pay button you see at checkout? The one that makes buying so incredibly easy? That's Shopify. And there's a reason so many businesses sell with it. Because Shopify makes it incredibly easy to start and run your business. Shopify is the commerce platform behind 10% of all e commerce the US Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com promo Go to shopify.com promo.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by polestar. There's only one true way to experience the all electric luxury SUV Polestar 3. And that's to take a test drive. It can go from 0 to 60 in as little as 4.8 seconds with the dynamic handling of a sports car. But to truly understand how it commands the road, you need to be behind the wheel up to 350 miles of range. The 3D surround sound system by Bowers and Wilkins. It's all Something you have to experience to believe. So book your Test drive for Polestar 3 [e-mail].

[Augustine Sedgwick]

Okay, so we've got radically shifting views of what fatherhood means there. And just in terms of context, Augustine was sort of late 4th, early 5th century A.D. that's about right, isn't it?

Yes, that's right.

Let's charge on again. Cover a thousand years of time. We'll go to Tudor England. Henry viii. Now, he's probably not everyone's idea of a great father figure. What crisis in fatherhood can we glean from looking at him?

Well, for Henry viii, it was a very personal crisis that was also, as we know, a large scale historical crisis. Henry VIII does follow on from the story of St. Augustine, because in trying to solve his own problem, his own failure to father a male heir who could take over his throne, Henry VIII tried to claw back some of the power from the Church. Because it was the Church, largely combined with the institution of the nobility, that had determined the laws of succession that said that only legitimate children could inherit title, especially in the case of kings. Henry VIII thought, well, if I could only change the rules of succession and claw back a little bit of power from the Church, I could essentially make anyone my heir, including his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, who is often overlooked in stories of Henry VIII's bloody campaign to father and heir. We don't know that. Even when he was pursuing divorce for the first time, Henry VIII was pursuing divorce in the hope of having a son. He already had one. He had a boy who he named Henry fitzroy, meaning Henry, son of the King. The boy was no secret. And at the time, even before he got together with Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII was exploring possible avenues for elevating fitzro status of a legitimate heir to the throne. And in the process of doing so, Henry VIII really did change the law and establish, for the first time since the Norman Conquest, he established for fathers the ability to pass on their assets and status by force of will, by last will and testament, rather than according to strict Church laws.

Okay, so he's bolstering the power of fathers in a way. And you talk about an age of, of paternal absolutism in the aftermath of Henry viii. Do you want to unpack that a bit for us?

By gaining for himself the ability to divorce, by gaining for himself the ability to elevate a child to the throne, Henry VIII gained for other fathers the ability to determine who would inherit what they had, both assets and status. This was a new source of power for fathers, in effect, Their word was enough to determine their legacy. And whereas in the past they had had to hew closely to church laws of legitimacy and conventions of nobility, now fathers gained this kind of new power to say what would happen after they died. In other words, their word became a kind of reality.

Going forward, let's move on again. Let's get into the 18th century. And I was really interested in this. I was struck by this. There seems to be a conversation about whether the goal of fatherhood was to dominate one's children or to provide them with whatever they needed to thrive. So two quite different views of the role of a father. How does that play out?

Right. Well, you can see how in breaking from the King of England, King George, the American colonists reject this idea that the father's word, or the king's word, was a form of absolute power. Drawing on the ideas of John Locke, the colonists said that, no, the power of a father is only temporary and is only preparatory. It's the job of a father to prepare his children for their own maturity, not to dominate them forevermore. So this principle, which was Lockean in many ways really informed the nature of the American Revolution. The revolutionary generation really thought of themselves in familial terms. They thought of themselves as brothers who had banded together against their bad father, the king, to assume their rightful place in the world, which they had earned when they gained their maturity. Even so, as the revolutionary generation promoted this idea that a father's word was not a kind of absolute law, but but only intended to educate and prepare their children for their own maturity, which would arrive in due time, Jefferson and others claimed kind of indefinite and expansive paternal power over those they judged inferior, including, of course, indigenous Americans and enslaved Africans.

It's fascinating to see how concept of fatherhood is sort of flowing alongside the tide of political change, that it's not.

Flowing alongside the tide of political change. It's changing as a consequence of political change. When the world is changing in ways that destabilize the existing grounds of masculine power and authority, men adapt to those changes by developing new ideas of fatherhood. That's what we're seeing in context. In moments of crisis, men secure their disproportionate sex, father and authority by promoting new ideas of what it means to be a father, how authority is linked to care, how power is linked to love. So it's not necessarily changing alongside this tide of broader changes in the world and politics and economics. It's changing kind of in relationship to them.

Let's think about economics a second, though, because when do we start to see the role of father as the sole breadwinner for a nuclear family? Am I right in thinking that basically a product of the Industrial revolution and wage culture?

Yes, that's exactly right. I mean, that's a concept that really does feel very modern to us. This idea of the breadwinner is very much still with us. I mean, across history, across the millennia of history, men have held themselves up as providers and protectors. I mean, this is a common theme across the history of fatherhood and across cultures, really. Fathers protect and provide as a result of the Industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. What it means to protect and to provide especially take on new meanings. Traditionally, fathers had been expected to pass down to their children something tangible, like land, or like status or a skill, a craft skill. All of those things are in certain ways devalued by the Industrial Revolution. The economy is dislocated from the home. The family is no longer primarily an economic unit because work now takes place outside the home. It's called concentrated in cities and factories, and people are leaving to go work for a wage rather than to grow their own crops or make their own products. You know, bread is not a heritable good. It's not something you can pass down to your children. It's something you can go out and bring home and then it gets eaten or it goes bad and you have to go out and get it again. It's a product of the market marketplace, and it represents this kind of shift of the economy and shift of work and the shift of men out of the home into the world of work and the marketplace at large. And breadwinner is a term that originally meant something like a marketable skill. Like, if I'm a writer, then writing is my breadwinner. Books are much breadwinner. It became attached to persons only in England in the late 18th century and became kind of a common way of talking about man or a father's responsibilities. In the 19th century, with the spread of industrial capitalism and the market revolution that followed closely from that, a man was now someone who was expected to go out into the world and work while his family stayed largely at home. And of course, that is a very. That can be a very onerous set of expectations, not least because it raises the possibility that a man can be not a winner, but a loser.

Yeah, absolutely. Let's skip on again, not so far in time now, but to Charles Darwin, a famous thinker of the 19th century. How did he transform our understanding of the ties between parents and children?

Darwin's theories of evolution, his theories of natural selection, opened up a new understanding of the relationship between parents and children, generations, parents to children. That's how natural history happens. That's how the world goes on. That's how the species perpetuates itself across time. Darwin's understanding that parents could pass onto their children traits that were either favorable and helped them survive or unfavorable and made it more difficult for them to survive in ways encouraged interventions into the parenting process to create the best possible children. For Darwin, this was not an abstract question of nature most generally, but a very specific question of, of the health of his own family and children. Darwin was exceptionally worried that especially because he married his close cousin, he would pass on to his 10 children some of the ailments that haunted him, especially digestive ailments. And his observations of his children's health, including his experiences losing two of his beloved children, really informed his thinking about how natural selection worked, what it meant for the fittest to survive, because he was so worried that his children would not be the fittest and they wouldn't survive. I mean, Darwin as a person and his ideas of evolution are most associated with his voyage on the Beagle. But the truth is he did most of his thinking about the mechanics of natural selection at home and worked out some of his ideas through his close observations of his own children, whom he was desperately concerned to help survive.

Yeah, yeah. And you can still visit his house today, Down House in Kent, and you can see his study. It's interesting to think about him cogitating on this matter in that place. Let's move on to Sigmund Freud. Freud, in your analysis, made it natural, healthy even to despise your father. What's going on there?

Freud was strongly, strongly, strongly inspired by Darwin, and not least because Freud wanted the kind of riches and renown that Darwin had achieved through his ideas of natural selection. Freud wanted big ideas about how history worked, about what it meant to be a person and how a society changed over time. Freud believed that people grew up, in effect, through conflict with their parents. He believed that healthy people resolved those conflicts, believed it was universal for children to be attracted to their parents sexually, for boys to be attracted to their mothers and therefore in rivalry with their fathers, in what Freud described as a healthy person. That attraction and conflict was eventually resolved, especially by the death of the father and the development of the child into a mature fatherhood of his own. But in many cases, of course, Freud's livelihood was dependent on the fact that for many people, these Attractions and conflicts with the parents were not resolved smoothly. And so Freud's analysis was often a matter of helping people come to terms with their attraction to their parents and their rivalry with their parents. For Freud, you know, this wasn't a bad thing at all. On the contrary, you know, human beings developed and grew and matured and became who they were as whole persons in relationship to their parents. And especially for boys. Freud said that it was good to hate your father because that's how you learn to be yourself. That's how you grew up and became a man in your own right. And it was Freud's job as a doctor who saw patients to help people do that.

You finish up your book, perhaps surprisingly, with Bob Dylan, and there you talk about how the role of the dad's changed again and whether it's about making his kids happy to sort of join in the fun and games or not. How did that sort of shift come about?

Yeah, well, in the Post World War II context, in the Cold War context, it wasn't considered a kind of a great idea for children to be in conflict with their parents. Part of the promise of Western capitalism was a happy home with a kitchen with beautiful new appliances and, you know, a car in the driveway and a beautiful living room with a TV set and a whole happy family gathered around. It's kind of hard to square the picture of Freudian sexual attraction and homicidal conflict with the suburban ideal. After the World War II, and in the context of the Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union, the Western father was really encouraged to be a friend to his children, a pal. Dad. Of course, even the word itself dad comes from kind of infantile language. Da. Which babies across cultures are thought to attach to the first thing that they recognize outside themselves, which is not how babies are thought to see their mothers. So even the very name dad is like a child's idea of a man. And in the Cold War context, men were encouraged to be dads that their children would like and be friends with. And that's a difficult role to play. Certainly it's a more difficult role to play than it sounds like, because, of course, the world itself had not changed. It was still necessary to go out into the marketplace and work and earn bread and bring it back. And then when it gets eaten or goes bad, you have to go out and do it again. And the world of work and politics had not become more friendly. At the same time, men are being asked to be new figures within their families and at their houses. There's been a lot of Discussion historically speaking about feminism and the idea of the feminine mystique as a motherhood, as a burden for women, men also carry multiple burdens as fathers. I sometimes think that, you know, the difficulty of fulfilling all those roles has not been fully understood and empathetically appreciated in this quite the same. And I think this is in part because there's been no understanding of where those roles have come from. And certainly men have often cast themselves as extraordinary, powerful, even godlike figures who can protect and provide. But at the same time, those expectations are extremely hard to meet. You could even say that they're impossible to sustain across time. I mean, at some point someone's going to get hurt. At some point provision is going to run out. And that does not mean that and our failures as fathers. It only means that we are mortal creatures. And for mortal creatures, protection and provision are not eternally sustainable.

And I mentioned Dylan in my question just then. How does Bob Dylan help us to sort of navigate that bit of the story?

Well, Bob Dylan led extraordinary protest movements in the 1960s. He led social revolutions and the student movement and the anti war movement and the countercultural movement that all took issue with, quote, unquote, the man. The man is representative of patriarchal authority. The man is representative of kind of stern and forbidding father figure. In a way, what these countercultural movements were asking for was someone more empathetic and more understanding. We were asking for a kind of dad. But the truth is that Bob Dylan himself kind of embodied some of the difficulty of living up to that figure at home, you know, in his relationships with women and sometimes with his children. His values were rather traditional at home. Bob Dylan, who was the leader of these and the voice of these extraordinary social revolutions and social movements, he still very much wanted to be the man. So he represents kind of the tensions that arise because men have really never really developed among themselves a kind of language or conversation about the challenges of fatherhood. Men have really never developed a historical perspective on manhood and fatherhood in a way that I think could help men be a little more generous with themselves and each other and may approach their relationships to the people they love differently if they did understand where the expectations of manhood and fatherhood had come from historically.

Clearly, fatherhood, the concept of fatherhood is inextricably linked with the concept of motherhood and I suppose, the concept of childhood as well. Are you basically arguing that there hasn't been enough investigation into what fatherhood means? That's sort of an undercooked bit of the academic story here.

I mean, there have been studies of fatherhood that look at very specific periods of time and look at changes during those times. But as far as I know, there's never really been an overarching inquiry into the origins and history of fatherhood until my book. On the other hand, the origins and history of motherhood and womenhood were a foundational part of feminism beginning in the middle of the 20th century with someone de beauvoir second sex. She pointed very clearly to womanhood and motherhood as quote, unquote, man made ideas that had constrained women's lives. And she started a conversation that was carried forward by many feminist thinkers and historians who helped to show that women's lives were more complex than those concepts, those man made concepts of womanhood and motherhood often permitted. I think men's lives could become richer and more open and less possibly prone to anxiety and crisis if we were to understand fatherhood and manhood as themselves kind of man made ideas that came from somewhere, have changed over time and are also changeable in the future.

[Dave Musgrove]

That was Augustine Sedgwick speaking to David Musgrove. Augustine's book A History of Love and Power is out now. Thanks for listening. This podcast was produced by Daniel Kramer Arden.