4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - Avicebron 1y ago
    Isn't the extended family just a superset of the nuclear (or atomic) family? Defining the boundaries at grand-parents, aunts and uncles (I'm guessing proximity-based living relatives is kind of where you're making the boundary). By that logic an extended family is a nuclear family (formally) as it contains the definition of nuclear families by default, the nuclear family is just the smallest self replicating unit we've got available by default. Sperm (differential change between gens), (egg - really mitochondria) consistent base stability (ground truth) across gens, and the ability to self replicate. 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.
    - weft 1y ago
      There's no "logic" here, you're just not aware of the history of the term and the sociological history behind it. 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.
      - Avicebron 1y ago
        > 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
- weft 1y ago
  It's not even the most stable or ubiquitous family arrangement in the modern day.
  - toasterlovin 1y ago
    It is. I think you’re bringing a lot of baggage to the term. In common usage (verified on my phone dictionary), it simply means a couple and their dependent children. It doesn’t require that they live separately from extended family. It doesn’t require that all the children have the same biological parents. It doesn’t even require that the parents are different sexes. Or that the parents are married and live together. It’s just a more specific term to remove the “extended” sense of the more general “family.”
    - immibis 1y ago
      You're telling me that the nuclear family - two parents and their children living as a unit without drama - is more ubiquitous and stable than, say, the exchange of goods and services for money? Divorce rates and credit card would beg to differ. 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 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.
- devmor 1y ago
  I would suggest that you do some actual reading of anthropology - or just look up what the term “nuclear family” means and where it started. I am willing to bet you will be fairly shocked at how recent it is, given your comment.
  - toasterlovin 1y ago
    I think you’re actually confused about the term, see my responses elsewhere in this thread.
    - devmor 1y ago
      If you are going to refuse to actually look at what the term means and insist that you are correct there is no conversation to be had.
      - toasterlovin 1y ago
        Look, I don’t know what to tell you. Dictionaries contain the meanings of words and terms as commonly used. If you look up “nuclear family,” the meaning comports entirely with how I have been using the term. I’m sorry that’s inconvenient for your self conception.
- achenet 1y ago
  what about Roman families? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_ancient_Rome 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 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"?
- andrepd 1y ago
  I don't think it is. Cultures around the world had wildly different familial and child-bearing organisations, too much for the nuclear family to be considered a cultural universal.

by 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.
- Avicebron 1y ago
  Isn't the extended family just a superset of the nuclear (or atomic) family? Defining the boundaries at grand-parents, aunts and uncles (I'm guessing proximity-based living relatives is kind of where you're making the boundary). By that logic an extended family is a nuclear family (formally) as it contains the definition of nuclear families by default, the nuclear family is just the smallest self replicating unit we've got available by default. Sperm (differential change between gens), (egg - really mitochondria) consistent base stability (ground truth) across gens, and the ability to self replicate. 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.
  - weft 1y ago
    There's no "logic" here, you're just not aware of the history of the term and the sociological history behind it. 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.
    - Avicebron 1y ago
      > 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
weft 1y ago
It's not even the most stable or ubiquitous family arrangement in the modern day.
- toasterlovin 1y ago
  It is. I think you’re bringing a lot of baggage to the term. In common usage (verified on my phone dictionary), it simply means a couple and their dependent children. It doesn’t require that they live separately from extended family. It doesn’t require that all the children have the same biological parents. It doesn’t even require that the parents are different sexes. Or that the parents are married and live together. It’s just a more specific term to remove the “extended” sense of the more general “family.”
  - immibis 1y ago
    You're telling me that the nuclear family - two parents and their children living as a unit without drama - is more ubiquitous and stable than, say, the exchange of goods and services for money? Divorce rates and credit card would beg to differ. 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 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.
devmor 1y ago
I would suggest that you do some actual reading of anthropology - or just look up what the term “nuclear family” means and where it started. I am willing to bet you will be fairly shocked at how recent it is, given your comment.
- toasterlovin 1y ago
  I think you’re actually confused about the term, see my responses elsewhere in this thread.
  - devmor 1y ago
    If you are going to refuse to actually look at what the term means and insist that you are correct there is no conversation to be had.
    - toasterlovin 1y ago
      Look, I don’t know what to tell you. Dictionaries contain the meanings of words and terms as commonly used. If you look up “nuclear family,” the meaning comports entirely with how I have been using the term. I’m sorry that’s inconvenient for your self conception.
achenet 1y ago
what about Roman families? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_ancient_Rome 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 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"?
andrepd 1y ago
I don't think it is. Cultures around the world had wildly different familial and child-bearing organisations, too much for the nuclear family to be considered a cultural universal.