Role of family in a society

In an other topic

Originally posted by �ok Ge� ...The number one element in raising a healthy society is a healthy family. Otherwise, why governments are spending all that money in family support and dealing with high divorce rates

I have doubts about the role of the family in a society. I admit that there are strong love ties between family members but I think that the role of the family is much overemphasized to keep, opposition towards some traditional oppressing features of the society, limited. For me, it is used to legitimize being submissive to traditional oppression in a society. What do you think?

 

I definitely think a psychological and spiritual healthy family fosters an atmosphere conducive to a child's healthy developement. Besides the basic needs of food, water and oxygen humans have pychological needs that desire fulfillment as well. Whether this comes from a traditional family or not, adults are responsible for fostering a mature foundation. Love is only one such concept. Others could be socialization, responsibility, asserting individual rights, fun and enjoyment, plus accomplishments. OF course healthy functioning familiies will have difficulties and obstacles put before them. Yet the foundation to meet healthy developemental growth seems greater with a functioning unit than without one.

The key is for healthy functioning. Traditional families are most beneficial but they do not own the patent on this (foster homes and orphanages are available too). However, traditional families can be just as dysfunctional as any other system. Single parent families can also be successful but it would take extra pressure on the sole parent towards providing the necessary foundation.

We tend to be born into a family if we are fortunate anyway. Those who were raised without a functioning parent(s) or adult(s), due to innumerable and unfortunate reasons, will lack the beneficial environment needed for the above mentioned needs. It is not impossible for a child to become healthy even out of disturbed environments but it would be very difficult.

Well, I'm rather interested in the social/political dimension. For example, in most of the societies, the family is an institution where patriarchy is reproduced. A "family life" is imposed on people for not to be marginalized. The overemphasis on "the family" works for keeping the society rather static and unquestioning I think... Also, when you work in a business or when you come to a certain age, you are psychologically forced to establish a "family life". In business life, you cannot freely question your working conditions because it is said that "Hey you have a family! You have to provide their subsistance. If you don't like your working conditions, there are many people we can find instead of you and your family will suffer from this!". Or when you come to a certain age you are pschologically (and in the more traditional societies physically) forced to marry by the environment. Family, with all beauties it has, has the seed of conservatism inside. All the traditional ideas, oppressive ones along with the moral ones, are imposed on the individuals from the very first steps of life. Especially patriarchy is imposed in the subconsciousness of children. In order to overthrow the idea of patriarchism, the child has to put an intentional endeavour. I think the family has such implicit negative roles, but of course I love my family members

kotumeyil... correct me if i'm wrong..u are not so agree with family concept, is it because u dont like the responsibility and commitment which u should have when getting married? seems u dont like to bear the burden and attachment tht u should have once u get married...or it just a rebellious opinion due to some unsatisfication?

For me.. family is a basic foundation of society... communication and social skills start from relationship among family members.. respect and moral values as u already clarified in ur comments..I agree with most of u here whereby to say regarding the importance of family instituition within society...

Yes.. there will be string attach... whether u are the parents or children..but as a person..to have someone to care and to love and getting bck the same affection will be more valuable thn nothing else.. the obligation when having a family is quite tough and not a simple thing.. i agree with that..

kotumeyil said:
Family, with all beauties it has, has the seed of conservatism inside. All the traditional ideas, oppressive ones along with the moral ones, are imposed on the individuals from the very first steps of life. Especially patriarchy is imposed in the subconsciousness of children. In order to overthrow the idea of patriarchism, the child has to put an intentional endeavour. I think the family has such implicit negative roles, but of course I love my family members

If u want to deny the importance of family concept and the significant roles a patriarchy (here we would say... a father?) thn wht u suggest? once a child being born , should him or her straight away being sent to some sort of a boarding school for them to start a life? How a children in ur society can learn to live in ur environment? can u suggest any replacement concept? even when u are working u have to tolerate and accept instruction from ur superior...

It is nothing about resposibility. My problem is with the overemphasis on the notion of "holy family" in the traditional and modern capitalist societies.. Yes, the family is an important institution and provides the basic needs of an individual when he/she is first born. However, in these societies, it does much more than this: It teaches submission to traditional paradigmas, patriarchy, etc. I think the role of the family in the education of a child should be decreased while collective social education's role should be increased. Of course this should go hand in hand with a political/social revolution or nothing will change much

Originally posted by Infidel I value much the value of the family, especially the close one (mother, father, brother, sister). It's essencial for one to grow as an individual, to protect you, to comfort you, to provide a safe harbor against all hardships of life, etc.

I share the sentiment but would not say 'especially the close one'. In the modern West, at least, a lot of social weakness comes from the decline of the extended family. The support structure of the extended family can be vital in providing for full individual growth, in particular in learning concepts of sharing and other aspects of socialisation in childhood.

I'm an only child myself, but I think it was exceptionally beneficial to me to be part of a family in which I had fifteen first cousins within a few years either way of my age living in the same town, with three or four of whom I had very close relationships (seeing them every day, going to school together and so on).

Originally posted by kotumeyil It is nothing about resposibility. My problem is with the overemphasis on the notion of "holy family" in the traditional and modern capitalist societies.. Yes, the family is an important institution and provides the basic needs of an individual when he/she is first born. However, in these societies, it does much more than this: It teaches submission to traditional paradigmas, patriarchy, etc. I think the role of the family in the education of a child should be decreased while collective social education's role should be increased. Of course this should go hand in hand with a political/social revolution or nothing will change much

It would seem you are stuck with a specific form of family and one that i would also object too. But you are wrong to think that all family structures are the same, or inculcate the same values. In fact the need to keep the whole of a family working together can be vital in inculcating such things as the need for co-operation, and, indeed, for democratic decision-making.

In the modern West, at least, a lot of social weakness comes from the decline of the extended family.

Thats down to mobility, people move around alot more. When i lived in Wales we effectivly had an extended family, but when we moved away that was obviously gone (save for the 3 generations under one roof bit). The mobility has helped to increase prosperity (for those most able to take advantage of it more than others obviously), and thus degree of mobility and by extention, less dependance on extended family, is seen as a mark of success.
I see it making a come back though, for economic reasons, you already have an increasing number of people living 'at home' longer, simply because of the cost of living in some areas. The real problem is that an entire generation of housing stock that isn't designed for this dominates the housing market, so again, anyone wanting to buy a house that caters very well for the needs of an extended family under one roof needs the money, but if you have the money, then you aren't likely to be doing it. Unless of course you don't mind sharing your bedroom with another generation.