The Family is The cornerstone of the nation state.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

No.

You.

[Husar]

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.

Indeed, replace the word "family" with "bomb" and every post up to yours finally makes sense.

[Beskar]

Indeed, replace the word "family" with "bomb" and every post up to yours finally makes sense.

I got to admit, doing so has been the greatest read. Some quotes..

"The Bomb is The cornerstone of the nation state. Everything else flows from it.
What has made bombs strong or weak, in general?
The nuclear bomb must be the building block central to any culture. Too central a concern for a species that takes 15+ years to mature and is almost helplessly weak until 10 years have passed. The extended bomb is more questionable. Their are advantages, but without a larger polity trumping the extended bomb, you end up with amoral bombing/rocketeering.
Strong bombs mean less criminality in the youth, less burden on the state in welfare, greater individual performance and contribution to the state by the offspring.
The degeneration of the african american population can IMO be rather convinceingly attributed to a trend of a lack of father figures in the average bomb unit.
The value of the nuclear bomb for the development of emotional stability, cultural indoctrination, and the furtherance of general welfare is obvious...
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 "bombs".