I recall that argument, I just don’t read the platform page as charitably as you do. Even in an extended family network, the two parent unit is the nucleus. Particularly in view of the conspicuous absence of the word “father,” I read the platform point as seeking to further normalize the situation where kids are raised in households that lack fathers but includes other relatives (usually grandmothers and aunts).
I agree with you about the need to remove barriers to multi-generational households that include other relatives in addition to two parents. I just don’t read the platform that as being directed to that.
> the establishment of the discrete nuclear family as a social and labor unit divorced from kinship groups.
Where has the nuclear family ever been divorced from kinship groups. A nuclear family is by definition part of an extended network, because mom and dad are both parents of one nuclear family as well as children of two others. Without a strong nuclear family there is no kinship, and all nuclear families imply extended kin groups, by definition. I will never understand where this nonsense dichotomy of nuclear family v 'kin' has come from.
This title is pretty misleading. The article is actually recommending larger extended families which include nuclear families, not recommending that nuclear families be dissolved or otherwise done without.
As retro as that might sound, I agree with it. I wish I'd had access to multiple adults other than my parents growing up, but I didn't. Still feeling the lack of it.
We're not talking about the nuclear family in opposition to single parents or blended families. We're talking about it in opposition to extended and clan families. Which is why I explicitly mentioned extended ("broader") families and communities. Obviously having a mom and a dad is good.
I’ve seen a number of pieces like this that argue that the nuclear family is an aberration in history compared to the extended family. They are of course right, but almost inevitable fail to address the fact that the “nuclear” family is/was generally a part of those extended family structures. The reason it is called the “nuclear” family is the metaphor that the parents + child is the smallest divideable unit of family. The idea that nuclear family should exist in isolation is probably mistaken, but I arguments it shouldn’t exist at all completely uncompelling.
The evidence I saw presented was more along the lines that the nuclear family is “necessary but not generally sufficient” rather than something to be completed supplanted by a new paradigm, at least in the case of those that chose/are able to have children.
I think grandparent was alluding to a separation of the two concepts of sexual relations and family structure: (Two or more) People can decide to bring up a child together without being in a romantic/sexual relationship. (Two or more) People can be in a romantic and/or sexual relationship without sharing responsibility of a child of one of the partners. Under this prerequisite, a family is any close social connection surrounding children (and the closeness and type of closeness being the linchpin of whether the term applies – not every flat share is a family for instance).
Regarding overpopulation: One motivation that I've heard quite often is that one of the most effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint is to have one child less. This is always presented with the asterisk that this is of course a very personal decision and there is the understanding that this is not a standard under which you will be measured. Still, if you're just looking at the numbers, that's what you get. Sharing parentage with more than two people is an alluring way to achieve the same result, especially as it means you will retain more of your personal time when child care is shouldered by three (or more) people.
I think the phraseology you've chosen here is confusing. Agreed 100% that multi-generational upbringing is the natural and ideal style, but I don't think that "nuclear family concept" is necessarily closed off or exclusive to other extended family members. Multi-generational living involves several "nuclear families" all clung together. It doesn't oppose the concept.
> We Seek Solutions Within the Family Unit — Not Outside of It
I think one problem is that in the recent 50-100 years (at least in the "west") we messed up what family means.
In the past it was a non small support group, consisting of old and young people, people you are related to _and people you are not related to_ but which where "like family" for you and other family members.
But today the picture of family (as a support net) is often parents + children, maybe grant parent/grant children if they exist and that's it. I have seen enough situations where even the long term spouse of a child wasn't seen anymore as part of the family.
To make matters worse the internet is fully of people trying to spread hate and division, telling you to not accept at all anyone doing anything you don't agree with. But family isn't about accepting or finding it good what they do it's about being there to help them if they really need help, and in turn them being also there for you if needed.
This is the language from the BLM site regarding disrupting the nuclear family. I'm very pro nuclear family. This didn't seem bad to me.
--------------------------
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
-----------------
A nuclear family is a subset of the greater family, so I don't see your point. Having nuclear family plus less direct family members would be included in the nuclear family observation.
> Nuclear family is also about lesser importance put of relationships with grandparents, adult siblings, aunts and so on.
It could be, but I don't see the infographic saying that. The infographic could just as easily be saying that no family relationships at all is the (implied to be more desirable) alternative.
In fact, that's a big issue with the infographic as a whole: what alternatives are we supposed to compare all these things to? None are given.
Your initial claim was that people would be asked to have no family. At least acknowledge that the choice is "large family" vs. "medium/small family", and not "family" vs. "no family", instead of blithely shifting the argument.
I agree with you about the need to remove barriers to multi-generational households that include other relatives in addition to two parents. I just don’t read the platform that as being directed to that.
reply