Anti-family philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Anti-family philosophy » Anti-family philosophy

Page: 1 2

Anti-family philosophy

thepeonwhocould
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/19/09 - 11:50 PM: Subject: Anti-family philosophy	#1
Are there any philosopher's who have written about the negative aspects of families, and/or proposed alternatives? It seems that many of the inequalities in modern society are caused by the separatism that families promote. For example, generally you will help someone in your family much more then someone who is not in your family, regardless of the magnitude of their problem - causing inequality. In one of my philosphy essays we are allowed to write on a topic of our choice, and I want to write about this - my conclusion will be that families should eventually be phased out if one desires to decrease inequality in the world. However I would certainly like to include some references to support and criticism of this idea, can anyone point me in the right direction?

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 10/20/09 - 02:55 AM:	#2
Laing is your man here, and David Cooper's The Death of theFamily Here is the preface.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 920

Posted 10/20/09 - 04:44 AM:	#3
thepeonwhocould wrote: Are there any philosopher's who have written about the negative aspects of families, and/or proposed alternatives? It seems that many of the inequalities in modern society are caused by the separatism that families promote. For example, generally you will help someone in your family much more then someone who is not in your family, regardless of the magnitude of their problem - causing inequality. In one of my philosphy essays we are allowed to write on a topic of our choice, and I want to write about this - my conclusion will be that families should eventually be phased out if one desires to decrease inequality in the world. However I would certainly like to include some references to support and criticism of this idea, can anyone point me in the right direction? It's a counterfactual argument. The deterioration of the family has led to the decay of society. The prospect that human nature will change so significantly that mothers and fathers will tend to other children before their own will never occur. For that reason, society will always be a poor substitute for a missing parent. It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a village to raise an idiot. Feel free to quote me in your paper as a critic of your idea.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 10/20/09 - 05:15 AM:	#4
You might also want to look at the philosophy of the kibbutzim, if Hanover's devastating critique has not entirely put you off. It is also worth noting that the notion of 'family' is understood very differently in different times and places. That it consists merely of mother, father and children, is a very modern idea, often referred to as the nuclear family. The very term suggests it may be unstable and some sociologists see it as a phase in the deterioration and fragmentation of society brought about by the industrial revolution. I'm not sure myself, that it is possible to disentangle family from society sufficiently to establish a causal relationship. As the local village idiot, I will simply say that the Hanover dynasty has no philosophical clothes on this occasion.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 920

Posted 10/20/09 - 07:53 AM:	#5
unenlightened wrote: You might also want to look at the philosophy of the kibbutzim, if Hanover's devastating critique has not entirely put you off. It is also worth noting that the notion of 'family' is understood very differently in different times and places. That it consists merely of mother, father and children, is a very modern idea, often referred to as the nuclear family. The very term suggests it may be unstable and some sociologists see it as a phase in the deterioration and fragmentation of society brought about by the industrial revolution. I'm not sure myself, that it is possible to disentangle family from society sufficiently to establish a causal relationship. As the local village idiot, I will simply say that the Hanover dynasty has no philosophical clothes on this occasion. Thank you for the kind words. The kibbutz never replaced the family. It was a form of micro-communism that helped fulfill a specific goal of building a nation involving a people with a strong sense of history, ideology, purpose, and suffering. However, kibbutz kids knew (and continue to know) exactly who their parents are, and these parents maintain strong bonds with their own children that far exceed the bonds of the other children in the community. We can dispute exactly what the boundries of a family are (grandma, counsins, etc.), but to pretend that you would defend your neighbor's child like a mother would defend her own child denies reality. What we have today really are parents (mostly fathers) who actually abandon their kids. It seems if we can't make actual parents care for their own kids, we can hardly expect the community at large to do much better.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 843

Posted 10/20/09 - 08:30 AM:	#6
This isn't quite to your point, but the idea is discussed in "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World Maybe you can find some discussion of the book where they talk about the way that children were conceived and raised. (It was by assembly line, just like you'd produce a car.)
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/20/09 - 10:52 AM:	#7
I believe that Engels talked about 'the socialization of the family,' and taking the bringing up of children completely under the control of the state. Certain Marxist feminists have certainly expressed discontent at the economic imbalance within the traditional family unit - like the man being the bread-winner, for example. Engels himself certainly never officially married (he and his wife were married under common law), as he rejected all the examples of capitalist economics which he believed to be inherent within the capitalist family unit. I think he expounded on most of this in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. He seemed to believe that the family unit was merely another superstructure on top of the base economic system of the time. As such, the nature of family units was constantly changing with each economic system.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/20/09 - 02:19 PM:	#8
shrugs. The grouping 'family' is physicality-dependant and not identity-dependant(individuality). Whether or not you have a mother/father system or a 'village' system.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2104

Posted 10/20/09 - 06:37 PM:	#9
You're all missing the obvious answer: the first and foremost anti-family philosopher was Plato. Read the Republic, particularly the "waves of paradox" sections in Book V.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 10/21/09 - 12:37 AM:	#10
thepeonwhocould wrote: In one of my philosphy essays we are allowed to write on a topic of our choice, and I want to write about this - my conclusion will be that families should eventually be phased out if one desires to decrease inequality in the world. However I would certainly like to include some references to support and criticism of this idea, can anyone point me in the right direction? Can you use something like fraternity, masons, secret societies, country clubs, even university dorms to help out with the counterexamples? I don't think phasing out the family unit would decrease inequality, let alone eliminate it. Sociology also says that "hierarchies" of all kinds will exist no matter what you do.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.