There is a curious cultural memory that some people born or raised in the 1960s and 1970s seem to carry a blueprint for limits. Why the 1960s and 1970s produced adults with clear boundaries is more than nostalgia. It is a story about institutions, material conditions, and a set of ordinary practicalities that conspired to teach a generation how to separate private from public, family from work, duty from choice. This is not a tidy moral argument. I have my biases. I grew up listening to one aunt who still used the phrase pick your hill wisely when it came to family spats. She is not an outlier.
Not just rules but economies of attention
People who came of age during the 1960s and 1970s learned boundaries the hard way because there was less distraction, and less disposable distraction. Televisions arrived but there were only a few channels, phones were tethered to walls, and the idea of a portable always-on feed did not exist. That scarcity of signal made attention an economic resource that had to be rationed.
Rationing creates habit. When there are few channels, decisions about what you watch, with whom you talk, or where you spend your leisure time are consequential. Those habits ripple out. Privacy was partly structural. If you wanted to be anywhere else you had to get in a car or leave a letter. So adults learned to keep parts of life compartmentalised because the world demanded it.
Boundaries as a social technology
Clear limits were also a technology passed along from institutions that still mattered then in a way they rarely do now. Schools enforced home time. Employers expected long tenures and rewarded steadiness. Neighbourhoods contained multigenerational knowledge. This is not to sanitise the past. Those same institutions could also be petty, rigid, and exclusionary. My point is narrower: where social roles are stable, boundaries become legible. They can be copied, taught, even inherited.
Parenting styles and the legacy of directness
Raising children in the 1960s and 1970s tended to be organised around straightforward expectations. That era saw a mix of permissive experimentation and what we might call authoritative clarity. Many adults expected children to learn limits by doing things themselves. This is not the same as authoritarianism. Discipline was often practical rather than theatrical: curfew, chores, a clear consequence for bad behaviour. People learned that rules served purposes, not only power plays.
So that’s in my wheelhouse as a generations researcher. And I think a lot of it comes back to individualism just more focus on the self and less on social rules. A system that has a lot of advantages and it’s become more common. And I think it’s just the idea of being an authority figure for a lot of parents feels weird. It feels uncomfortable. It’s like why can’t we be equals when you’re not going to be equals with your kids until they’re a lot older and you have to accept that. That was hard for me at first as a parent just realizing that I had to be an authority figure. I’m like wait what’s going on with that? I’m a Gen Xer. And that just seemed a little odd but quickly that structure was super important to kids. And even teenagers having structure really helps them.
— Jean M. Twenge Professor of Psychology San Diego State University.
That quote is unsettling to some readers because it names the tension: being an authority is awkward in an era that prizes equality. But that discomfort is part of the explanation for why certain cohorts maintained boundaries. They did not mistake being firm for cruelty. They clung to the usefulness of limits.
Work, leisure and the separation that taught restraint
Work culture of that period trained adults to demarcate time. Many jobs meant physically leaving the workplace after set hours and returning the next day. The division between labour and home life was clearer. We now romanticise flexible work as freedom; however the old model taught people how to step away from work mentally. That capacity to step away is a boundary skill. It gives you the ability to say no to extra demands because your life is organised around compartments that make sense to you and others.
Community enforcement without performative outrage
Neighbourhood norms were enforced by neighbours who would call you out in person rather than amplify a slight to an audience of strangers. There were costs to public displays of grievance because grievance stayed local. That limited the incentives for performative escalation and rewarded discreet problem solving. A lot of the conflict resolution then was messy and human and often imperfect. It was also contained.
Material conditions shape moral habits
There is an argument that boundary-making in that era was a classed phenomenon. Middle class and working class worlds both cultivated limits but in different registers. For many, boundaries were survival skills. Living hand to mouth teaches you to budget space and social energy. For others, boundaries were a luxury earned by stable employment and home ownership. To pretend the experience was uniform would be wrong. But across strata there was a shared habit: less ambient noise to drown signals, more reason to guard what mattered.
There was a set of guardrails. There was a social structure surrounding you guiding you pretty much in the right direction. Now a lot of people live with no social structure no guardrails and it’s a lot harder. They have to figure it out as they go and they’re set up for problems.
— David Brooks Columnist and Author The New York Times.
David Brooks is not the only commentator to notice this pattern. He frames it as guardrails. I take his phrase with a pinch of scepticism because guardrails can also crush diversity of life projects. Yet his language nails an important social fact: when structures are porous people must invent limits out of spare parts. Some succeed. Many do not.
What changed and why boundaries feel scarce now
The collapse of those shared structures did not happen overnight. Policies, economic shocks, and technology replaced older rhythms. High speed connectivity rewired attention economies. Employment became precarious. The cultural script that once told people when to marry, when to settle, when to retire loosened. As those signals faded the scaffolding that made boundaries legible grew invisible.
It is tempting to moralise; to blame permissive parenting or late capitalism exclusively. I resist a single villain. Boundaries are practices not moral absolutes. They can be reclaimed, adapted, and redistributed. But reclaiming them requires acknowledging that the world which taught a generation to draw hard lines offered both goods and costs. It is a mixed inheritance.
Some lessons that might matter
Practicality first. If you want to cultivate boundaries teach small rituals that survive bad faith and technology. Make space visible. Put phones out of reach at dinner. Make neighbourhood interactions ordinary again. These are small proposals and if they sound sentimental that is fine. Sentiment sometimes outlives theory. I will not pretend these steps solve structural inequality. They do not. They do, however, nudge habits.
Conclusion not as verdict but an invitation
Why the 1960s and 1970s produced adults with clear boundaries is a question about context more than character. Those decades taught certain practices because life required them. The challenge now is whether we can re-learn useful limits without regressing to a narrower social world. That learning will be uneven, uncomfortable and partially political. It will also be necessary.
Summary table
| Factor | How it created boundaries | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| Scarcity of attention | Limited channels made choices consequential forming habits of rationing attention. | Always on connectivity diluted signal and normalised constant availability. |
| Institutional structure | Schools employers and neighbours provided clear expectations and enforcement. | Precarious work and weaker local institutions removed shared guardrails. |
| Parenting norms | Practical discipline and authority created legible limits for children. | Individualism and egalitarian impulses complicated authority roles. |
| Community enforcement | Face to face correction kept disputes contained and private. | Public amplification and performative grievance changed incentives. |
FAQ
Did everyone born in the 1960s and 1970s have clear boundaries?
No. Boundaries were not universal. Class region gender and race shaped how limits were taught and enforced. Many people in those decades experienced neglect or harshness rather than healthy limits. The pattern I describe is about tendencies not absolutes. It is a sociological claim about averages and mechanisms rather than a flattering portrait of every life.
Are clear boundaries the same as being emotionally closed off?
Not necessarily. Clear boundaries can coexist with emotional warmth. The difference rests on purpose. Boundaries that protect space and dignity are not the same as walls that cut off intimacy. The point is to learn the difference and prefer boundaries that enable relationships rather than substitute for them.
Can modern families recreate those boundary habits without reverting to past harms?
Yes but it is deliberate work. Recreating useful limits means choosing practices that reflect current realities. For instance agreeing on device free times, modelling predictable schedules, and teaching children how to negotiate rather than just enforce can create limits that are both humane and effective. The aim should be adaptive habits not reenactment.
Do technological changes make boundaries impossible?
No. Technology changes the environment but it does not eliminate the possibility of limits. It does change the cost of maintaining them. Where once absence required effort now presence requires it. That inversion calls for intentional design of social spaces and household rules to protect focused time and private life.
Is longing for stronger boundaries reactionary?
It can be if it ignores who benefited and who suffered from past boundaries. Longing becomes reactionary when it seeks to reimpose rigid roles that excluded people. But it is not inherently reactionary to want predictability and restraint. Those are practical solutions to specific social problems. The political shape of any return to boundaries must be debated and contested.
There is no clean ending to this. Boundaries are habits we inherit and remake. They are not relics or a simple tonic. They are both shield and scaffold and worth the trouble of arguing over.
