I'm saying that Western elites enact policies that destroy family loyalty, and that many elites and intellectuals applaud the destruction of family loyalty.
I'm saying that Western elites enact policies that destroy family loyalty, and that many elites and intellectuals applaud the destruction of family loyalty.
I agree that there is a strong tendency among some to want to reduce the family to transfer the roles and importance to the state. (Or the cult, which is the other common one.)
However, Trove’s argument is that overcoming family loyalty already happened, and that is why we have societies and have had for a long time. That’s a very different sort of claim, where I think she is very wrong. Family loyalty is still extant, such that it is being attacked currently as opposed to dead and gone.
That's not how I read her argument, and I think that's arguing more than she intended; to wit, she claims that society's victory over families occurred in the 20th century, which is entirely compatible with my evidence above.
Well, to be fair, her argument is kind of a mess: at once all of human history involves sublimating the importance of family, including Christianity, family loyalty only stopped being a problem in the 20th century (the Clintons, Kennedys and others will be pleased to hear hat) and people have stopped having families now. Although it seems odd to me that you would write both that society claimed victory over the family in the 20th century and Western elites are currently in the process of destroying family loyalty, that is no more confused than her essay.
From her piece:
"After millennia of struggle between society as a whole and the family, it looks like society as a whole finally won. The family is now so weak that it has lost its appeal. People don't even want to form families anymore. It is difficult to believe such a thing can happen. After all, family is a fundamental part of human nature.
The drive to form families is part of human nature. But it is not the only part of human nature. We also have other instincts. If those instincts are appealed to and organized in an efficient enough way, people can actually be steered away from their family-forming instincts.
It wasn't easy. It took thousands of years for such an advanced social organization to evolve. But here it is. After a very prolonged struggle, the family has finally been overcome.
...
Society finally overcame the family and an amazing productivity boom followed. But we still haven't solved the riddle of how to reproduce in this situation.
...
After thousands of years of civilization, people can finally gather across kin-groups in the service of productivity."
So... people stopped having families when? 20th century? I seem to recall a few, and quite large ones early. 21st century? Birth rates are low, sure, but hardly absent. Family loyalty in the "family loyalty is enough to cause corruption and problems to society" sense still seems like a thing. Oh, and those family suppressing Christians are the ones who are forming families and having kids at a higher rate... And we are only just now gathering across kin groups to be more productive? That seems like it has been going on for a long time, a few hundred years at least.
I think the death of the family has been rather exaggerated.
Yes, "the family" has not died. But I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there has been a steady decline in the average importance of "family ties". Partly because there are on average fewer and fewer close relatives to be tied to (including, perhaps most importantly, children).
Also, this varies across different groups and different places. Family is more important among the Amish or in Afghanistan than in an American Dual Income No Kids family of forty-somethings.
We need to be careful though and actually consider the argument and not just the vibes. The timeline and fact need to line up with reality. For instance, productivity growth and production was greater in the early 20th century than the late, yet family ties were much stronger in the early period. DINKs are a 21st century phenomenon for the most part, at least as a large group. The Soviet Union went really far towards breaking up family, and their productivity was terrible. One can argue that lots of different things were going on, but then that's the eternal state of social science and don't help make dissolution of the family a likely cause of productivity increases in the 20th century.
Tove's story only makes sense if you don't think hard about when things are happening and what her claims actually are. She is taking an insight about extended family clans becoming less important in the early times and miss applying it to the nuclear and closer extended family today. The questions to ask are "When did the family stop mattering, and how much by what measure When did the productivity increase you mention happen? Over what period of time, and in what countries or regions?"
Agree with the questions, but I'd argue "the family" never stopped mattering. It just mattered less, and less in some ways than others. I suppose that's "how much by what measure" though I don't think there's any one measure of how much "the family" matters.
I'm saying that Western elites enact policies that destroy family loyalty, and that many elites and intellectuals applaud the destruction of family loyalty.
I agree that there is a strong tendency among some to want to reduce the family to transfer the roles and importance to the state. (Or the cult, which is the other common one.)
However, Trove’s argument is that overcoming family loyalty already happened, and that is why we have societies and have had for a long time. That’s a very different sort of claim, where I think she is very wrong. Family loyalty is still extant, such that it is being attacked currently as opposed to dead and gone.
That's not how I read her argument, and I think that's arguing more than she intended; to wit, she claims that society's victory over families occurred in the 20th century, which is entirely compatible with my evidence above.
Well, to be fair, her argument is kind of a mess: at once all of human history involves sublimating the importance of family, including Christianity, family loyalty only stopped being a problem in the 20th century (the Clintons, Kennedys and others will be pleased to hear hat) and people have stopped having families now. Although it seems odd to me that you would write both that society claimed victory over the family in the 20th century and Western elites are currently in the process of destroying family loyalty, that is no more confused than her essay.
From her piece:
"After millennia of struggle between society as a whole and the family, it looks like society as a whole finally won. The family is now so weak that it has lost its appeal. People don't even want to form families anymore. It is difficult to believe such a thing can happen. After all, family is a fundamental part of human nature.
The drive to form families is part of human nature. But it is not the only part of human nature. We also have other instincts. If those instincts are appealed to and organized in an efficient enough way, people can actually be steered away from their family-forming instincts.
It wasn't easy. It took thousands of years for such an advanced social organization to evolve. But here it is. After a very prolonged struggle, the family has finally been overcome.
...
Society finally overcame the family and an amazing productivity boom followed. But we still haven't solved the riddle of how to reproduce in this situation.
...
After thousands of years of civilization, people can finally gather across kin-groups in the service of productivity."
So... people stopped having families when? 20th century? I seem to recall a few, and quite large ones early. 21st century? Birth rates are low, sure, but hardly absent. Family loyalty in the "family loyalty is enough to cause corruption and problems to society" sense still seems like a thing. Oh, and those family suppressing Christians are the ones who are forming families and having kids at a higher rate... And we are only just now gathering across kin groups to be more productive? That seems like it has been going on for a long time, a few hundred years at least.
I think the death of the family has been rather exaggerated.
Yes, "the family" has not died. But I don't think it is unreasonable to say that there has been a steady decline in the average importance of "family ties". Partly because there are on average fewer and fewer close relatives to be tied to (including, perhaps most importantly, children).
Also, this varies across different groups and different places. Family is more important among the Amish or in Afghanistan than in an American Dual Income No Kids family of forty-somethings.
We need to be careful though and actually consider the argument and not just the vibes. The timeline and fact need to line up with reality. For instance, productivity growth and production was greater in the early 20th century than the late, yet family ties were much stronger in the early period. DINKs are a 21st century phenomenon for the most part, at least as a large group. The Soviet Union went really far towards breaking up family, and their productivity was terrible. One can argue that lots of different things were going on, but then that's the eternal state of social science and don't help make dissolution of the family a likely cause of productivity increases in the 20th century.
Tove's story only makes sense if you don't think hard about when things are happening and what her claims actually are. She is taking an insight about extended family clans becoming less important in the early times and miss applying it to the nuclear and closer extended family today. The questions to ask are "When did the family stop mattering, and how much by what measure When did the productivity increase you mention happen? Over what period of time, and in what countries or regions?"
Agree with the questions, but I'd argue "the family" never stopped mattering. It just mattered less, and less in some ways than others. I suppose that's "how much by what measure" though I don't think there's any one measure of how much "the family" matters.
I agree, which is why I think her essay boils down to just loosely worded vibes, and not anything useful.