StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0312/p11s02-lifp.html

Commentary: Does this indicate the rise of a specific societal trend? That is to say, a reordering of the nature of might be defined as marriage? Previously marriage was a union - principally sexual - between a man and a woman, in western society, and forming the core of a nuclear family. An extended family with a marriage core which might have several more members, and either a man or a woman as the theoretical head in practice or in lineage, could serve in other cultures.

In Industrial Society, none of these families are really functioning, however. The Victorian Era in the beginning of western urbanization saw the backlash of the most moral and refined family - in theory - in response to these pressures. Unsurprisingly it didn't last, and since then we've had utter chaos. Is this the beginning of a trend that will eventually see "family" become more of an economic union that exists for the purpose of mutual survival and mutual childcare between members?

I'm using the article as an example to pose these questions. If the Christian Science Monitor catches this - there were other articles on it a good year ago - then it must be noticeable. *g*

And, note, I'm not saying the traditional family will really end so much as it will exist as one possible combination of economic and nurturing unions between people which can be sustained in the modern world. It's simply not sustainable without the appropriate societal support by the majority of the populace, but other forms of cooperative union are.

Note that humanity operated in small groups, no more than fourty, for most of its history. We're fit for that. So really the possibility of functioning like this is not unreasonable and indeed quite logical if only taken up to the maximum limit of what we're designed for - IE, about fourty people at the very most (which is also usually where you'd peak out an extended family in the far east curiously) - even if the "family" structure is rather more fluid and less defined.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:In Industrial Society, none of these families are really functioning, however. The Victorian Era in the beginning of western urbanization saw the backlash of the most moral and refined family - in theory - in response to these pressures. Unsurprisingly it didn't last, and since then we've had utter chaos.

Victorian families were dysfunctional for many reasons. There's no reason to assume that the concept of the nuclear family was to blame. And western society is not the only society to employ it. Moreover, I see no reason to write the epitaph of the nuclear family so quickly. How is it "utter chaos?" Are you suggesting that the divorce rate of late 20th century America means that society is in chaos?

Is this the beginning of a trend that will eventually see "family" become more of an economic union that exists for the purpose of mutual survival and mutual childcare between members?

Single moms sharing rent is hardly a death knell for the concept of family. They do it out of necessity borne of their particular economic situation, not because they dreamed all their lives of becoming single moms and sharing rent with other single moms. I seriously doubt that most of them are content with the situation as-is.

Note that humanity operated in small groups, no more than fourty, for most of its history. We're fit for that. So really the possibility of functioning like this is not unreasonable and indeed quite logical if only taken up to the maximum limit of what we're designed for - IE, about fourty people at the very most (which is also usually where you'd peak out an extended family in the far east curiously) - even if the "family" structure is rather more fluid and less defined.

Extended families are a good thing. But I think you are too quick to conclude that the single moms forced into these rent-sharing arrangements would not switch to the traditional arrangement if the opportunity presented itself.

I honestly don't think that the rent-sharing thing is such a bad idea... as long as the two or so mothers don't take a liking for each other, thus scarring the children

But the fact that these single moms have to resort to rent-sharing just shows how insane society is getting. People tend to marry only for convenience or money now, and the almost inevitable divorces hurt the kids more than anything else.