The Family Unit : Basis of Society?

Since the start of humanity, the family unit has formed the immediate basis of inter-dependence amongst human beings. For thousands of years, this system worked perfectly and ensured a standard of welfare and care amongst humans that has been unmatched ever since.

So why am I starting this thread?

Well, I believe that the problems that we currently face in today’s world stem from the breakdown of the traditional family unit. I believe that this breakdown is causing most of the sorrow we see in the developed world today, and that to fix it requires a return to the classic family unit.

What did the traditional family unit do?

The traditional family unit into which a child was born gave it safety and stability when it was a baby. As a child, a parent/ parents offered nurturing and advice. As a teenager, parents offered counsel. As a young adult (21 yrs), the family offered an intermediate step between the safety of a home and the brutal open world. A young adult had the chance to get on his or her feet and save up enough to get a house of his/her own and start another family unit with someone else.

So what has gone wrong, and what is the result of this?

I believe that parents in modern times are irresponsible. They have too many children, they do not equip them adequately for life and they don’t support them enough to be stable before starting their own family. It is not a question of a single parent or dual parent family, but of the functions that a family performs.

Without this familial support, a person going out into the world has no choice but to get into debt to buy a house, struggle to afford healthcare insurance etc etc. These should all be provided by your family unit until you are truly capable of taking on these costs for yourself. That should be an obligation for the family unit. I’m involved in a spirited debate about socialized healthcare at the moment, and I squarely refuse that society has an obligation to help out those in need. One man should not be forced to pay for treatment for the child of another man. You know who has an obligation? The family of the person in need. They are the ones that brought the child into the world wilfully, and they have a duty of utmost care to the child beyond any nominal age.
Examples of problems:
Homelessness : In the olden times everyone would have a family or ancestoral home that they could go to if their own house was lost in repossession or a natural disaster. This was the ultimate backstop, and ensured that nobody went homeless.
Medical care : Anyone who falls ill should be able to take care of themselves (monetarily). If they are too young to be established enough (ie in the intermediate stages of young adulthood), then the family should take care of them.

In short, I believe that anyone can be afflicted by bad luck but I do not believe that it is the moral obligation of wider society to help them out. Obligation falls squarely upon the family unit, since they are the ones who decided to bring the child into the world.

I don’t think it is callous for me to refuse to pay for another man’s misfortune, but I believe it would be callous for the family of the man to refuse to help him.

Many people in favour of government mandated forms of welfare insist that those who are in unfavourable positions have usually been dealt a bad hand in life, and have never been given opportunities for success. While I broadly dismiss these as idealisations of plight, I acknowledge that in certain cases a child has not been given a chance to flourish, since that family unit has broken down. The duty of care by the parent has been neglected.

There is no easy solution to this problem. Tax incentives will not fix broken families. Intervention cannot change anything. The moral question we are faced with is, should society have to pay for the upkeep of a child that has not had an ideal upbringing? To me, this issue is unclear at the moment.

One thing is clear however. Parents have in the modern day, statistically speaking, become neglectful. It is always those who are least able to care for their children that tend to have the most children. The poor always have more children than the rich, even though they cannot possibly hope to pay for their upkeep. Why is this? And why do I find people forcing the duty of care onto the responsible folks who chose to only procreate within their means?

the family unit in our current civilization has been made completely dysfunctional.

Our ancestors had it right. (and some nations still do)

The elderly stay within the family unit to pass on wisdom and knowledge, not end up in some storage facility awaiting death.

Both parents working to pay bills. What happens to the children? Not only do they learn from strangers (at daycare etc) but their parents miss out on really bonding.

I don't think it's completely gone.

Another problem I notice is the pressure to conform to these family standards before a person is really financially or emotionall capable.

For instance, you have to have a husband/wife by such and such age, and X number of children x number of years after that.

If you are divorced you have to remarry soon after that, because if you don't you are still not over your ex, and if you have children, you have to provide a stand-in for the other parent.

As for getting in debt I think most of that is just greed, but I suspect some of it comes from the idea that you are not a "good" parent if you can't provide your kids with every new toy, drive them around in a new car, and provide a brand new McMansion for them to live in.

So I think it is both a breakdown of the family, and a misunderstanding of how the family should actually function.

reply to post by warrenb


The biological function of menopause was designed to allow grandmothers to slow down and look after their grandchildren rather than have any more children of their own. This function is almost unique amongst mammals.

As you said, it is really sad to see grandparents shooed away into some retirement home while both parents work and the child is in daycare.

I guess a return to the ancestoral style of family is unlikely for most Western people. That culture is very much alive in the East however, and there is a huge social stigma attached to people who send their parents away to a care home. That culture has also been brought with the eastern immigrants to the West, particularly amongst the Indian and Chinese households.

Could the strength of the family unit (along with the emphasis on education) in these two communities be the cause of their success, while others (such as the afro-carribbean community) who do not have this same family unit strength be the cause of their problems?

I certainly think so.

The East has adopted many things from the West. Maybe respecting the family unit is something that the West may learn from the East?

I have long thought of making a post on ATS to flesh-out an idea that I had a while back when I was studying the history of the United States of America:

The fundamental unit of culture in American society has been, since its earliest colonization, the corporation.

America was birthed from colonies that were structured around a corporate hierarchy. While the revolution changed the names of many of these institutions, they were already structured as governmental bodies and with very minor changes became the States that we know today.

Off the top of my head:

• Virginia Company of Plymouth which failed and was folded into...
  
• Virginia Company of London
  
• Dorchester Company which became...
  
• New England Company which became...
  
• Massachusetts Bay Company
  
• Mississippi Company
  
• The Russian-American Company
  

Just to name a few of the hundreds of joint-stock companies chartered at this time in North America.

Corporations are government-allowed land and capital controlling bodies designed to impose their owners' (the king and his rich friends) culture and will on a group of people - corporations ARE colonies.

It is important to understand this critical aspect of American culture and history because it underlies all misunderstandings about the nature of our government by the general public.

For instance, the American revolution wasn't some little isolated event on some far-off colony anymore than it was about freedom. In many ways, our revolution STARTED in England and the cause that was fought over was the right to have corporations profit.

As the King took over one chartered company after another (turning them into royal colonies), he created many rich and well-connected merchant enemies that sought to solidify their power on a class basis. The means for their seizing power from the crown to to strip the crown of any power by manipulating trade, banking, and finally starting a war (several actually) in order to invalidate crown claims to the land.

Once the smoke had cleared, the bankers, businessmen, and merchants finally had what they wanted and they had engineered the biggest hostile corporate takeover in history.

Jon

EDIT TO ADD:
This is why corporations, with help of the federal government (i.e. America, Inc.), continue to do everything in their power to keep the family from becoming a big factor in American society. Their power-base depends on families NOT working together, NOT loaning money within the family, and NOT leaving anything but debt for your descendants.

This is the same reason that the same corporations are loathe to allow any uncontrolled expression of ideas.

[edit on 11.12.2008 by Voxel]

reply to post by Voxel


great info but how does that relate to the topic?

reply to post by warrenb


You have to understand the history of the nation to understand why there is a constant war against the family unit. The family unit (known as clan affiliation) is one of the primary obstacles to solidifying power behind supra-national organizations. Look at the (long) history of Sicily.

They want you to be a Republicrat or an employee first and a "Jones" or a good father second.

Jon

reply to post by Voxel


ah k, gotcha

reply to post by 44soulslayer


Well stated! I believe that you have spoken for many.

My Grandparents lived through the depression and were fortunate enough to still have jobs and keep their home during that time. When other family members faltered, my grandparents took them in. When they had a spare bedroom they opened their home to boarders. They grew vegetables for themselves and for friends and family. They stood fast and worked together to succeed. Many of those life lessons and values have been lost. I can only hope for improvement. I fear that the only motivation for change will be a major collapse of some sort.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I think the behavior you're seeing in the family breakdown is a SYMPTOM instead of the problem. While familial structure and stability is a casualty, I think you hit on the problem when you said that parents in modern times are irresponsible.

In my opinion, responsibility is what is lacking and THAT'S the real issue. Responsibility in how we raise a family, how we do our job, how we educate ourselves, how we talk to people...

The family unit is only one issue, with the bigger issue being responsibility for our actions.

It's not that parents today are irresponsible, it's that the nuclear family doesn't work.


A Family is not two parents and some kids. A Family is only as strong as its numbers.

Look at cultures which have large numbers of kids, with aunts, uncles and granparents living under the same roof.

That is a strong family.


Two people and a brood of kids is just a divorce waiting to happen.

As a child, I only had my mother and father to look to for leadership and the ability to identify with me. I had all sorts of behavioral problems growing up until I got a chacne to meet other members of my family who manifested the same phenotype as me. I couldn't identify with my parents, but I could identify with aunts and uncles once I met them.

They knew how to deal with the genetics I was manifesting, and gave me great advice, which my own parents never could because they were manifesting other traits of the gene pool.

Once again.. it's not responsibility, look at the success level of the parents in the columbine school... most all were PHD's but single family homes.

When you have a large family living with you, the parents aren't actually that responsible anyway... it really does take a village, because kids require lots of time, and when there are only two adults living in the house and both are working, it doesn't provide anywhere near the amount of time that children require from caring adults in their lives.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by 44soulslayer

Well, I believe that the problems that we currently face in today’s world stem from the breakdown of the traditional family unit.

IMO you are close but still off target...

The true reason (IMO) for this country's societal demise is that our CIVIC sense has diminished for some time...we truly are bowling alone in America...

Hope for our Civic sense...


Give it a read...







content edit!

[edit on 11/12/2008 by chapter29]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
A Family is not two parents and some kids. A Family is only as strong as its numbers.

I disagree. My family is only 2 people and it's EXTREMELY strong.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Go back and read my post.. I was editing it heavily whilst you were posting.

reply to post by chapter29


Im not so sure I would agree about civic sense. Civic pride and sensibility can only occur when people are stable and take an active interest in their surroundings.

As they say, charity starts at home. Its very difficult to give a crap about your neighbour's problems if you yourself are having worse problems.

If there is a hierarchy of allegiance, I believe that the family comes first. My family is more important to me than my community or country. Dont get me wrong, Im patriotic and will support my country, but not over my family.

Involvement in society is probably built up in blocks and stages. First we must have a stable family; then a stable local community; then a stable county/ state and finally a stable country. If any one of the lower stages of affiliation are out of sync, then the higher becomes immaterial. Who really cares about their nation's GDP decreasing when a family member gets laid off from work? Or who cares about crime figures nationwide going down if their own neighbourhood has become more violent?

I think in that respect, family probably is the basis for society simply because it is the first step on the hierarchy. Everyone needs a stable family to achieve their potential.