> That, I think, is the primary tension: not between the family and the state, as Boyle argues, but between individual and collective ambitions.

I guess I don't see much difference? It would be hard to describe a family as anything other than an individual ambition in this country. The state certainly provides very little support to most people.

This in effect seems like a long-winded way of blaming people for wanting a family in the first place.

Edit: mod-limited so responding here: Sure that part I get, but isn't this also trivially a "family vs state" matter in addition to an "individual vs collective" manner? I don't get what is gained by ignoring the former interpretation.