OK, you're replying weird, but let's go with this....
> Yes, now you understand. Someone saying nuclear families do well is not saying extended families do worse.
I mean, I reject that logic, but my initial question was do nuclear families do better than extended families? If we go with this "subset" argument and nuclear families are the best because they are a subset of extended families, then the best outcomes for children are single orphaned people without children because they are subsets of every family.
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.
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.
Extended family is definitely better for raising kids. The problem is nuclear family is better for chasing good jobs and making money (likely far away from extended family).
As the saying goes, you can serve Mammon/wealth, or god/your community of origin, but not both.
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.
Search the dictionary for "subset." The nuclear family is a subset of larger families; if 3 generations live together the nuclear family is still present.
-------
RE:
>With that approach then all nuclear families contain subset single-parent and childless families as well.
Yes, now you understand. Someone saying nuclear families do well is not saying extended families do worse. Your premise is completely a straw man.
-------
>If we go with this "subset" logic and nuclear families are the best because they are a subset of extended families, then the best outcomes for children are single orphaned people without children because they are subsets of every family.
This is another strawman. You made the assertion about extended families, not op. Op was talking about nuclear families. If the extended family includes the nuclear family, then necessarily a statement made about the nuclear family still applies to the child contained in that family.
No one said they were better because they are a subset, they're saying the superset of the subset is not said to be worse. That is, a nuclear family is not said to be worse than an orphan child. It's entirely an argument of your own making to imply one is saying the superset is worse than the subset, when nothing of the sort was implied.
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.
Nuclear family is also about lesser importance put of relationships with grandparents, adult siblings, aunts and so on. It also implies higher isolation from community.
It is not universally objectively the best thing ever.
I’m not sure that you understand the meaning of nuclear family. It is a family composed of mom, dad, and kids. This differs from single parent households. You may want to rethink what you wrote.
This isn't actually true at all. The extended family is the historically most long lasting form of organisation, people banding together in communities of about 100-150 people, sharing responsibility and living in multi-generational environments.
This was the case until very recently in fact. The nuclear family is largely an abberation brought on by the commercialisation of what used to be the job of a village. David Brooks wrote an excellent piece on the development (in the US in particular) not long ago:
The dysfunction you're speaking about is actually a result of that very same dynamic. Largely affluent upper-middle classes have replaced the extended family with professional services and shrunk the family unit down. It's poor people and minority communities who, lacking those resources, have suffered the most from the breakdown of the extended family.
Ah, so there's a confusion in regards to terminology. My understanding is that a nuclear family and a multigenerational family aren't the same thing. From Wikipedia:
"A nuclear family, elementary family or conjugal family is 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, the larger extended family, or a family with more than two parents."[1]
From the Miriam Webster site:
"Well, yes. Nuclear families—the term refers to a family group that consists only of parents and children—are nuclear but in a sense of that word that's now much less common than today's most common uses of nuclear."[2]
I take it you mean "both parents + any number of extras" with your definition?
It's also completely against human nature, especially when it comes to raising kids. We have always lived in large groups and kids were nurtured by and brought up by many members of family, instead of just father and mother. It results in much healthier humans, who learned from all members of family, because who's to say that father and mother themselves only are best guardians? Not to mention the sheer amount of effort required to take care of a child, which was shared by much larger extended family or just tribe members. Today's nuclear family mostly brings mental issues and overburdens the parents in an unnatural way.
It's interesting that you consider the nuclear family as "traditional", while it's actually a fairly recent phenomenon. And in many places in the world it's still common for a family to consist of multiple generations and often aunts/uncles/cousins/etc. living in the same household.
To question a different part of your argument to other commenters: I am very much under the impression that the nuclear family is a fairly unusual mode of societal organisation, historically speaking, because it doesn't provide enough security to protect one's small family from the unpredictability of life. Instead most cultures have, when unable to provide large scale welfare programmes, adopted a range of other measures for spreading risk throughout kinship and other groups, such as extended families, where success and failure is spread across family members.
edit: I should have also mentioned that I firmly support the greater social freedom, such as the ability to choose the nature of one's family, afforded by our more integrated and (in my view) enlightened states.
I'll go further and say the nuclear family as a default is harmful. A few years into raising my kid (who has no health issues) convinced me of this. It can be quite isolating and lonely. I cannot imagine what it is like for parents of children who have more significant needs to both work and try to run a nuclear family.
A more "natural" arrangement occurs if we all don't run to large cities chasing glory and gold (which I have done, full disclosure, much to my child-caring woes). There is nothing wrong with nuclear families if you add in something like "nuclear communities".
In many small towns or suburban cities, 3 generations live nearby, with all the aunts and uncles. Help with care is always next door, and children are raised with dozens of frequent visitors or caretakers. I'm quite jealous of the quality of life of my inlaws / extended family for these reasons.
reply