What is a Family?

The idea of the family, not to mention "family values", has become something of a building block for people who dream of an ideal society.  Without the family, they warn, society would collapse into a rubble of terror and anarchy.  For the most part, the family is never clearly defined, although we can infer that the majority of these people are thinking of the 1950s American style family composed of husband, wife and several children.  Of course the family is much more extensive biologically; we ought to include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and all manner of more distant relatives.  Western societies do not tend to include many members beyond the nuclear family, although their connection and sometime importance is recognized.  The so-called traditional family is actually highly individual, based around the success of the husband/father, who is the public face of the family, while the wife/mother does all the background labor in the home and the children are the contribution they make to the future of society without being individuals on their own yet.  The problem is, this type of family is not especially successful without rigid social structures to sustain, as indeed any family may not be.  But, having this ideal become a rarity rather than seemingly normal achievement should make us rethink what our families really are.  The basic element is the feeling of responsibility for other members of the family - caring for them when they are sick or injured, making sure they reach an age when they can contribute to the survival of all the group, and other services are expected from family members.  The relationships and therefore responsibilities may be by blood or by law, as sometimes family members who have joined to be with their spouse take on greater responsibilities than blood kin.  While we imagine these acts to be universal among humans, we also need to take into account the human tendency to be lazy and selfish.  Many family members exploit the goodwill of the others, and the expectations of society that somebody with a blood connection will feel an obligation to support them, even if they have been nothing but vile and unpleasant.  So what is so magical about birth?  Why can we not choose for our family people who truly care about us and feel an urge to have a hand in our happiness and fulfillment?

Our Doctor, a man committed to his family, stated clearly that the idea of the family has changed over time, and what was is no longer and what is will disappear to become yet another thing.  He mentioned the cooperation of a family as a survival strategy for infants, but noted that perhaps 10% of babies born today are not the offspring of the male whose name is on the birth certificate.  He did not condemn the behavior that produces these statistics, merely saying that promiscuity is part of nature.  He gave his opinion that the state was taking over the function of the family in modern times, in the sense of providing for our old age and infirmity, through public health and pension services.  Still, the family with its smaller size than a city or nation is attractive, since there is a certain stability in it, and we look for stable situations.  Later on, he spoke of couples who marry, pointing out that genetic testing is not done as a matter of course, although we expect married couples to produce children.  The Doctor believes testing should be done, so that the incidence of inherited disease will drop, at least in his view.  He also mentioned the importance of family medical history to a doctor, since the prevalence of certain illnesses or disorders can help with treatments and diagnoses.  After speaking for some time about married couples and their reproductive capacities, he also found a moment to toss adoption in, although he was more concerned about the future emotional effects on children adopted by homosexuals than the health of children with no genetic family medical history.  His final thoughts were of the complexity of modern life, and the treacherousness of information; we have access to many things, but many interesting things are hidden from us, often in plain sight.  We inherit our culture, values and selves from what went before us, but every discussion is new.

The True Philosopher did not give us a preliminary writing this time around, preferring to spend some time with his family.  He was eloquent in the meeting, however, beginning by examining the relationship of the biological versus the social family.  The family is considered the smallest unit of a society, but the size of that family is determined at least in part by the type of society around it.  Agricultural societies, in need of more laborers, are more likely to incorporate extended families and promote bigger numbers of offspring, while industrial societies tend towards the more compact option.  He told us we were now past the time of the nuclear family, in fact, having arrived at the post-modern family, which is either expanded with members of different generations a bit like an extended family, or added to with members by marriages: step-families.  The communal family and polyamory were also mentioned, but not explored in depth as concepts, probably due to lack of familiarity.  We were also reminded of the colloquial use of "family" as an expression of emotional closeness to another person, somebody who is given the same protection and consideration as a family member in situations of distress or enjoyment.  The value of the family is seen in nepotism in politics, and business, a development carried over from feudal society, he said, in which close relations but also the relations of one's in-laws could expect preferential treatment when one had the power to give it.  The close, the Philosopher emphasized the emotion involved in defining the family, and the flexibility of the term to differing circumstances.

The Leader did prepare a short essay, focusing mainly on the family as a means for survival for the individual.  In the meeting he insisted that we cannot escape the links between the biological, the social, and the political with regard to the topic.  He echoed the Doctor's idea of the state taking on the role of the family in the sense of providing access to resources for the success of its members, saying that a minimum of resources is necessary, not only for a child to survive but to flourish.  The state has an obligation to its citizens, although maybe only to provide the bare minimum.  He later brought up the question of when the state should interfere in that family structure, in particular when abuse is an issue.  Children should be the responsibility of the family, but sometimes a family, like an individual, can shirk its responsibilities.  Looking at the smaller nuclear family, he said that not only did working parents have less time to produce and raise children, but more and better resources to ensure that any individual child will survive, and so less pressure to make "extras".  For many of modern societies ills, he threw the blame on politicians, who work for their own advancement rather than that of the society they supposedly serve.

The Writer mentioned several ideas about the family connected to work, such as the "company family".  The propagandistic image of the workplace as a family encourages the employees to make sacrifices for the good of the group, although they might never see any benefits themselves.  She also spoke to the preference for married employees, especially married men, saying that they are seen as more conservative and more likely to defend the status quo, although other participants had proposed that they were simply easier to manipulate or blackmail with the idea of their families suffering if they do not perform the job up to expectations.

It was another interesting discussion with a philosophical family.