From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: raising children
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 01:27:21 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov5.063159.296@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu writes:

 > >Sorry, but the biological nuclear family (=M+F+kids) is very far
 > >indeed from traditional, and by no means complete. It is only at the
 > >rabid and often violent insistence of patriarchal hierarchies that
 > >people form such a family unit to begin with.
 >  
 > Do you base this on observations of other human cultures?  I don't
 > necessarily doubt that human nature tends away from monogamy at times,
 > though.

I don't know what you mean by "observations of other cultures". It is
not difficult to carry out cross-cultural surveys, which is what the
sub-discipline of Ethnology engages in cf Anthropology per se.

For most of this work the observations have been made of the modern
Western Industrial society as it has inherited its traditions from
feudal times in particular, its officially sanctioned "courting" rituals
and the ostracism accorded those who fail to comply with them, and the
rate of breakdown of marriage as well as the ease with which breakdown
occurs.

Given a set of norms for one society it is routine to compare them
with those of other societies, and then to sit down and interview
people to round off the empirical data with their own views and
opinions, and the expectations made of them by others.

I should add also that the high level of socialisation in other
societies is in stark contrast with the individualism of Westerners,
since WW2 deepened considerably by the idea that human socialisation
is on a par with the unforgivable *socialism* at the root of the evil
communist empire, where the only *real* defence is considered to be
only greater individualisation.

Even I, BTW, directly descended from the old agrarian classes, have
been accused of *socialist leanings* (SHOCK! HORROR!) by Americans on
this Internet. Oh well, we try our best to explain the contradiction
in fighting a war using propaganda weapons which weaken the fabric of
your own society far more than they can possibly damage the enemy's.

Finally, we just sit and wait for the rot to set in . . .

 > Or an intimate relationship, or companionship, or whatever.  Most people
 > I've met who have been successful in the long run have had more than
 > a sexual relationship (and I'm not really talking about "romantic love"
 > either).

If you find intimacy and companionship in the relationship, fine.

I am only saying that it is the sexual relationship which forms the
basis of the cultural construct referred to as marriage in the Western
tradition, in particular highlighted by the fact that heirs to the
male line are the father's biological offspring from a legitimate
union with their biological mother.

You might also like to follow the feminist critique of this construct
for its revealing insight into the Myth of the Virgin, and the status
of women in general.

 > If anything, I think many people today have the (unrealistic) expectation
 > that "romantic love" will hold a relationship (and ultimately, a family)
 > together.  The trouble is that for someone who expects the feeling of
 > passion and romance, long-term relationships probably aren't the best
 > answer.  This is not really a problem, of course; after all, everyone
 > seems to want something different out of human relationships, and (assuming
 > all partners are willing) that's fine by me.

A poster from France pointed out not long ago (here or anthropology?)
that the origins of the idea of "romantic love" as it relates to
marriage was a defence invented by women against the "right" of the
lords to take any woman they chose, enabling them some choice in their
own man instead. Women since have commonly presented the idea that
they were "spoken for", to deflect unwelcome overtures from powerful
men.

Beyond that, I have strong doubts that Westerners appreciate very well
what human relationships are all about anyway, even illustrated here
in your "after all, everyone seems to want something different out of
human relationships". It may be fine with you (assuming all partners
are willing), but I find such whimsy at the root of your ideas about
marriage pause for thought.

 > I am worried somewhat about children in the situation, since I tend to feel
 > that it's beneficial for a child to have a stable (not necessarily a
 > traditional) environment.  I'm inclined to believe that people who move
 > from person to person after the romance is gone would make poorer parents
 > than those who stay for other reasons (companionship, intimacy, family,
 > anything that legitimately makes one want to stay).  But this is just my
 > belief.

Perhaps they are looking for something more substantial their own
society and culture has failed to make available. The tragedy is in
the fact that it is inevitably regarded as "their fault" that they are
unsettled, instead of the rest of the society asking itself, "What is
it we have failed to provide them and teach them." They are your own,
after all.

 > Again, I think the important thing is a stable and mature family 
 > environment. This can come in a traditional or non-traditional family.

How, Bill? How does this "stable and mature family environment" come
about? That is what people seem to be asking here.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *