Family

Family

Family values are deservedly praised. A well-functioning family is a microcosm of society as it should work. Many problems faced by individuals had their origin in unhealthy family life.

Although the picture is changing, until quite recently most North Americans of our era considered the nuclear family as the norm, indeed, as the ideal. To not be in such a unit was to be insufficient. Men and women were expected to marry and raise children. The children, upon reaching adulthood, were to leaves and follow their parents' example.

The study of anthropology and history makes it apparent that in many other societies and ages, familial relations differ from ours. Sometimes units are small, sometimes large and extended. Work is divided variously among sexes, and curiously, in at least a few cultures women dominate either economically or in terms of reverence and spiritual significance.

In almost every society, aged members are treated with a great deal more respect than in our modern, fast-paced, industrial society. It seems logical that those among us with the most experience have the most importance as guides and leaders, of teachers and guardians of our collective learning and traditions. Yet old people are usually given appalling treatment by today's young. This scares me. It is stupid and disrespectful -- worst of all it is alarming. A culture fixated on youth, or rather young adulthood, is not likely to endure in a long, sustainable, healthy way.

One way to strengthen family units may be to encourage households in which three generations coexist: grandparents, parents, and children. This would mean, in theory, 4 adults instead of two, helping raise children. It would mean more sharing, more communication, and less privacy. There would be fewer housing units needed if more people lived per house. What is more crazy than the numerous empty large mansions on Capitol Hill, inhabited by lonely widows?

Extended family units can be other than generational. Sisters and brothers can live together as adults. There are co-housing and cooperative households where nuclear families share much in common, except bedrooms. There are families where live-in nannies do child-rearing while both parents work full-time jobs, Many urban group houses consist of 3, 4 or 5 single adults, whose interactions are more-or-less familial.

I suppose the big definition of family properly includes children. For without them, all we are left with is a pair or a group of adults. Is a couple a family? Is a group of 3 adults a family? In today's prevalent value system, a family is whatever folks choose to define it as, just as "home" is.

I favor the definition of parent(s) and children. To me, family life without children is at best a related phenomena. To draw a gardening parallel, a garden has more going on in it than does a collection of scattered houseplants. To call the potted indoors plants "a garden" is stretching the definition. Yes, sometimes it will qualify; usually there is no serious competition. If a childless couple wants to send forth seasons' greetings "from the Jones' family" that is their right; but it is my right to call them a couple. It's a matter of precision in terminology, not a value judgement.

Sexual equality in marriage should be the norm. Still, in many cases men wield more power, whether or not they contribute more. To many fundamentalist Christians, men are properly regarded as the heads of households, women secondary, and children the third tier. Where religious beliefs of this nature are sincerely held by both partners, there should be no problem. Let live. But let us not impose such an order on any woman involuntarily. Personally I am attracted to strong women of independent tendencies; I am left unmoved by (if not repulsed by) weak women who seek in a man a protector, a leader, a master. I seek a peer, not a servant or a weakling.

The role of relatives in family life is well appreciated by everyone. Either you have cousins and kin with whom you interact and share, socialize and help -- or you're without such and you miss it. To be a stranger in a strange land is a severe disadvantage. Alternatively, to have dozens of relatives is to have safety and power. I am blessed by a family and relative network which is remarkably free of discords, feuding and the like. We are not immune to strained marriages, or some coarseness -- but on the whole, are a very well-behaved and likeable lot.

Children, as I said, are what really define a family as opposed to another sort of association. In earlier times, indeed for much of human existence, child-bearing was critical for the sustaining of humanity. Now, birth-control and a movement towards zero population growth seems to be our only sakvation. For if we instead breed thoughtlessly, our sheer numbers will cause massive starvation, pollution, fighting and disease epidemics. How to intelligently and justly regulate reproduction is one of our most pressing concerns. In ideal, only well-qualified couples would be allowed to bear and raise children. By qualified I mean emotional and social maturity, economic ability, and enough time, love and health to do the job properly. Such a vision will not come about without fighting. People are emotional first, logical second, and would, alas, rather have their perceived personal rights unfettered than the good of the whole preserved. It is very sad. The good news is: at least educated, economically affluent people, have lowered their birth rate voluntarily. That suggests that if we want to change people's behavior, we can do it with dollars and books if not with appeals to reason and distribution of birth control devices.

If children present defines family, we could say that a single parent raising a child is a family of sorts, albeit a handicapped one. As for childless couples, I prefer to not call them families, regardless or whether or not they are married. Indeed, I am not sold on marriage as something to promote except where children are involved. But marriage is potent. It has the force of law, economic advantages, is a sacrament to many religious faiths; and to be married is to generally be held in higher esteem than to merely be a couple cohabiting.

What about age? It would be fascinating to compare divorce rates with ages at which couples married. I'd expect that younger adults, not to mention teenagers, would be more likely to divorce than couples who waited to marry until in their late 20s or 30s. It is deplorable how many marriages break up, and I want to know why, so I can help couples, and be more likely to enter into a strong marriage myself.

I am fond of describing my four legs to support a strong