Family Matters

FAMILY MATTERS

What most people believe about the family is only a myopic notion.

Humans are social animals. It is natural for us to form families of all imaginable structures. That is built into our genes. There is no one right way to form a family. Environmental conditions and cultural beliefs are the major influences on how families are structured. But we should question whether families require biological kinship. Obviously, new families are created by marriages with members of other non-related families.

The tribe was the original family. Family relationships took many forms. Some tribes had something like marriage, but it was more integrated into the tribe as part of an extended family. The partners had a responsibility and duties to the tribe first and foremost, but the tribe also had responsibilities to the dyad. Romantic love wasn't considered or hadn't been conceived. In some tribes the men and women lived separately. They interacted in the daily work of the tribe, but carried out rituals and slept to themselves. Once or twice a year they had a ritual party and fucked indiscriminately. Nine months later babies were born, were raised by the women until at a certain age the boys were separated to live with the men while the girls continued to live with the women. Here, they learned their social roles and rituals. In these separate houses sex was homosexual. Their beliefs often centered around the concept that boys gained semen or sex energy from the men. Less is known about how women behaved, a failure or prejudice of anthropological research. No matter whatever their beliefs, this family structure may be the most sane construction that humanity has devised.

In tribal and extended families there are relatives of all relations and ages living together, creating a division of labor and of knowledge useful in raising children, daily work, healing, spiritual rituals, etc. Biological parents aren't expected to do everything for their children, providing them relief that the Nuclear Family doesn't have, except by paying dearly for it. The elderly are cared for in the home and serve as a repository of traditional wisdom.

With the rise of agriculture, creating settled societies and the concept of ownership, there was a cultural shift from matriarchy to patriarchy, wives and children became property, but in some societies succession or relationship is still matrilineal. Monogamous marriage is a relatively recent creation of patriarchal societies. It is necessary to preserve the line of kinship through the father. Matriarchal societies didn't need marriage because there can be no confusion over who is the mother of a child.

Marriage in most historical families wasn't for love, that is a recent notion, but for the convenience and expediency of political and economic power. Marriages were arranged by families. Love between husband and wife might arise or not. Marriage was a duty to these societies.

Families have their own politics and infighting often occurs. Social political life reflects these more personal disagreements.

Only Christian fundamentalists in America believe that the family is endangered. That belief is a fiction because they see only one type of family as valid, the Nuclear Family of two parents and two to three children, standing independent and isolated from relatives and the society at large. In the history and pre-history of humanity it is this Nuclear Family that is the aberration. Families mentioned in the Bible are always extended families living in tribal situations.

The Nuclear Family was largely a result of the Industrial Revolution, displacing agricultural work and rural living. It's isolated existence makes it prone to social manipulation and instability. Right wing fundamentalists see it as a part of a divine hierarchy: God over the government, government over the church, the church over the husband, the husband over the wife and children. It's a program of totalitarian social control.

Viable alternative families have always existed. Gays and other singles create socially unsanctioned, alternative families. Communes were attempts to recreate tribal families.

What would be the best family structures for our modern societies? In these times in which most parents must hold full-time jobs, the Nuclear Family is suffering an even greater stress. The Nuclear Family fissions. We should return to types of extended families as a model suitable for our times. These new families could be structured as the participants see fit to make them functional. Members of all ages, sexes and sexual orientations might voluntarily join together to create a family. The agreements among the participants could be contractual to protect all. In these situations some members of the family could work part-time outside of the home, others might make childrearing a full-time job and be financially supported by the other members. This division of labor would relieve the stress of childrearing and the feelings of loss of community and anomie that currently plague our lives.

Because children are recognized in American law as human beings, having all the rights of adults, why do we allow legal parents to have almost dictatorial control over their children? Too many parents seem to think that they own their children. It is recognized in law that children aren't capable of fully exercising all their rights, so parents or legal guardians must assume that responsibility to protect children. But that duty doesn't give parents a right to exclusively control and influence their children in any way they see fit. Our society already has laws protecting children from abuse, and can remove children from abusive or neglectful situations, but these laws should be extended so that children must be educated to the full diversity of society. Parents' viewpoints are only one of many possible beliefs and shouldn't be the only ones that their children are exposed to. That would be violating the child's rights to be free and to make decisions for self. Ultimately, it is the whole society that has the responsibility to see that children are raised and educated well. Even biological parents should serve only as surrogates to society. Hillary Clinton's statement, "It takes a village to raise a child.", points in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. That's why society should examine and develop laws that would require that prospective parents meet certain criteria for psychological stability, income, parenting skills and a strong desire to raise children. Society should pay for approved parents to raise children as a full-time job.

However, children need stable parenting until they are adults. Parents shouldn't come and go at a whim. Long-term bonding is necessary. There needs to be a legal commitment to raising children to adulthood by the same parents unless those parents violate the responsibility of parenting. Other parents of an extended family might be added or others leave at any time.

In our society it is accepted as a given that people will grow up, get married and have children. If you don't want children you're considered selfish or cold-hearted. A career or giving to others must not come first unless you are a priest. Having children is seen as a social duty that does not consider the rights or well-being of children or social consequences.

Childrearing should be perceived more as a duty to society and humanity than personal fulfillment. Parents who want children for personal reasons, such as to assuage an emotional void or just because it's the expected thing to do, often are defective parents and their children suffer.

Child abuse has existed through the ages. Infanticide - putting babies outside to die from exposure and starvation, sexual use, swaddling - wrapping a baby for long periods so they can't move as a means to control them, harsh corporal punishment. All of these abuses are cause for emotional dysfunction in adulthood and are a major affect on the politics of societies. They are well documented by psychohistorians at http://www.psychohistory.com I urge you to read there.

Our society should discourage the expectation that everyone should marry and have children. Some people simply aren't suited for childrearing. They might be better off working in some profession where their interests and creativity will make a better contribution to society - children of the mind. And if they can't contribute in this way and can't have a feeling of responsibility, let them enjoy their lives as they see fit, without children.

We should be thinking about controlling population. Women should have more control over births and abortions because they bear the brunt of childrearing. In tribal societies this was usually the norm that offered a population control for the health and survival of the tribe. The more people there are causes competition for finite resources and reduces the quality of life. Why don't we care for quality over quantity?

The U.S. is the only developed country that doesn't have full childcare and health insurance provided free for working parents. This should be considered a crime or mass social irresponsibility.

For those people who can't procreate and would otherwise be good parents, promoting adoption is a better strategy than fertility intervention and enhancements. Biological kinship isn't really important.

We should question whether biological kinship has any effect on affection and caring for others. It's a common notion, but does it have any basis in fact? It is possible that there is some connection between mother and child, but does that go both ways? I think that perhaps a mother might have some connection to her biological child created during pregnancy and birth by the hormones released that program her to have a closeness and recognition of her biological child as a survival factor, but does that create a bond from child to mother, or is that just the caring and nurturing the child that forms the bond? We know that adoptive parents and children can form just as tight bonds as between biological parents and their children. Therefore, we should begin to discount the primacy and legality of biological families and elevate the families created by free choice and rational decision-making. What is important is caring for each other, not biological relationship.

All families in the world are connected by some small degree of separation, whether by marriage, friendships and business relations, making us all related. Building on this idea should make us see how interconnected we really are and help to communicate and solve our national conflicts.