6 ms·

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

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.

Braxton1980 1y ago
How does this subvert the nuclear family? If a parent's control over a child is subverted it doesn't change the relationship or family structure.
dayvigo 1y ago
One of the things all abusive and controlling parents have is a singular obsession with maintaining the primacy of the nuclear family and absolute parental authority.
- toasterlovin 1y ago
  Excellent riposte! (I’m already responding more thoughtfully in other areas of this thread, so won’t regurgitate the same points here)
- roenxi 1y ago
  Another thing they have in common is having children. A group of bad people having something in common doesn't tell us anything about the thing. Obviously the motivation in their case might be a bit suspect but nuclear families with strong parental authority are nonetheless a good model for families. I'd argue an extended family is probably a little bit better, but nuclear isn't bad. 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.
- vintermann 1y ago
  And many such parents are in cults similarly guarding them, it's not true at all what the grandparent post says that cults don't value the nuclear family. They often value it a lot more than the rest of society, and it's often a key part of their marketing.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
[dead]
sanderjd 1y ago
I'm confused though, children getting information via unfiltered access to the internet is a subversion of "the primacy of the nuclear family and the parent/child relationship", no?
- wavefunction 1y ago
  that's just a kid, unsupervised where are the parents in your scenario anyways that's how I learned to fly, without the chains people like you want to throw on the rest of us stay down there in the muck and grime
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    I think this is unfairly assuming what I want, when I didn't specify that in my comment.
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    If a hundred kids throw themselves off the cliff and one learns to fly, it's not oppressive to the one who did learn to fly to prevent other kids from throwing themselves off that same cliff and probably end up like the 99 that didn't. 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.
- toasterlovin 1y ago
  Yes, I was agreeing with you.
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    I get what you meant now, after reading more of the thread.
devmor 1y ago
The nuclear family is neither a natural nor ubiquitous relationship, though. Any other dynamic of social support - whether it be manipulative or freeing - may likely subvert it.
- toasterlovin 1y ago
  > The nuclear family is neither a natural nor ubiquitous relationship Citation needed! My read of history is that it’s the single most stable and ubiquitous human social arrangement by a very long shot.
  - defrost 1y ago
    History, by my reading, seems more replete with examples of extended families, which include additional relatives like grandparents, aunts, and uncles. 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. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. Other sources include: Families Across Cultures: A 30-Nation Psychological Study (2006) from Cambridge press by the same author cited in wikipedia (James Georgas) and others: John W. Berry, Fons J. R. van de Vijver, Cigdem Kagitcibasi, Ype H. Poortinga 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.
ClumsyPilot 1y ago
This is mostly a fiction. 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.
- toasterlovin 1y ago
  It’s absolutely not a fiction that the nuclear family is the most important human social arrangement. In every language I’m aware of, a child’s first word is ‘mother’ and in most languages ‘father’ follows shortly thereafter. Other social arrangements are important (we live in societies or tribes or clans, after all), but throughout most of human history, people grew up with their mother, father, and siblings being the most important people in their lives.
  - yonaguska 1y ago
    It's very odd to me seeing nuclear family being propped up in an exclusive/or relationship with a strong extended family. Every strong extended family dynamic that I've seen is the result of a strong nuclear family from a generation before.
    - weft 1y ago
      That distinction is what defines a "nuclear family" to begin with...
    - toasterlovin 1y ago
      To be clear, I am not arguing that nuclear and extended families are exclusive of each other. I think most of the people arguing against me are confused about this. Anthropologists dichotomize societies by nuclear family vs extended family because Western societies basically don’t have extended families as an important social unit at all, whereas in many societies the extended family is an important social unit. And the difference usually has a lot of implications. Hence the dichotomy being useful. But this does not mean that in societies where extended families are important that they are more important than nuclear families. And really this shouldn’t be surprising: we’re not bees. We form reproductive pairs. Our children are twice as related to us as our nieces and nephews. There’s no way it could ever come to be that the nuclear family would not be the primary human social institution.
protocolture 1y ago
The nuclear family is such a recent concept so I have a lot of trouble understanding this wacky point of view. The nuclear family is itself a destruction of the corporate family. How do weird manosphere types identify it as somehow being the core of society.
- t-3 1y ago
  To be fair, it has been the dominant mode of familial organization in colonial powers for the past 100+ years. When economics are stable from generation to generation there would be far less tendency to split households - only in times of abundance or want would it make sense for each generational unit to live separately. Killing off natives and taking their land and resources tends to create an awful lot of abundance. The nuclear family thus symbolizes prosperity and the right-wing mythological ideal of past abundance that can be regained by returning to "traditional values".
  - lazide 1y ago
    Multigenerational families are hard to move, and come with a lot of baggage (hah). That gets in the way of Empire and economic flexibility.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    >To be fair, it has been the dominant mode of familial organization in colonial powers for the past 100+ years Has it? I thought most colonies relied on corporate families.
    - t-3 1y ago
      The colonized often do - the colonizers are the ones splitting and creating new families as quickly as possible in order to occupy more resources and grab a larger slice of the opportunities afforded by empire.
      - protocolture 1y ago
        Perhaps but when I look into examples of corporate families they are almost always in a colonial context. Like you might be more likely to fragment if opportunities exist, and franchise out. But you still get the same stories of a family farm or workshop being owned and operated by multiple generations until the young ones get a tertiary opportunity to take on something else.
soulofmischief 1y ago
You mean like our current totalitarian, oligarchical US government?

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.

Braxton1980 1y ago

How does this subvert the nuclear family? If a parent's control over a child is subverted it doesn't change the relationship or family structure.

dayvigo 1y ago

One of the things all abusive and controlling parents have is a singular obsession with maintaining the primacy of the nuclear family and absolute parental authority.

toasterlovin 1y ago
Excellent riposte! (I’m already responding more thoughtfully in other areas of this thread, so won’t regurgitate the same points here)
roenxi 1y ago
Another thing they have in common is having children. A group of bad people having something in common doesn't tell us anything about the thing. Obviously the motivation in their case might be a bit suspect but nuclear families with strong parental authority are nonetheless a good model for families. I'd argue an extended family is probably a little bit better, but nuclear isn't bad. 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.
vintermann 1y ago
And many such parents are in cults similarly guarding them, it's not true at all what the grandparent post says that cults don't value the nuclear family. They often value it a lot more than the rest of society, and it's often a key part of their marketing.

Der_Einzige 1y ago

[dead]

sanderjd 1y ago

I'm confused though, children getting information via unfiltered access to the internet is a subversion of "the primacy of the nuclear family and the parent/child relationship", no?

wavefunction 1y ago
that's just a kid, unsupervised where are the parents in your scenario anyways that's how I learned to fly, without the chains people like you want to throw on the rest of us stay down there in the muck and grime
- sanderjd 1y ago
  I think this is unfairly assuming what I want, when I didn't specify that in my comment.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  If a hundred kids throw themselves off the cliff and one learns to fly, it's not oppressive to the one who did learn to fly to prevent other kids from throwing themselves off that same cliff and probably end up like the 99 that didn't. 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.
toasterlovin 1y ago
Yes, I was agreeing with you.
- sanderjd 1y ago
  I get what you meant now, after reading more of the thread.

devmor 1y ago

The nuclear family is neither a natural nor ubiquitous relationship, though. Any other dynamic of social support - whether it be manipulative or freeing - may likely subvert it.

toasterlovin 1y ago
> The nuclear family is neither a natural nor ubiquitous relationship Citation needed! My read of history is that it’s the single most stable and ubiquitous human social arrangement by a very long shot.
- defrost 1y ago
  History, by my reading, seems more replete with examples of extended families, which include additional relatives like grandparents, aunts, and uncles. 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. ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. Other sources include: Families Across Cultures: A 30-Nation Psychological Study (2006) from Cambridge press by the same author cited in wikipedia (James Georgas) and others: John W. Berry, Fons J. R. van de Vijver, Cigdem Kagitcibasi, Ype H. Poortinga 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.

ClumsyPilot 1y ago

This is mostly a fiction. 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.

toasterlovin 1y ago
It’s absolutely not a fiction that the nuclear family is the most important human social arrangement. In every language I’m aware of, a child’s first word is ‘mother’ and in most languages ‘father’ follows shortly thereafter. Other social arrangements are important (we live in societies or tribes or clans, after all), but throughout most of human history, people grew up with their mother, father, and siblings being the most important people in their lives.
- yonaguska 1y ago
  It's very odd to me seeing nuclear family being propped up in an exclusive/or relationship with a strong extended family. Every strong extended family dynamic that I've seen is the result of a strong nuclear family from a generation before.
  - weft 1y ago
    That distinction is what defines a "nuclear family" to begin with...
  - toasterlovin 1y ago
    To be clear, I am not arguing that nuclear and extended families are exclusive of each other. I think most of the people arguing against me are confused about this. Anthropologists dichotomize societies by nuclear family vs extended family because Western societies basically don’t have extended families as an important social unit at all, whereas in many societies the extended family is an important social unit. And the difference usually has a lot of implications. Hence the dichotomy being useful. But this does not mean that in societies where extended families are important that they are more important than nuclear families. And really this shouldn’t be surprising: we’re not bees. We form reproductive pairs. Our children are twice as related to us as our nieces and nephews. There’s no way it could ever come to be that the nuclear family would not be the primary human social institution.

protocolture 1y ago

The nuclear family is such a recent concept so I have a lot of trouble understanding this wacky point of view. The nuclear family is itself a destruction of the corporate family. How do weird manosphere types identify it as somehow being the core of society.

t-3 1y ago
To be fair, it has been the dominant mode of familial organization in colonial powers for the past 100+ years. When economics are stable from generation to generation there would be far less tendency to split households - only in times of abundance or want would it make sense for each generational unit to live separately. Killing off natives and taking their land and resources tends to create an awful lot of abundance. The nuclear family thus symbolizes prosperity and the right-wing mythological ideal of past abundance that can be regained by returning to "traditional values".
- lazide 1y ago
  Multigenerational families are hard to move, and come with a lot of baggage (hah). That gets in the way of Empire and economic flexibility.
- protocolture 1y ago
  >To be fair, it has been the dominant mode of familial organization in colonial powers for the past 100+ years Has it? I thought most colonies relied on corporate families.
  - t-3 1y ago
    The colonized often do - the colonizers are the ones splitting and creating new families as quickly as possible in order to occupy more resources and grab a larger slice of the opportunities afforded by empire.
    - protocolture 1y ago
      Perhaps but when I look into examples of corporate families they are almost always in a colonial context. Like you might be more likely to fragment if opportunities exist, and franchise out. But you still get the same stories of a family farm or workshop being owned and operated by multiple generations until the young ones get a tertiary opportunity to take on something else.

soulofmischief 1y ago

You mean like our current totalitarian, oligarchical US government?