6 ms·

The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake

43 points by gscott 7y ago

foolzcrow 7y ago
What a butthurt article. This is why the Atlantic is not very profitable nor popular.
seemslegit 7y ago
What most people can no longer afford - i.e. an entire house for one nuclear family must therefor be recast as undesirable
brianTheDog 7y ago
It seems like the author had an idea, then looked for anything that could help support the idea. The problem is the person only looks at the facts through their original idea.
- poulsbohemian 7y ago
  Isn't that pretty much a summary of everything David Brooks writes? I can't figure out how he keeps his job with the NY Times given his drivel.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  This is a generic comment you could put under any opinion piece as a quick and cheap slur. More valuable would be an actual critique of one or more of the points the author made as it might stimulate discussion.
yamrzou 7y ago
Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job. Very true. Nowadays society/state is supposed to replace what extended families provide, but they can not replace the warmth of the family.
- aeternum 7y ago
  This idea seems to be at the very core of the liberal / conservative divide, especially in America. Conservatives believe that the extended family, local community groups and churches best provide support for unexpected burdens. Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support.
  - nate_meurer 7y ago
    > Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support. Perhaps this was just careless wording, but I challenge you to find a liberal who thinks the state should replace the family in this regard. Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that fails, what is to be done? For liberals, the answer naturally involves a state enterprise.
    - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
      > Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that fails, what is to be done? That depends where in the West. In America, certainly there remains a place for churches and philantrophic clubs even among liberals who want a strong state-provided safety net. But if you look to e.g. Finland, the Church (there Lutheran and Orthodox) has stepped away from any real charity role now that there is a welfare state. One doesn’t tithe directly to one’s church, but instead a portion of one’s tax money goes directly to the Church one is a registered member of, and that money generally just pays that Church’s administrative bills instead of being spent on societal woes. That is, even the Church believes that the state is broadly a more effective force for these things than private charitable endeavours. Lions Clubs and Rotary Clubs still exist in the Nordic countries, but there are very niche compared to elsewhere.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      > Perhaps this was just careless wording, but I challenge you to find a liberal who thinks the state should replace the family in this regard. I think a better phraseology might be that liberals are insensitive to the fact that safety net social programs may displace support provided by charities and family. For example, consider two families, each with a retired grandfather, in a country where the state pays for child care. These subsidies are typically not available where care is provided by relatives. That creates a weird situation where both families are better off if each grandfather takes care of the other family's child. To slightly change the hypothetical, say instead of subsidizing child care you’re subsidizing baby formula. There is in fact strong opposition to such subsidies, even (and often especially) among liberals. The reason is that by making formula free you reduce the incentive to breastfeed (which is perceived as more beneficial). The false premise is that you can design a safety net program that only kicks in "when [community or family support] fails." The safety net becomes an alternative to community or family support, and disincentivize relying on the community or family for help. You don’t just affect the small number of people who have no alternative, you alter the whole equilibrium.
jameslk 7y ago
I felt like I just read the same points being repeated over and over. Pretty rambly to essentially claim "extended families > nuclear families." Yes, perhaps, if you don't mind giving up some of your individuality and liberty for family collectivism and control. There's cultures outside the US that uphold this to the extreme (Asian cultures come to mind). It's not a mistake in either case. You give up one thing for another.
- mercutio2 7y ago
  Brooks’s point, it seemed to me, was to make an erudite case for why the nuclear family is, even in the US, a historical oddity. This is not a point that’s routinely made in US cultural discussions, so it needed a fair amount of background. His next point was that what comes next is path dependent, and may not look like what’s come before. So it seems overly dismissive to say that Asian cultures offer an alternative trade-off, end of story. There are other possibilities besides tight genetically related extended families and nuclear families.
rhythnic 7y ago
IMO, this type of communal living strategy is the best remedy to a lot of the problems faced in America and in western cultural in general. Many of the problems were already stated in the article, so I'll just add suburban sprawl, the high cost of individual ownership of everything, including the house, and the increased workload that results from not sharing the labor of common tasks like cooking, cleaning, and caring for children. BF Skinner's Walden Two is a good read that goes more into detail on the advantages of communal living. As a non religious person weary of politics, neither the state nor church are good options.
- onetimemanytime 7y ago
  Yeah but you always get one person, be a wife or brother that starts "problems..." How do you keep peace?
  - acephal 7y ago
    I mean, most of human life has taken place in the context of extended familial and community support. I don't think we'd be facing new problems.

43 points by gscott 7y ago

What a butthurt article. This is why the Atlantic is not very profitable nor popular.

What most people can no longer afford - i.e. an entire house for one nuclear family must therefor be recast as undesirable

brianTheDog 7y ago

It seems like the author had an idea, then looked for anything that could help support the idea. The problem is the person only looks at the facts through their original idea.

poulsbohemian 7y ago
Isn't that pretty much a summary of everything David Brooks writes? I can't figure out how he keeps his job with the NY Times given his drivel.
ramblerman 7y ago
This is a generic comment you could put under any opinion piece as a quick and cheap slur. More valuable would be an actual critique of one or more of the points the author made as it might stimulate discussion.

yamrzou 7y ago

Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens—when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job. Very true. Nowadays society/state is supposed to replace what extended families provide, but they can not replace the warmth of the family.

aeternum 7y ago
This idea seems to be at the very core of the liberal / conservative divide, especially in America. Conservatives believe that the extended family, local community groups and churches best provide support for unexpected burdens. Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support.
- nate_meurer 7y ago
  > Liberals believe that the state and government should provide this support. Perhaps this was just careless wording, but I challenge you to find a liberal who thinks the state should replace the family in this regard. Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that fails, what is to be done? For liberals, the answer naturally involves a state enterprise.
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    > Liberal policies in the west are overwhelmingly framed in terms of safeguards and safety nets. For example, it would be great if churches and family structures would prevent homelessness, but when that fails, what is to be done? That depends where in the West. In America, certainly there remains a place for churches and philantrophic clubs even among liberals who want a strong state-provided safety net. But if you look to e.g. Finland, the Church (there Lutheran and Orthodox) has stepped away from any real charity role now that there is a welfare state. One doesn’t tithe directly to one’s church, but instead a portion of one’s tax money goes directly to the Church one is a registered member of, and that money generally just pays that Church’s administrative bills instead of being spent on societal woes. That is, even the Church believes that the state is broadly a more effective force for these things than private charitable endeavours. Lions Clubs and Rotary Clubs still exist in the Nordic countries, but there are very niche compared to elsewhere.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > Perhaps this was just careless wording, but I challenge you to find a liberal who thinks the state should replace the family in this regard. I think a better phraseology might be that liberals are insensitive to the fact that safety net social programs may displace support provided by charities and family. For example, consider two families, each with a retired grandfather, in a country where the state pays for child care. These subsidies are typically not available where care is provided by relatives. That creates a weird situation where both families are better off if each grandfather takes care of the other family's child. To slightly change the hypothetical, say instead of subsidizing child care you’re subsidizing baby formula. There is in fact strong opposition to such subsidies, even (and often especially) among liberals. The reason is that by making formula free you reduce the incentive to breastfeed (which is perceived as more beneficial). The false premise is that you can design a safety net program that only kicks in "when [community or family support] fails." The safety net becomes an alternative to community or family support, and disincentivize relying on the community or family for help. You don’t just affect the small number of people who have no alternative, you alter the whole equilibrium.

jameslk 7y ago

I felt like I just read the same points being repeated over and over. Pretty rambly to essentially claim "extended families > nuclear families." Yes, perhaps, if you don't mind giving up some of your individuality and liberty for family collectivism and control. There's cultures outside the US that uphold this to the extreme (Asian cultures come to mind). It's not a mistake in either case. You give up one thing for another.

mercutio2 7y ago
Brooks’s point, it seemed to me, was to make an erudite case for why the nuclear family is, even in the US, a historical oddity. This is not a point that’s routinely made in US cultural discussions, so it needed a fair amount of background. His next point was that what comes next is path dependent, and may not look like what’s come before. So it seems overly dismissive to say that Asian cultures offer an alternative trade-off, end of story. There are other possibilities besides tight genetically related extended families and nuclear families.

rhythnic 7y ago

IMO, this type of communal living strategy is the best remedy to a lot of the problems faced in America and in western cultural in general. Many of the problems were already stated in the article, so I'll just add suburban sprawl, the high cost of individual ownership of everything, including the house, and the increased workload that results from not sharing the labor of common tasks like cooking, cleaning, and caring for children. BF Skinner's Walden Two is a good read that goes more into detail on the advantages of communal living. As a non religious person weary of politics, neither the state nor church are good options.

onetimemanytime 7y ago
Yeah but you always get one person, be a wife or brother that starts "problems..." How do you keep peace?
- acephal 7y ago
  I mean, most of human life has taken place in the context of extended familial and community support. I don't think we'd be facing new problems.