If you have children and observe the difference in their behavior between environments, you will notice radical differences between how they act around their family and in their own home and how they act in every other environment with everyone else. Their attitudes and behavior are not at all uniform and have a very strong contextual element. Your kids will do and say things to you and to their siblings that they would never attempt anywhere but in the security of their own home.

    We behave very differently toward a thing if we perceive it as something we can take for granted, if we assume it as part of the fundamental structure of being. Parents and siblings are archetypal, they are mythological figures, and in part because they are part of the structure of the world itself, to our minds. They make up a large part of what the world is and always has been and always will be.

    That’s why it’s such a big deal when a parent dies or leaves. You’re not just losing a contingent person who you happened to meet, you’re losing one of the major structuring elements of your existence. It’s like losing your sight or your hearing, or a leg. It’s like the sun stopped rising or the sky wasn’t there to greet you one morning. 
    So when it comes to how we behave about things, our implicit assumptions about them, and to what degree they are responsible for the very nature of our lives, are extremely important. To someone who has always lived within the shelter of a stable, productive relationship, or a caring community of faith, or a safe and welcoming neighborhood, it’s very easy to take everything they provide for granted. That familiarity to the point of unconsciousness (because they are actually a part of your unconscious mental landscape) also makes it very easy to isolate and attack the negative aspects, tradeoffs, and risks of that system.

   The positive aspects of the ststem are essentially invisible and implicit. You don’t really have the ability to imagine the world without them and their benefits, you just assume them as part of the nature of the world. You probably can’t even conceive of the world apart from your position as a beneficiary of those structures. But you probably can conceive of the ways in which you are limited and oppressed by them and what costs they continually extract from you. You don’t see what all that cost and limitation is for because you assume the resulting benefits as a given function of the nature of the world itself and what you can do in it.
    All this makes it very easy to criticize and rebel, much like healthy and secure children often do, just because they’re coming from a position of fundamental power and security. This, I think, explains the strange hypocrisy of the upper classes. It’s not anything unusual. It’s just what people are like and how they act under conditions when they are dealing with either people or structures that they perceive as being essential, assumed features of their psychological universe, to which they have an essential right as citizens of that universe. 
   The good news is that nothing helps you appreciate something like losing it. Once people have undermined those structures enough and lost enough of their benefits, they will rediscover their vulnerability and contingency and purpose and effectiveness. Once people have helped to throughly dismantle marriage, for an example as an abusive condition, they will rediscover why people developed it in the first place and what problems it was helping to manage.