Interestingly, one of the things cults and totalitarian regimes have in common is a singular obsession with subverting the primacy of the nuclear family and the parent/child relationship.
(I’m already responding more thoughtfully in other areas of this thread, so won’t regurgitate the same points here)
Same goes for cults, calling something a cult doesn't automatically mean it is an organisation dedicated to destroying itself. Some cults are organised by people who ultimately want their community to be successful and hold extremely worthwhile values. Too much authoritarianism will be a disaster but nuclear families are a good compromise position where there is just a dash of authority in the small.
Now, of course, if 99 kids learned to fly, then the opposite conclusion should be drawn - so, as in all things, we need nuance and a good understanding of the situation, not first principles thinking and anecdotes.
That gets in the way of Empire and economic flexibility.
Has it? I thought most colonies relied on corporate families.
If a parent's control over a child is subverted it doesn't change the relationship or family structure.
Citation needed!
My read of history is that it’s the single most stable and ubiquitous human social arrangement by a very long shot.
eg:
Some sociologists and anthropologists consider the extended family structure to be the most common family structure in most cultures and at most times for humans, rather than the nuclear family.
which also provides the common use definitions:
A nuclear family (also known as an elementary family, atomic family, or conjugal family) is a term for a family group consisting of parents and their children (one or more), typically living in one home residence.
It is in contrast to a single-parent family, a larger extended family, or a family with more than two parents.
Contemporary trends such as increased one-parent families, high divorce rates, second marriages and homosexual partnerships have all contributed to variations in the traditional family structure.
But to what degree has the function of the family changed and how have these changes affected family roles in cultures throughout the world? This book attempts to answer these questions through a psychological study of families in thirty nations, carefully selected to present a diverse cultural mix.
The study utilises both cross-cultural and indigenous perspectives to analyse variables including family networks, family roles, emotional bonds, personality traits, self-construal, and 'family portraits' in which the authors address common core themes of the family as they apply to their native countries.
From the introductory history of the study of the family to the concluding indigenous psychological analysis of the family, this book is a source for students and researchers in psychology, sociology and anthropology.EDIT: If you're arguing mixture of experts works better, than sure, I got you, if your arguing that there's a more non-binary way to do the self replication, that's a harder road to hoe. At least if you want to do it for free, which has a better track record of working for most people.
The nuclear family was an oddity that developed in England concomitant to the Industrial Revolution in middle-class families for whom occupational relocation was common. It was enshrined as an ideal sociological familial arrangement in the United States because its normalization was conducive for developing larger pools of productive labor.
As opposed to pseudo-Confucius China where larger pools of productive labor naturally formed?
That doesn't take away anything from the fundamental point where it's the smallest self-replicating unit, logic on behalf of the participants has nothing to do with it because it works out the gate. Of course it isn't the best, it was developed during a time of struggle and turmoil a la the industrial revolution (for the rural poor), it won because it was the the most resilient model (small, mobile, reactive, etc) to hard times.
Edit: I said developed, if formed is a word that helps you understand that it's not conscious then here you go
Its really tertiary education and suburbia that undermined the corporate family, atomising it. The Atomic family is modern.
Long lasting societies have a larger formal weave based on outworking and out breeding, formally moieties in the indigenous peoples of North America, Australia, Indonesia and elsewhere.
A single family unit alone is insufficient and historically cycles members in and out over half a generation through marriage and fortune seeking.
I've seen your other comments and they have that kind of first order depth expected of a simple thought and looking things up quickly on a phone.
Here's a very shallow introduction to a family of systems with many variations that lasted some 70 thousand years keeping bloodlines clean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiety_(kinship)
The comment chain you replied to said it's a stable and ubiquitous arrangement. You're not trying to argue it's stable or even that it's an arrangement - you're just arguing it can be found within a larger structure. It's as if someone said cliques and anticliques aren't good designs for computer networks, and you said yes they are, because every network of a certain size contains a clique or an anticlique by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey%27s_theorem - that may be true but it's incidental.
It's also as if someone is saying that Java isn't best at functional programming, and you pointed out that yes it is, because look at all the functions calling other functions.
I am willing to bet you will be fairly shocked at how recent it is, given your comment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_ancient_Rome
You had the familia, which was similar to the current nuclear family, but that was wrapped into the larger gens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gens
people cared not just about the success of their intermediate family, but also their gens, which was similar to a clan.
You'll have similar structures in many tribal societies.
Do you have actual statistics to support your hypothesis that
> My read of history is that it’s the single most stable and ubiquitous human social arrangement by a very long shot.
besides just "oh yeah bro, it's my read of history bro, totally rigorous"?
Nuclear family has never had primacy - look at wild, dangerous places, primacy is held by extended family, clans, tribes or mafia.
‘Nuclear family primacy’ exists only In carefully crafted stable and safe societies, and another authority must exist to organise military-age men for matters of war and survival.
Thus nuclear family can only exist as we know it, in a partially undermined condition.
Like with low birth rates, this appears to stem more from modernity than anything else. Both Western and non-Western societies placed more of an emphasis on extended families in the past, and both have placed less of an emphasis on them as they've modernized. Western societies have been at the forefront of a lot of modern changes, so these changes were more noticeable in them.
But past a toddler age, in a large clan-like structure, if your father and the clan's patriarch give you conflicting orders, who do you obey?
This question is moot in a nuclear-family society, with relatives beside father and mother minding their own children, and not more.
Good question, here’s one for you: if your father and a police officer give you conflicting orders, who do you obey?
The existence of a layer cake of social units doesn’t argue against the primacy of the nuclear family. Here’s another question for you: who’s more likely to advocate for your interest, your father or the clan’s patriarch?
This goes to show that you, along with many other commenters here, do not grasp the concept because it’s so different from your experience.
Extended family would often raise your kids, I know a person that was taken away by extended family as a child because the father had anger management issues.
They are not functionaries like police, they actually share responsibility. In case of conflict, loyalty is highly situational. And if your mother dies, they would be expected to take you in, even if your father is alive and well.
Yeah, but the default was for them to be raised by their nuclear family.
>throughout most of human history, people grew up with their mother, father, and siblings being the most important people in their lives.
Throughout most of history people grew up with their mother, 3 aunts, their dad, 5 uncles, and grandparents if they are lucky, learning the single trade of their entire family. The "Nuclear" family is the atomisation of this corporate family through modern practices (Finance, Tertiary Education, Suburbia)
I’m a simple man, so I like to use the dictionary when there’s a disagreement about what something means. In this case, my phone’s dictionary, which cites the Oxford American dictionary as its source, has the definition of ‘nuclear family’ as “a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit” and I’m not seeing how anything I wrote is in disagreement with that.
Sure, people often grow up with other relatives. But we have other terms for them, which belies their reduced importance in our lives vs our parents and siblings.
Kids that don’t grow up with their parents do not learn them as first words. Kids that do grow up with their parents, often still learn something else as their first words.
Learning X as your first word does not prove that X is a foundational unit of society, it simply does not follow.
I feel like you have conflated the nuclear family (a method of organising the basic social unit of a society) with "The importance of parents". The nuclear family simply isnt the only basic social unit with parents in it.
>nuclear families are so pervasively important
Parents are very important. The nuclear family does not have a monopoly on parents.
This doesnt agree with anything I said lmao. A corporate family is much larger than a nuclear family.
>Sure, people often grow up with other relatives.
Not in the same house, as the basic social unit.