![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In the expansion of the article, although some of the style of writing and editing is good, the balance of the article has shifted to where we might as well call the article a criticism of the nuclear family. Since this isn't what the article is, I think we either need to add pro-nuclear family content, or move the massive criticisms section into its own article to retain balance. DavidBailey 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The article has not 'gone negative'. all that is required is for the other sections to be extended, that would balance the article, not deleting simply deleting text. further, the topic is not supposed to be positive, it is a social topic with many complex perspectives, reflecting the complex nature of ppl and society. Lets not present the topic as we would if the date was 1950. ( Paulscf 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)).
Here is text I have moved from the article because of problems I have either with its strongly POV tone, or because it is uncited. If we're going to include it, it needs further work. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
My problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, three or four authors are being quoted extensively without showing the opposing view which is not following WP:NPOV guidelines. Secondly, assertions such as 'This explanation contrasts with the concept of the nuclear family being somehow particularly "natural."' are definitely POV and unsupported. Also, while the term may only date back to 1947, families consisting of a mother and father and children have been around for a very long time and are documented in nearly every major civilization that we have records for, so the statement that it is a "new idea" is faulty. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you actually read the article, you'll see that the term "nuclear family" is not used to describe a "non-conjugal" couple, but to distinguish from it. My edit of the text is accurate. The above text is not. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What is this reference to? Who is Sarantakos? What material are you citing? Also, statements like "especially social conservatives, seek to exclude homosexual unions from the nuclear model" are unsupported. There is no active effort to keep them out by social conservatives, it just doesn't match the definition. Why do you think the definition should be changed? DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem here is what is meant by "the nuclear model". I believe that social conservatives are attempting to shape how the term is defined in such a way as to ensure that homosexual unions do not fit the definition. That is, in some sense at least, an "active effort". Can you suggest any instances in which social conservatives have acknowleged that same-sex nuclear families exist? If I come up with an example of where a social conservative asserts that a same-sex nuclear family is not actually a nuclear family at all, would you agree that at least that one social conservative has actively tried to define the term in a way that excludes same-sex unions from the definition? Maybe we should be using the term "definition" here instead of "model"--and perhaps that aspect of the "criticism" should be moved out of the "Criticism" subsection of the article and into the section about varying definitions.-- Bhuck 10:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
After the removal of certain allegedly unsupported sentences, the remaining sentences appear out of context. If they are to remain in the article, the paragraph needs to be re-written. One cannot start a paragraph with "Silence from the perpetrators..." if one has not said what it is that they are perpetrating. If the use of the term "perpetrators" is supported by the source, the source must also have said what they are perpetrating, and this needs to be written into the article. Perhaps a sentence, such as "
Domestic violence has been known to occur within the nuclear family" would be a good way to begin the paragraph. Or do any of the editors of this article believe that that is not the case, and that domestic violence only occurs when parents are unmarried? (If so, I would think that that theory should be a) documented and b) mentioned.)
On the other hand, I wonder about the extent to which it is advisable to address these concerns in this article at all--perhaps they belong more in the article
Family, since domestic violence can also occur in single-parent families, extended families, etc. I am not sure that the "nuclearness" of the families is a contributing factor to the violence. (Or perhaps the presence of aunts, uncles, and grandparents is an inhibiting factor?) Both DavidBailey as well as Paulscf seem to want to equate "nuclear family" with a kind of white-bread, Leave-It-To-Beaver ideal, which I believe goes far beyond the distinction that the sociological/anthropological use of the term would warrant. (The comparison to aboriginal family structures, on the other hand, seems to me to be very appropriate for this article.)--
Bhuck
07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that a section on domestic violence in families is best handled in our Domestic Violence article, though I am not adverse to something here if it deals with the NUCLEAR family, as opposed to a family. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Imagine, for instance, a traditional nuclear family - a father, a mother, and two sons.
Imagine one of those sons was 15 years old. He's single. He lives at home.
Imagine another one of those sons was 18 years old. He's gay, single, and lives at home.
Does this not falsefy "The nuclear family does not include unmarried couples, singles, homosexuals, or the family structures commonly found among certain ethnic groups, such as Aborigines," as this family includes both a single (son 1) and a homosexual (son 2?) Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be some good text here, but it appears there is a lot of original work and POV. I feel we need to discuss, edit, and pair it down some before inclusion in the article. DavidBailey 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The nuclear family as we know it in the Western world is largely a product of the rise to prominence of the merchant class, supported by the collateral development of capitalist economies in England and the Netherlands, and entrenched by the Industrial Revolution. It was a mark of economic success that a young husband and wife could afford to live in their own home instead of living with one of their sets of parents, as people of lesser economic means still do today. This divide between middle class and working class has prompted many to criticise the nuclear family model as a symbol of class deprivation.
Although it may be regarded as something of an endangered species, the extended family model of multiple generations under one roof remains the norm in most parts of the world. This is sometimes to do with economic differences between socio-economic classes (and leads to the economic criticism of the nuclear family model noted above), but it is often a socio-cultural choice of societies to reject the nuclear family model in favour of their own historic tradition.
Often called the "extended family model," it is actually a differentiated immediate family model because it includes multiple collateral generations as well as multiple direct generations of relatives. In other words, the household is not constituted of an extended family but it relies upon a definition of immediate family that includes direct descedants and ascendants beyond mother and father, as well as collateral relatives beyond brother and sister. So, whereas the nuclear family includes only parents and their children, non-nuclear models might additionally include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
An historically classic model is the old Celtic system of kinship found in pre-modern Ireland. Under the old system of Irish family law, the concept of family was construed in terms of tuath ("TOO-uh," meaning 'people' in the sense of "tribe") and fine ("FINN-uh"). The derb-fine ("JAIR-ub FINN-uh") was the basic family unit - the Celtic definitional bounds of immediate family - and included all persons who shared a common great-grandparent, as measured from any given person.
So, if "Aed" is our measuring life, Aed's immediate family extends outward and upward from himself to include his siblings (common parents), his first cousins (common grandparents), and his second cousins (common great-grandparents); AND his immediate family extends outward and downward from himself, to include all people to whom he is or will some day be a common great-grandfather. So, Aed's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren also are or will be part of his immediate family. Finally, Aed's immediate family also includes any relative whose position lies in between those two points of measure. So, Aed's aunts and uncles, his nieces and nephews, great-aunts and great-uncles, great-nieces and great-nephews, and all the rest of the people in-between his own great-grandparents, and himself as a great-grandparent, are all members of his immediate family.
Broader definitions of "immediate family" also persist notably - though mostly rurally - in Middle Eastern and African families, in the family traditions of Greece, Italy (including Sicily and Sardinia), Spain, and Portugal; and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. In these cultures, the nuclear family model is often regarded with disgust as anti-traditional family, or as a lever against economic advancement of people who live within the older, broader family model. This social conflict has been particularly apparent during periods of American history among various ethno-cultural groups that have avoided using the prevailing Anglo-Dutch nuclear family model.
Australian Aborigines are another group for whom the concept of family extends well beyond the nuclear model. Aboriginal immediate families include aunts, uncles and a number of other relatives who would be considered "distant relations" in context of the nuclear family. Aboriginal families have strict social rules regarding who they can marry. Their family structure incorporates a shared responsibility for all tasks. citation needed
Polygamous and polyandrous families were common in the past in places such as the Asia and the Middle East but are not acceptable in modern western cultures. Social anthropologists use evidence to suggest that for most of human existence man has been polygamous, indeed in some parts of the world polygamous and polyandrous families live in social harmony. The “social function of polygyny” supplies the families of Ghana great benefits. [3] The polyandrous kin-group provides solutions for Ghanaian biological, psychological, ecological and social problems.
Increased opportunities for women in the workforce and the ready availability of contraception has resulted in more and more women rejecting “social pressure and the idea of normality”. [4] Married couples are increasingly rejecting the idea of having children as "mandatory" to family life.
Meanwhile, increased rates of divorce and remarriage among people with children, the advent of same-sex marriage and other situations in which children have one or more non-biological step- or second-parents ("seccond" as in "second-parent adoption"), and so one, have produced a number of so-called "blended" variations on the original nuclear family model.
It is increasingly common, for example, for two or three nuclear families to be interrelated at the basic nuclear family level. For example:
1. Harry and Wanda marry and have two children. Ten years later, they divorce. 2. Harry marries Wendy and Wanda marries Herman. 3. Wendy was previously married to Hillary. They had two children before they divorced. 4. Herman was previously married to Willemina. They had two children before they divorced. 5. Harry and Wendy have two children together. 6. Herman and Wanda have two children together. 7. Hillary meets Willemina, undergoes gender reassignment surgery, and they move to Boston and get married there as a same-sex couple. They adopt two children.
The foregoing results in:
1. Harry's nuclear family with Wanda overlaps his nuclear family with Wendy, and the former nuclear family of Herman and Wanda, because the children of Harry and Wanda are half-siblings to the children of Harry and Wendy and to the children of Wanda and Herman; but they are not related to the children of Wendy and Hillary or the children of Hillary and Willemina. 2. Wendy's nuclear family with Harry overlaps her nuclear family with Hillary, and the former nuclear family of Herman and Willemina, because the children of Wendy and Hillary are half-siblings to the children of Wendy and Harry, and to the children of Hillary and Willemina; but they are not related to the children of Willemina and Hillary or the children of Harry and Wanda.
And so on, well into the realm of confusion - like the classic 1940's song I'm My Own Grandpa.
I moved the following links out of the article because it is not clear to me in what ways these organizations advocate abandoning traditional, clan-oriented or extended family kinship structures in favor of the nuclear family. I would suspect that the Christian Coalition in fact has nothing at all against family structures which include grandparents and/or cousins, and does not therefore "promote" structures in which these relationships are not important.-- Bhuck 14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In the expansion of the article, although some of the style of writing and editing is good, the balance of the article has shifted to where we might as well call the article a criticism of the nuclear family. Since this isn't what the article is, I think we either need to add pro-nuclear family content, or move the massive criticisms section into its own article to retain balance. DavidBailey 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The article has not 'gone negative'. all that is required is for the other sections to be extended, that would balance the article, not deleting simply deleting text. further, the topic is not supposed to be positive, it is a social topic with many complex perspectives, reflecting the complex nature of ppl and society. Lets not present the topic as we would if the date was 1950. ( Paulscf 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)).
Here is text I have moved from the article because of problems I have either with its strongly POV tone, or because it is uncited. If we're going to include it, it needs further work. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
My problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, three or four authors are being quoted extensively without showing the opposing view which is not following WP:NPOV guidelines. Secondly, assertions such as 'This explanation contrasts with the concept of the nuclear family being somehow particularly "natural."' are definitely POV and unsupported. Also, while the term may only date back to 1947, families consisting of a mother and father and children have been around for a very long time and are documented in nearly every major civilization that we have records for, so the statement that it is a "new idea" is faulty. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If you actually read the article, you'll see that the term "nuclear family" is not used to describe a "non-conjugal" couple, but to distinguish from it. My edit of the text is accurate. The above text is not. DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
What is this reference to? Who is Sarantakos? What material are you citing? Also, statements like "especially social conservatives, seek to exclude homosexual unions from the nuclear model" are unsupported. There is no active effort to keep them out by social conservatives, it just doesn't match the definition. Why do you think the definition should be changed? DavidBailey 11:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem here is what is meant by "the nuclear model". I believe that social conservatives are attempting to shape how the term is defined in such a way as to ensure that homosexual unions do not fit the definition. That is, in some sense at least, an "active effort". Can you suggest any instances in which social conservatives have acknowleged that same-sex nuclear families exist? If I come up with an example of where a social conservative asserts that a same-sex nuclear family is not actually a nuclear family at all, would you agree that at least that one social conservative has actively tried to define the term in a way that excludes same-sex unions from the definition? Maybe we should be using the term "definition" here instead of "model"--and perhaps that aspect of the "criticism" should be moved out of the "Criticism" subsection of the article and into the section about varying definitions.-- Bhuck 10:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
After the removal of certain allegedly unsupported sentences, the remaining sentences appear out of context. If they are to remain in the article, the paragraph needs to be re-written. One cannot start a paragraph with "Silence from the perpetrators..." if one has not said what it is that they are perpetrating. If the use of the term "perpetrators" is supported by the source, the source must also have said what they are perpetrating, and this needs to be written into the article. Perhaps a sentence, such as "
Domestic violence has been known to occur within the nuclear family" would be a good way to begin the paragraph. Or do any of the editors of this article believe that that is not the case, and that domestic violence only occurs when parents are unmarried? (If so, I would think that that theory should be a) documented and b) mentioned.)
On the other hand, I wonder about the extent to which it is advisable to address these concerns in this article at all--perhaps they belong more in the article
Family, since domestic violence can also occur in single-parent families, extended families, etc. I am not sure that the "nuclearness" of the families is a contributing factor to the violence. (Or perhaps the presence of aunts, uncles, and grandparents is an inhibiting factor?) Both DavidBailey as well as Paulscf seem to want to equate "nuclear family" with a kind of white-bread, Leave-It-To-Beaver ideal, which I believe goes far beyond the distinction that the sociological/anthropological use of the term would warrant. (The comparison to aboriginal family structures, on the other hand, seems to me to be very appropriate for this article.)--
Bhuck
07:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that a section on domestic violence in families is best handled in our Domestic Violence article, though I am not adverse to something here if it deals with the NUCLEAR family, as opposed to a family. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Imagine, for instance, a traditional nuclear family - a father, a mother, and two sons.
Imagine one of those sons was 15 years old. He's single. He lives at home.
Imagine another one of those sons was 18 years old. He's gay, single, and lives at home.
Does this not falsefy "The nuclear family does not include unmarried couples, singles, homosexuals, or the family structures commonly found among certain ethnic groups, such as Aborigines," as this family includes both a single (son 1) and a homosexual (son 2?) Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be some good text here, but it appears there is a lot of original work and POV. I feel we need to discuss, edit, and pair it down some before inclusion in the article. DavidBailey 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The nuclear family as we know it in the Western world is largely a product of the rise to prominence of the merchant class, supported by the collateral development of capitalist economies in England and the Netherlands, and entrenched by the Industrial Revolution. It was a mark of economic success that a young husband and wife could afford to live in their own home instead of living with one of their sets of parents, as people of lesser economic means still do today. This divide between middle class and working class has prompted many to criticise the nuclear family model as a symbol of class deprivation.
Although it may be regarded as something of an endangered species, the extended family model of multiple generations under one roof remains the norm in most parts of the world. This is sometimes to do with economic differences between socio-economic classes (and leads to the economic criticism of the nuclear family model noted above), but it is often a socio-cultural choice of societies to reject the nuclear family model in favour of their own historic tradition.
Often called the "extended family model," it is actually a differentiated immediate family model because it includes multiple collateral generations as well as multiple direct generations of relatives. In other words, the household is not constituted of an extended family but it relies upon a definition of immediate family that includes direct descedants and ascendants beyond mother and father, as well as collateral relatives beyond brother and sister. So, whereas the nuclear family includes only parents and their children, non-nuclear models might additionally include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
An historically classic model is the old Celtic system of kinship found in pre-modern Ireland. Under the old system of Irish family law, the concept of family was construed in terms of tuath ("TOO-uh," meaning 'people' in the sense of "tribe") and fine ("FINN-uh"). The derb-fine ("JAIR-ub FINN-uh") was the basic family unit - the Celtic definitional bounds of immediate family - and included all persons who shared a common great-grandparent, as measured from any given person.
So, if "Aed" is our measuring life, Aed's immediate family extends outward and upward from himself to include his siblings (common parents), his first cousins (common grandparents), and his second cousins (common great-grandparents); AND his immediate family extends outward and downward from himself, to include all people to whom he is or will some day be a common great-grandfather. So, Aed's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren also are or will be part of his immediate family. Finally, Aed's immediate family also includes any relative whose position lies in between those two points of measure. So, Aed's aunts and uncles, his nieces and nephews, great-aunts and great-uncles, great-nieces and great-nephews, and all the rest of the people in-between his own great-grandparents, and himself as a great-grandparent, are all members of his immediate family.
Broader definitions of "immediate family" also persist notably - though mostly rurally - in Middle Eastern and African families, in the family traditions of Greece, Italy (including Sicily and Sardinia), Spain, and Portugal; and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. In these cultures, the nuclear family model is often regarded with disgust as anti-traditional family, or as a lever against economic advancement of people who live within the older, broader family model. This social conflict has been particularly apparent during periods of American history among various ethno-cultural groups that have avoided using the prevailing Anglo-Dutch nuclear family model.
Australian Aborigines are another group for whom the concept of family extends well beyond the nuclear model. Aboriginal immediate families include aunts, uncles and a number of other relatives who would be considered "distant relations" in context of the nuclear family. Aboriginal families have strict social rules regarding who they can marry. Their family structure incorporates a shared responsibility for all tasks. citation needed
Polygamous and polyandrous families were common in the past in places such as the Asia and the Middle East but are not acceptable in modern western cultures. Social anthropologists use evidence to suggest that for most of human existence man has been polygamous, indeed in some parts of the world polygamous and polyandrous families live in social harmony. The “social function of polygyny” supplies the families of Ghana great benefits. [3] The polyandrous kin-group provides solutions for Ghanaian biological, psychological, ecological and social problems.
Increased opportunities for women in the workforce and the ready availability of contraception has resulted in more and more women rejecting “social pressure and the idea of normality”. [4] Married couples are increasingly rejecting the idea of having children as "mandatory" to family life.
Meanwhile, increased rates of divorce and remarriage among people with children, the advent of same-sex marriage and other situations in which children have one or more non-biological step- or second-parents ("seccond" as in "second-parent adoption"), and so one, have produced a number of so-called "blended" variations on the original nuclear family model.
It is increasingly common, for example, for two or three nuclear families to be interrelated at the basic nuclear family level. For example:
1. Harry and Wanda marry and have two children. Ten years later, they divorce. 2. Harry marries Wendy and Wanda marries Herman. 3. Wendy was previously married to Hillary. They had two children before they divorced. 4. Herman was previously married to Willemina. They had two children before they divorced. 5. Harry and Wendy have two children together. 6. Herman and Wanda have two children together. 7. Hillary meets Willemina, undergoes gender reassignment surgery, and they move to Boston and get married there as a same-sex couple. They adopt two children.
The foregoing results in:
1. Harry's nuclear family with Wanda overlaps his nuclear family with Wendy, and the former nuclear family of Herman and Wanda, because the children of Harry and Wanda are half-siblings to the children of Harry and Wendy and to the children of Wanda and Herman; but they are not related to the children of Wendy and Hillary or the children of Hillary and Willemina. 2. Wendy's nuclear family with Harry overlaps her nuclear family with Hillary, and the former nuclear family of Herman and Willemina, because the children of Wendy and Hillary are half-siblings to the children of Wendy and Harry, and to the children of Hillary and Willemina; but they are not related to the children of Willemina and Hillary or the children of Harry and Wanda.
And so on, well into the realm of confusion - like the classic 1940's song I'm My Own Grandpa.
I moved the following links out of the article because it is not clear to me in what ways these organizations advocate abandoning traditional, clan-oriented or extended family kinship structures in favor of the nuclear family. I would suspect that the Christian Coalition in fact has nothing at all against family structures which include grandparents and/or cousins, and does not therefore "promote" structures in which these relationships are not important.-- Bhuck 14:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)