A Nuclear Disaster

The nuclear family is a consumer fantasy.

The nuclear family is a concept of the late 20th century. It is strong in western Europe and North America, and is the basis for much consumer marketing. As emerging adults we are expected to get married, to buy a car or two, perhaps a boat or a shack, to have a mortgage, and to have children – to start a family.

Start mind you, not continue, nor extend: start.

To begin, where a family did not previously exist.

It requires two to start with – one of each sex – but really only becomes a full family when children are born into it. The classic model has a full time male breadwinner and a female who may earn a second income and is also part-time manager, mother, coach, cleaner and cook.

Everything from houses to holidays to hamburgers is presented to us in the context of a happy family of 2+n, that after all is what a family is, isn't it?

Emphatically, NO!

In most ‘primitive’ societies the nuclear family on which our society places such importance almost doesn't exist. Certainly they have rules of sexual exclusivity among couples (necessary for the control of sexually transmitted diseases and thus the health of the community) and that enables a pair of parents to be linked with a number of children who are biologically their offspring.

In a biological sense the nuclear family exists and may be clearly defined, but in a social context the situation is dramatically different. Socially it is the case that a youth's uncles are more important to him and the management of his development than is his father. Similarly the tuition and guidance of a girl is the responsibility of the female adults collectively not just of her mother. The old men and the crones of the community rule the roost and ensure that the children are taught what is necessary. This is not the task of the biological parents, and while their input as members of the community is expected, it is no more important than another's.

This arrangement has a number of advantages. It provides a platform of social security which our (cash based) Western models merely mock. There are no gaps in the primitive system, everybody belongs equally; there are no chronic malingerers and there is no significant abuse of the system.

It also means that a person born to parents with less skill in training need not suffer the full consequences of the variance with which fate assigns us our parents. Rather, the standard of training is set and moderated by the community leaders, ensuring that nobody suffers unduly from the weakness of his parents.

In our society we have established schools with the intent of achieving the same result, however these are operational for only about 15% of a student's waking hours and that leaves 85% as the responsibility of our carers. Increasingly we see parents choosing to keep their children more closely guided and home-schooling to preserve their religious faith from corruption or to shelter their children from the perceived dangers and misplaced values of the world. It does not require much genius to see the risks inherent in this.

(While the incidence of home-schooling just might be correlated with the ability of the parents to understand and deal well with the diversity of views and opinions held by others in the wider community, it does not follow that any particular home-schooling parent is hiding from diversity; nor that any particular child is likely to be disadvantaged by home-schooling.)

The extended family responsibility has other advantages. If a child loses a biological parent (or even several from that generation, perhaps to war or disease) the loss is relatively minor. The child's security is not at risk, so long as the community remains it will continue to care for him. Because his identity and self image is not dependent on the support of his biological parents, he may grieve for them but he is not especially vulnerable to their loss. His personal care will continue as long as the community itself survives at all. Nobody should think for a moment that government welfare payments are any kind of substitute for this personal care.

As an adult the extended family can provide emotional support and guidance which the nuclear family simply cannot offer. A young man learning how to become an independent and useful member of society can find much assistance in the mentoring of his uncles; they can pull his unreasonable zeal or ambitions into the cultural context, and they can encourage him when his failures and shortcomings seem to be overwhelming. Likewise a woman dealing with her first child (and to a lesser extent her later ones) may enjoy a great deal of practical assistance from the experienced women of the community when she places her trust in them. There are many things that only other mothers can fully understand, and the way a woman feels about and listens to her body is not something which she is ever going to learn from television.

Regrettably in our nuclear families, apart from a few failing government services, in most cases she has only a man to help her (about as much use as tits on a bull); and she has neither the experience nor the reserves to offer him the kind of support he really needs when the heat is on. Our expectations and requirements of each other in the context of a nuclear family are nothing short of bizarre, and often simply cannot be delivered.

In the last decade we have seen a proliferation of single parent families, surviving largely on the back of government programs intended to ensure that the nuclear families which are deprived of a breadwinner (usually presumed male) are not too grossly disadvantaged. Those who will argue that children are adequately trained and developed by a single parent simply do not understand what is required. (Again, it does not follow that any particular child growing up in such circumstances will be in disabled by the experience – only that the risks are too large for the single parent family to be considered an acceptable model.)

There will always be people so ignorant as this and it is tempting to feel that their children should be protected from them. I have no idea how, except to adopt the more traditional model of extended family responsibilities.

Our society nevertheless presumes that a family is the nuclear model of 2+n, and that this is adequate. Perhaps as an advertising platform it is, however in the long run I believe that we must seek something more reliable. We have over-valued the nuclear family, we imagine ourselves as parents to be the only ones who can adequately defend our children's interests. This is not just simply untrue, it is a deceptive denial.

We must strive to have the value of our wider relationships recognised and more fully available to our children. To offer them anything less is to sell them short.

To my own children, I apologise that I have offered you so little.

Peter

Original: September ‘99
This page is part of “Living in the Light”
found at: http://www.geocities.com/phoban2000/

Finding focus Understanding motivation Religion & faith Sexuality Families Front page