NationStates Jolt Archive

The family is an organisational block primarily suited to primiive survival needs. Now, as we enter the age of the progressively liberal society, the block is showing signs of breaking down. Now that we have removed strict legal and moral obligations from the nature of the family, it is being to show that is can no longer be an effective way for which to bring up children and provide company for adults. But indeed, why is the family such a bad thing?

In his Discourses on Inequality, Rousseau attempted to find the origins of inequality within our society. To do this, he attempted to deconstruct modern man to the point prior to when inequality existed. He believed that natural man (as he termed it) lived an entirely solitary life, during the cause of which he was entirely independent. Members of the opposite sex only came together briefly for a passionless and brief encounter, the purpose of which was recreation. The family unit did not exist at this point, in Rousseau's view.

I provide the above information for context, for those anthropological have questionable accuracy. However, they lead Rousseau to make a very interesting point: that inequality appears once man becomes dependant on one another. Rousseau (being a man of his time) says that the family is the one instance where the creation of such inequality is acceptable.

But, I must ask, is the presence of inequality desirable in an organisational block that is entrusted to bring up children? The fact that there is inequality in the family is unquestionable truth, as dependence upon the patriarch/matriarch (the centralised source of power in the family) gives them a great deal of power, which they can exercise in what ever way they so please.

Now, this dependence is natural for a certain part of our lives (up to the approximate age of 11) but as we enter our teenage lives, the dependence on parental authority quickly shows itself to be negative in its effects. We call this teenage rebellion, the point where we begin to assert our natural need for independence. But the parental authority works to quash this desire, thus producing the rebellion. This rebellion against authority can provide ample lessons but it also damages the individuals concerned, sometimes to a great extent.

Why is this? Like all relationships of power, the patriarchal force needs something else to cement its control, another tool by which to cement the structure it exists upon. That tool is, of course, love. Love is, of course, a false concept but, because it is a widely accredited concept, it carries a heavy amount of emotional weight in our world. The family structure is bound together by that emotionalism, which is actually created by our dependence as dependence in the family structure can often engender gratitude within the dependent persons (especially as they begin to mature and the idea of family becomes cemented into their own mind sets).

Now, when the era of teenage rebellions begins, this emotionalism is strained and indeed is more often than not snapped. This results in a great deal of psychological damage during the formative years of our lives, as it shakes our social foundations down to the very core. Thus, all children are damaged by the family. People may try to justify this by claiming that parents are simply protecting their children from the flushes of youth. This is wrong: in doing this, children are being deprived of the opportunity to make mistakes and thus children have no mistakes to learn from. Experience is not gathered, which makes independence all the more difficult when it is finally achieved.

Also, it is questionable whether the parents are doing this to protect their offspring: in the natural world, independence is easily achieved by the offspring without having to fight their parents to achieve it. Thus, we may asset that parents have their own selfish, subconscious reasons for preventing the assertion of independence. Maybe they wish to maintain the dependency of their offspring, as once dependence is shatter, they have lost power. Or perhaps they wish to prevent the onset of loneliness in their old age. I subscribe to the theory of Mandeville - that selfish motives are the only reason any one does anything.

But why then, if the family unit can create such damage, has it not fallen apart before now? The simple reason is that harsh economic conditions, legal restrictions and socially enforced parameters forced most families to stay together out of the simple need for survival. Incidentally, this creates another form of emotionalism, the espirit de corps, that helps bind the family together. But examine what happens once these conditions are removed.

There are two examples: the modern society and priviledged society. We should look at noble and royal families as they have never been bounded by the aforementioned conditions - royal families are frequently above the law (no legal constraints), rich (no economic constraints) and, because of their absolute power, are able to go against society's expectations (no social constraints). And what do we see among the families of nobles and royalty? We see war and murder, brother against brother, father against son. The family unit thus fails when the conditions against it are relaxed.

The modern western society suffers from the same break down. Divorce laws, the availability of ideas and information, the welfare state and social liberalism all work against the family, removing previously binding conditions. The patriarchal power is undermined by a lack of respect on the behalf of dependents, who gain that lack of respect due to being exposed to a greater wealth of ideas. The assertion of independence is even more damaging and shows itself in society as the idea of the family is undermined by its evident flaws.

The family produces a love of dependency within people but this conflicts with a natural love of independence. We want to be free but at the same time want to be dependent on others, especially for emotional comforts such as friendship and love. We are weened on dependence to such an extent that we begin to accept oppressive and demeaning dependencies, such as being dependent on another for wealth. The duality that humanity has created within itself has created the problems we see today, as dependence fights independence on an all-encompassing scale. Dependence is the creator of inequality in our society, independence is the liberator.

So, what do we do about the family? It is quite clear that the great question of the latter half of this century will be the search for an alternative to the family. So far, alternatives have proved to be failures: state orphanages and care homes maintain a bad situation, even in this liberal age of enlightened values. However, it could be argued that this is because we live in an age where the family is still producing the society which we inhabit. This means that trying to create non-family institutions in a family based society can be compared to placing a fish out of water: it cannot survive. But as the family declines into a near meaningless institution of the past, it is entirely possible that these replacements will begin to operate better. So perhaps the future does indeed lie with state controlled children-raising institutions.

Finally, what does this mean for the state of man? Independence is clearly what we all need to strive for - our mental wellbeing is far too compromised by dependence. We cannot expunge all dependence but we must try to eliminate all those forms of dependence that rely on emotional ties. Love and the family are the two targets that must be dealt with first. Both create dependence and both inflict psychological damage on those who indulge in them. Neither are necessary to happiness, once the society moves to eliminate the positive images that love and the family possess. Once man is independent, then the ways in which inequality can be produced are reduced. We would be free from those who would seek to hold power over us for malign purposes. Thus, I bring us back to the image of Rousseau and the natural man. Although we must avoid the savagery of that particular beast, we must also imitate his solitary behaviour and learn the lessons from it. Kept away from the family, man will not be suckled on dependence and so he will be able to escape the trap of agreeing to oppressive dependencies in the future.

Okay, I scanned over a lot of that, so I can't respond to all of it in detail. However I have one thing to say about an idea that pops up throughout:

Humans are not independent creatures. We are a social species, much like chimpanzees and gorillas are social species. Becoming a solitary is BAD for people, as humans thrive on some amount of social content. So dependence, or more correctly, co-dependence is quite important for happiness. The human brain derives pleasure from working together with other people.

Your post is based on at least two mis-conceptions:

a) people can live completely independently and without being engaged in networks where power and dependency are natural parts, and/or would enjoy it. I must admit that I find it very hard to fathom how one can come up with that kind of idea.

b) you seem to see the dependency in families as a negative thing in every aspect and instance. While this holds true in many cases, it is not true that a fair, non-dependence-abusive family cannot exist.

Your post is based on at least two mis-conceptions:

a) people can live completely independently and without being engaged in networks where power and dependency are natural parts, and/or would enjoy it. I must admit that I find it very hard to fathom how one can come up with that kind of idea.

b) you seem to see the dependency in families as a negative thing in every aspect and instance. While this holds true in many cases, it is not true that a fair, non-dependence-abusive family cannot exist.

1) You will note that I say that the reason the family must be abolished (out of all of the dependence-inspiring institutions) is because it is the institution that raises us and thus forms almost all of perceptions on the world. Being brought up dependent is likely to make us dependent and think in ways that suit dependence. If we remove this, then we will not be so dependent minded and thus will stop thinking that oppressive dependencies are acceptable in our lives.

2) Dependence always produces inequality, as it shifts power from one individual to the other. So even in a benign family there is inequality and that inequality opens up the potential for abuse. It does not have to be used to have an effect on the individual.

Actually, he's right. The higher primate species as a group all developed the evolutionary fitness strategy of instinct towards social interaction and social structures. It's still an individual-oriented trait, as all survival traits are, in that you associate with the group because of its benefit to your survival interests, but the behavior itself - a tendency to form groups and interact socially - is what it is, and humans possess that trait. We're much more like canines, bovines, equines, and other pack- or herd-animals then solitary predators like felines.

Actually, he's right. The higher primate species as a group all developed the evolutionary fitness strategy of instinct towards social interaction and social structures. It's still an individual-oriented trait, as all survival traits are, in that you associate with the group because of its benefit to your survival interests, but the behavior itself - a tendency to form groups and interact socially - is what it is, and humans possess that trait. We're much more like canines, bovines, equines, and other pack- or herd-animals then solitary predators like felines.


It is defunct and now is causing harm to society. We must drive out this remedial trait of our past.

Eh, I thought this was going to be about the dissolution of the monarchy. :(

no i didnt really read it, i just skimmed to see if my immediate questions were answered

are you saying that you think its better for children to be raised in institutions from birth to adolescence?

what would you do about inheritance? would a persons estate be given over to the state?

what do you do about other services normally performed by family such as taking care of those family members who cant care for themselves? would grammy automatically go to an institution and would that institution have the right to make all medical and financial decisions on her behalf?

1) You will note that I say that the reason the family must be abolished (out of all of the dependence-inspiring institutions) is because it is the institution that raises us and thus forms almost all of perceptions on the world. Being brought up dependent is likely to make us dependent and think in ways that suit dependence. If we remove this, then we will not be so dependent minded and thus will stop thinking that oppressive dependencies are acceptable in our lives.
You will note that I said that thinking that removing the institution of family and/or most of the other "dependence-inspiring" social institutions is in any way only remotely possible is utterly unrealistic.

2) Dependence always produces inequality, as it shifts power from one individual to the other. So even in a benign family there is inequality and that inequality opens up the potential for abuse. It does not have to be used to have an effect on the individual.
a) Dependence more often than not appears in the form of co-dependence, and I disagree that it "always produces inequality".
b) I also disagree that we will always have to strive for total independency, but that being embedded in a social network is a worthy trade-off to giving up that (illusional/utopian) complete independence.

I was expecting a feminist/queer rant about the obsolescence of the nuclear family. Hmph.

Personally I reckon we are social, so we need a support network around us, but that the hierarchical, monogamous, heterosexual nuclear family is not necessarily the best way for this to be organised, nor is it the only way. Id like the family to be Queered, to use the jargon.

I don't really agree. I think the nuclear family is 'breaking down' as an institution but all that means is the definition of 'family' could change, I don't think it will die off as an institution anytime soon.

No thanks. Someday I want to be a dad, not a "chromosome contributor".

No thanks. Someday I want to be a dad, not a "chromosome contributor".

who in the world would EVER bother to have children who they dont get to raise? pregnancy and childbirth isnt exactly FUN.

In no particular order, here are some things that came to mind after reading your post.

1. Why abolishing the family when there are no alternatives?

2. It seems that the most important aspect of determining a system for raising children is to use what works. Families work. Or maybe that's just my perception that was warped by my family upbringing. Where's the evidence to show this great psychological damage that comes from being raised in a family? If anything, the people most scarred from their childhood are those who grew up without a family -- or grew up in a broken family.

3. You use "teenage rebellion" as evidence of some great psychological destruction caused by the family. I will say what most of society would take as common sense: a thirteen year old is not mature or experienced enough to know what is good for themselves. If a child got his wish when he angrily yelled "I hate you, I wish I could leave and not come back!" that would be very bad news for the child.

4. Stating the fact that some families break apart is not an argument against the value of a strong family. Sometimes surgery fails and the sick patient dies. Does that means we should stop performing surgery on people who are sick?

5. A child's dependency on a parent (or guardian) is natural and unavoidable. A young child isn't physically capable of taking care of itself. Thus, he is dependent on someone else. A young teenager, I would argue, isn't mentally mature enough to survive well on his own. This is even supported by scientific evidence on the teenager brain that shows that much of their brain, particular the decision making part, is undeveloped. In this case, the teenager isn't necessarily dependent on the parent for survival, but is dependent on the parent to live a decent life.

6. Shouldn't bringing up a child be the responsibility of the people who brought that child into the world? Is it fair to put the burden of caring for the child on somebody else?

7. It's laughable to think of parents as people who impose their will on their children for the good of themselves. Please. Raising kids is expensive and time consuming. Also, most parents go above and beyond what the government requires of them and try to raise their kids the best they can.

8. We are all dependent on someone. If all the farmers in the world stopped producing food, the vast majority of us would die. Not only are we dependent on others for food, but also for medicine, for technology, the list goes on and on. We are dependent on others for survival and we are dependent on others to live a more quality life.

9. Equality. Why the obsession with equality? Do you really think that a child should get equal treatment as an adult? Do you think that a man who works ten hours should get the same pay as a man who works five? We should treat others based on their abilities, not try to treat everyone equally.

10. You say that man used to live an entirely solitary life (this may or may not be true). Is it any coincidence that in those days man had no where near the quality of life that we do today? Are we somehow obligated to do things that are anthropologically in our nature?

11. I believe that in your attempt to think outside of the family and dependency driven mindset, you have also abandoned common sense.

I think the family is overrated; it's genetic, whereas friendship is earned. Still, most people seem to like the idea.

11. I believe that in your attempt to think outside of the family and dependency driven mindset, you have also abandoned common sense.

Meh, you are probably right. However, we must question every value, even the cores one, if we are to hope to improve upon them or understand them.

Meh, you are probably right. However, we must question every value, even the cores one, if we are to hope to improve upon them or understand them.

I agree.

And for the record, I respect people like you (even if it didn't appear like it in my last post- I should learn to be a little less upidity and knee-jerk) who are able to come up with radically different ideas than that of societal norms. It's something I'm not very good at. Maybe nine times out of ten radical ideas will be of no use to anyone, but that one time out of ten will make it worth it.

Okay, I scanned over a lot of that, so I can't respond to all of it in detail. However I have one thing to say about an idea that pops up throughout:

Humans are not independent creatures. We are a social species, much like chimpanzees and gorillas are social species. Becoming a solitary is BAD for people, as humans thrive on some amount of social content. So dependence, or more correctly, co-dependence is quite important for happiness. The human brain derives pleasure from working together with other people.

I disagree. People who NEED social content are mentally weak(as you know most people are mentally weak) However there are the few stong individuals that exist who would ultimately triumph in becoming a solitary. And without needing social content that person evolves into something stronger then what you or I consider to be an average human being. In fact that person will evolve into an overman,that person will rise above the massive herds of average human beings.

I disagree. People who NEED social content are mentally weak(as you know most people are mentally weak) However there are the few stong individuals that exist who would ultimately triumph in becoming a solitary. And without needing social content that person evolves into something stronger then what you or I consider to be an average human being. In fact that person will evolve into an overman,that person will rise above the massive herds of average human beings.

overman = sociopath??

I disagree. People who NEED social content are mentally weak(as you know most people are mentally weak) However there are the few stong individuals that exist who would ultimately triumph in becoming a solitary. And without needing social content that person evolves into something stronger then what you or I consider to be an average human being. In fact that person will evolve into an overman,that person will rise above the massive herds of average human beings.

People need to socialize in order not to go insane. This is why if you're lost away from civilization and on your own, it is recommended that you find something to talk to, be it rock, tree, or squirrel.

Humans are social, it's how we evolved and it's hardwired into your brain. Sociopathy would probably have led to death back in the hunter-gatherer days, and it isn't all that great of a thing to have in today's society either.

1) You will note that I say that the reason the family must be abolished (out of all of the dependence-inspiring institutions) is because it is the institution that raises us and thus forms almost all of perceptions on the world.

However, if it was to be replaced with something, that something would be just another institution, with the exact same deficiencies you mention above.

Being brought up dependent is likely to make us dependent and think in ways that suit dependence. If we remove this, then we will not be so dependent minded and thus will stop thinking that oppressive dependencies are acceptable in our lives.

You cannot remove the fact that children are not adults and thus are dependent on someone else to provide them with food and shelter.

Given today's modern society, children stay dependent even longer because of the need to obtain an education to be successful. Children can't just go out into the world as soon as they're biologically adults, unless they want to resign themselves to a life of working at McDonalds.


2) Dependence always produces inequality, as it shifts power from one individual to the other. So even in a benign family there is inequality and that inequality opens up the potential for abuse. It does not have to be used to have an effect on the individual.

Inequality produces dependence. Children are NOT EQUAL to adults - they lack the knowledge, the experience and for the first 13-16 years of their life they lack the physical development. Thus, for the first period of their life, they WILL BE DEPENDENT ON SOMEONE. There is no way around this, unless you want children to be born already adults.

I disagree. People who NEED social content are mentally weak(as you know most people are mentally weak) However there are the few stong individuals that exist who would ultimately triumph in becoming a solitary.

No. Those few individuals would be defeated by GROUPS of people.

And without needing social content that person evolves into something stronger then what you or I consider to be an average human being. In fact that person will evolve into an overman,that person will rise above the massive herds of average human beings.

No, the individuals would die.

Individual humans are pretty helpless things. All of our great technology - that's due to COLLABORATION. A single human working alone would have great trouble getting anywhere in today's society; without it, he would be even worse off.

No. Those few individuals would be defeated by GROUPS of people.



No, the individuals would die.

Individual humans are pretty helpless things. All of our great technology - that's due to COLLABORATION. A single human working alone would have great trouble getting anywhere in today's society; without it, he would be even worse off.

Im not saying that the overman would rise above the herds to compete against them. Im stating that the overman would rise above the herds to rule over them, to be their leader. Afterall average "herd" type human beings are in no shape to lead. The follower is destined always to follow,never to lead.

Im not saying that the overman would rise above the herds to compete against them. Im stating that the overman would rise above the herds to rule over them, to be their leader. Afterall average "herd" type human beings are in no shape to lead. The follower is destined always to follow,never to lead.
overman = george bush???

i didn't expect to read a tome today. so i didn't.

Im not saying that the overman would rise above the herds to compete against them. Im stating that the overman would rise above the herds to rule over them, to be their leader. Afterall average "herd" type human beings are in no shape to lead. The follower is destined always to follow,never to lead.

Oh, okay. So you mean leaders, not necessarily loners? There's a difference. A very significant part of being a good leader is persuading people that you're "right", which means interacting with them. Very many leaders were not sociopaths at all - there's nothing about "depending on human interaction for sanity" that precludes being strong and good at leading rather than following.

I don't buy that leaders are any better people than others though. We've had Gandhi and George Washington, but we've also had Hitler and Stalin. Your overman who doesn't care about society seems much more like the Hitler/Stalin type than the Gandhi type though.