The reason for the breakup is fun - https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/11/roman-catholi...
Much of India had also long barred cousin marriages, probably long before the Roman Catholic Church, but the dependencies and village raising the kids dynamic still existed (until recently).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapinda
If I were to guess, the main causal factor is economic/security independence. If living in a tight knit village, sacrificing your freedoms is the best option you have, then that is what most people choose. If there exists an option for you retain your freedom and have financial independence and physical security, then people tend to choose that (e.g. getting an education and a well paying job, etc).
The latter basically destroys any chance of “village raising a child”, because no village bonds will exist, since everyone is moving around for their economic opportunities.
you make it sound like these are opposing incompatible choices. why not choose both? i'd love to live in a small tight knit community. going to school and getting a good education does not prevent that. and with more options to work from home it is now even more possible than it was in the past.
also, people didn't move because they wanted to gain independence. they are forced to move because they can't find work at home. in europe the majority of people live where they grow up and do not move far from there, unless lack of local jobs forces them to. which is one reason why big cities are popular and growing because jobs are there, and it is more likely that future generations will have jobs there too, so they can stay.
I grew up poor and moved far away from my family to change it. In the rich land where I now live, most people I’ve met could do a little better by moving to another town but they choose to remain close to their families and their birth community. With that said, they still have to raise their children on their own, because it is culturally inappropriate to ask, accept or (god forbid![^1]) offer help.
[^1]: You want to do what with our kids? What are you? A budding, wanna-be child molester? You never know, the media says they are everywhere. No sir, and you have upset me so much that I’ll write to my local representative to install CSAM surveillance in all the phones.
If you provided a location, others could research the labor participation rate among men and women in the area you’re talking about. It would literally be the exact opposite of “the experience of one person”.
Its the classic tradeoff between security and freedom.
Is this not evidence for the original point?
Specifically, men and women would not be married within the same village, but within the same community in other villages (which may only be within a radius of 50km, but that is a lot of people).
I just don't see that realisticly possible. People move a cross the city for a new job, that enough to break the family visit. Remote work is nowhere near guaranteed.
>people didn't move because they wanted to gain independence.
They do, when they don't fit into the community they grew up with.
Tight-knit by definition means everyone's up in everyone's business. You would know your neighbour's business intimately, as intimately as they'd know yours (think what you pooped last night as a sense of how intimate). If that strikes you as unnecessary and potentially disgusting, then tight-knit isn't for you. I came from one... and I know for a fact it isn't for me.
First the taboo against consanguineous marriages was most likely because of genetic diseases. Biology may not have been very advanced, but people were smart enough to pick up on patterns. Similar to taboos against cannibalism despite having no concept of prion disease.
If this was pushed by the catholic church then explain Italian families!
Is “the hero’s journey” not a story about rugged individualism that has been told over and over in different forms across cultures since the beginning of history?
I don't think so. The heros journey does not need to be about "rugged individualism" at all. Not is about it all across cultures and history.
We like stories about rugged individualism. We prefer them. And oftentimes, we change original stories fro. other culture to fit the patterns we like or ignore those that don't fit them.
And also, across cultures and history, the hero journey is far from the only or even primary kind of story.
I dont thi k thats true at all -
Lets see, oldest stories - buddhism, hiduism - none of them are about individualism.
I wouldn't say the christian writing or that of ancient Egypt is about individualism either.
The oldest 'hero's journey' I can think of, would be myths of ancient greece - but ewually, many of them are not heroic, they are dramas.
The dominance of this genre is a compeltely modern phenomena