tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4741690669047763437.post586300381322262201..comments2011-03-29T11:29:12.120-06:00Peter McCombshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12333718206927063057noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4741690669047763437.post-62065819688506962362011-03-29T11:29:12.120-06:002011-03-29T11:29:12.120-06:00It seems that most religiously-minded Christians think of the nuclear family of the past two to three hundred years as the traditional family.<br /><br />I prefer the high medieval family that might very well include a good deal of extended family and even some outsiders. The word &quot;family&quot; comes from the Latin word for &quot;household,&quot; and I believe that the home is a primary ingredient in family life. <br /><br />A proper family (household) should be self-sufficient in health care, employment, religion, education, and so forth. The wider community and public offerings serve the family interests. A clinic or hospital could provide advanced synthetic medicine where the family herbs fail; a school provides specialized instruction where the generalism of the family leaves off; other families and enterprises provide work opportunities as children--lacking a family trade--desire to make their way in the world. It&#39;s the old idea of subsidiarity and of first-things-first.<br /><br />These days, &quot;public&quot; means &quot;government.&quot; Government is often the same as private, only we all pay for it. Schools are big jobs projects, and they bring with them a lot of rules that we must live by. I can&#39;t teach my own kids, for instance, without permission. That&#39;s sort of putting things upside down, in my view. <br /><br />The modern nuclear family is only viable as an economic entity, where it is possible for a father to obtain the needs of everyone by hiring himself out for a wage. Here I use &quot;economic&quot; in the modern sense, quite opposite its literal meaning. When families are viewed as having a primarily economic function, rather than as self-contained, self-sufficient communities, one realizes that the pieces are interchangeable. The money economy makes it so (Simmel pretty much put the cap on that one); it doesn&#39;t matter so much who the breadwinner is, how many adults participate, etc. Traditional roles are not necessary in a family beholden to the mature money economy that dissolves essential personal relationships. <br /><br />Even the procreative function of families is transfered simultaneously to the narrowness of the individual and the wideness of the greater community. Sex serves a recreational purpose rather than for family (self) preservation. In the old sense, sex was the most serious oath of fealty to one&#39;s spouse. <br /><br />I&#39;m speaking sociologically. Some religious will still argue in a modern context for this particular medieval structure with its defined roles, but that is terribly un-perceptive. Our view that a semantic redefinition of marriage, for example, threatens the traditional family is pure nonsense. This redefinition actually lags reality (the revolution follows the change). If we want the nuclear family with its wider economic underpinnings; if we favor urban hive-mind mentality and efficiency and certain forms of egalitarianism, then we can&#39;t be picky about old family roles. Those roles really did serve a definite social function that had nothing to do with the money economy, equality, individualism, or our other modern social values.Peter McCombshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12333718206927063057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4741690669047763437.post-71227069938041940062011-03-28T17:31:29.113-06:002011-03-28T17:31:29.113-06:00What is the traditional family? What *has* to be present to make up the traditional family?<br /><br />What is community as family? <br /><br />What is government as family?<br /><br />Couldn&#39;t we aspire to a more insect-like, hive-mind mentality, where we are sexless drones dependent on the queen to produce the next generation? This sort of thing would expedite best business practices and procedures marvelously and increase productivity. Raise children with the Internet and TV.<br /><br />Seriously, though, what do you think the responsibilities of the traditional family are for raising children to adulthood. Furthermore, depending on how well or how poorly the traditional family fulfills these responsibilities, where does public school fit in? Is it necessary only in the cases of unwilling or incapable parents?Davehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14666398157083700750noreply@blogger.com