The Family is The cornerstone of the nation state.

[Greyblades]

The required existance and presence of two parents = strong family.

[Gilrandir]

The required existance and presence of two parents = strong family.

The couple may be in terrible relations with each other yet for a million of reasons they stay married. So the first part of your equation doesn't presuppose the second one.

[Greyblades]

And what if the good neighbourhood hides a paedophils ring or a serial child killer?

Difficult to debate when it hasnt been defined what exactly a strong family is. We're talking generalities and I say the family unit is more beneficial than the neighbourhood in such terms.

[Montmorency]

Difficult to debate when it hasnt been defined what exactly a strong family is.

Well, you've got that right. So far in the thread is Seamus' suggestion that the extended family may be "stronger" than the nuclear family, but to communal or social detriment in some respects.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, you've got that right. So far in the thread is Seamus' suggestion that the extended family may be "stronger" than the nuclear family, but to communal or social detriment in some respects.

Not quite what I said.

The value of the nuclear family for the development of emotional stability, cultural indoctrination, and the furtherance of general welfare is obvious. That it is aided by a decent family income, decent education, the presence AND involvement of two parents rather than one are supported in divers studies.

Strong ties and connections with the extended family or clan may make for a "stronger" family by multiplying the support system noted above. However, when allegiance/reliance on that larger version of "family" comes to supplant the need to partake in and support and/or sacrifice for the larger polity, then the larger society is undercut. When government service is viewed first and foremost as a way to enrich one's clan and one's power within that clan, then the larger collective (which could generate greater benefits for far greater numbers) is undercut.

If you look at the ethnic conflicts of central Africa and the warlordism of Central Asia, you will usually see the primary locus of cultural power being the extended family/clan....which may well explain their inability to get out of the "rut" they are in even more than the more fashionable emphasis on Western mucking about in their affairs.

[Montmorency]

Not quite what I said.

The value of the nuclear family for the development of emotional stability, cultural indoctrination, and the furtherance of general welfare is obvious. That it is aided by a decent family income, decent education, the presence AND involvement of two parents rather than one are supported in divers studies.

Strong ties and connections with the extended family or clan may make for a "stronger" family by multiplying the support system noted above. However, when allegiance/reliance on that larger version of "family" comes to supplant the need to partake in and support and/or sacrifice for the larger polity, then the larger society is undercut. When government service is viewed first and foremost as a way to enrich one's clan and one's power within that clan, then the larger collective (which could generate greater benefits for far greater numbers) is undercut.

If you look at the ethnic conflicts of central Africa and the warlordism of Central Asia, you will usually see the primary locus of cultural power being the extended family/clan....which may well explain their inability to get out of the "rut" they are in even more than the more fashionable emphasis on Western mucking about in their affairs.

So it's a fair extension of what you said. But to the extent that such associations with organization around extended family are present, what are the relevant factors? Is it absolute family size? Geographic labor mobility? Transport infrastructure? One obvious general pattern is that the larger society is unreliable for provisioning services and security where extended families are a significant unit. But it would seem to be a mistake to simply equate ethnic conflict with an emphasis on familial affiliation. In those cases, there is no larger polity any more than feudal Europe was an overarching society - perhaps less so.

We're going to need to shift the conversation away from the very-most fragmented entities today if we want to find something specific about "family".

[Idaho]

You lot can be so clueless sometimes. The family is fundamental to human society, but f-all to do with the nation state. The human family has been around for millions of years. The nation state has been around 150 years.

[Idaho]

And what if the good neighbourhood hides a paedophils ring or a serial child killer?

Difficult to debate when it hasnt been defined what exactly a strong family is. We're talking generalities and I say the family unit is more beneficial than the neighbourhood in such terms.

This is really excellent stuff Greyblades.

[Greyblades]

This is really excellent stuff Greyblades.

You should have stuck to the bomb joke; you might have kept yourself from looking so petty.

[Gilrandir]

And what if the good neighbourhood hides a paedophils ring or a serial child killer?

Could be. But the dangers a bad neighborhood may have in store seem to have a higher probability.

Difficult to debate when it hasnt been defined what exactly a strong family is. We're talking generalities and I say the family unit is more beneficial than the neighbourhood in such terms.

Finally! We have come to realize that we started discussing a strong family, but we haven't agreed on what strong family is (nor on what a family is, it seems).

[Husar]

Finally! We have come to realize that we started discussing a strong family, but we haven't agreed on what strong family is (nor on what a family is, it seems).

I know the manly man who started this thread is more of a man than I could ever hope to be, but maybe some other people who are not me might think that he could have opened the thread with a bit more than a one-liner as I have friends who tell me they have heard that some people talked about people saying thread openers should lead into the topic at hand properly, which, as they say, would require more than one sentence.

Again, I'm just the messenger here, I would never criticize manly men and the awesome things they awesomely do during their awesome days.


Also the difference of definition is becoming part of the culture here. If we all used the same definitions for everything, we'd all agree most likely.