• Skip to main content

CentreForMedicalHumanities.org

  • Home
  • Telehealth Analysis
  • Research Translations
  • Evidence Reviews
  • Blog
  • About

Justice, Genes and Welfare: Are Intergenerational relationships toxic?

posted on January 9, 2025

Francis Thirlway reports on the BSA Family Studies Group and Youth Studies Group Seminar “Justice, Genes and Welfare: Are Intergenerational relationships toxic?” (28 Nov 2013):

Intergenerational relations increasingly seem to be called into question in contemporary society, highlighted as centrally implicated in some of its key ills. For example, the topic of intergenerational justice has been the focus of a slew of popular and political publications, contending that the ‘baby boomer’ generation has skewed the allocation of economic, social and cultural resources in its own favour and left younger generations immersed in debt and facing a perilous future.Early years policy reports pose parenting as formative in babies’ brain architecture, hard wiring future (anti)social behaviour and empathetic (in)abilities, as well as shaping the genetic inheritance that passes down through the generations. And ideas about cycles of deprivation, transmitted disadvantage and intergenerational cultures of poverty and worklessness are a recurrent feature of political pronouncements, where low aspirations and benefit dependency are alleged to be passed down in families and communities.

These ideas were explored in a BSA seminar at London South Bank University on 28 November 2013. Jonathan White (LSE) spoke about the rise of generationalism – the systematic appeal to the concept of generation for narrating the social and political – and questioned whether it is a helpful way of addressing contemporary problems. Susie Weller (LSBU) and Ros Edwards (University of Southampton) presented material from a qualitative longitudinal study of young people’s relationships with their siblings, which challenged the idea of the competitive, selfish individual, drawing attention in particular to children’s aspirations for their parents’ future over time. Val Gillies (LSBU), Nicola Horsley (LSBU) and Ros Edwards (University of Southampton) described their recent research into the use of popularised neuroscience to inform ‘early intervention’ programmes, memorably referencing Niklas Rose on the ‘blobology’ that claims that an area of the brain is the location for this or that human mental state (Rose 2013), and highlighting pressing concerns about the classed and gendered nature of ‘early intervention’ programmes which conflate poverty with poor parenting. Tracy Shildrick (University of Leeds) described her fruitless hunt for the mythical ‘three generations of worklessness’ in deprived areas of Middlesbrough and Glasgow, finding instead strong pro-work attitudes across families, genders and generations. Eldin Fahmy (University of Bristol) charted the development of cultural transmission theories in UK social policy, from notions of ‘transmitted deprivation’ in the the 1970s to the current ‘Troubled Families’ unit, before looking at data from the 2012 UK Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey to consider what light these data shed on the cultural transmission hypothesis and alternative explanations for the persistence of poverty across generations in the UK today. A concluding review of the state of intergenerational relationships was given by the Chair for the day, Jane Pilcher (University of Leicester).

Francis Thirlwy is a PhD candidate in Anthropology and Postgraduate Associate of the Centre for Medical Humanities and the Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing

Filed Under: Conference Review

CentreForMedicalHumanities.org is an independent health evidence publication. This site is not a medical practice, healthcare provider, academic institution, or research organization. Nothing on this site constitutes medical advice. Consult a qualified healthcare provider before making decisions about supplements, medications, or health interventions. This website is not affiliated with Durham University, the Institute for Medical Humanities, or any academic or medical institution. The domain name reflects previous ownership history and does not indicate institutional affiliation, academic authority, or endorsement. The Durham Institute for Medical Humanities is an active research institute at Durham University — visit their official page for information about their programs and research. Some content on this site contains affiliate links. Purchases made through these links may generate a commission for this publication at no cost to the reader. See our Evidence Standards page for full disclosure details. Content produced by the CMH Evidence Review editorial team. © 2026 CentreForMedicalHumanities.org. All rights reserved. | About | Our Evidence Standards | Non-Affiliation Notice | Privacy Policy