Answer to the question posed in the second inning of Wotan: "The family is the core of any social community, but the current side I see a growing distortion of values" moral "to support a concept of artificial family unstructured such as the existence of different family centers, which look very dangerous in the long time with an uncertain economic future for the emotional stability of families exactly what do you think of this? "
The question is fundamental in our society , although I make some mistakes at planting.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, should affirm that there is a natural family, or that there are natural values.
Both the family and the ethical / political support it is cultural (I prefer this claim to the concept of artificial) and as cultural, by definition, is organized intersubjectively.
It can go, to cite some examples minimally, M. Harris (Introduction to general anthropology, ...), Murdock (Ethnographic Atlas, ...), Campbell (The Masks of God, ...), Bateson (The new media, ...), Levi-Strauss (The Elementary Structures of kinship ...), Malinowski (Sex and Repression in the primitive society ...), to its own mythology, a Gamble (The doubling Paleolithic of Europe), to Buss (The Evolution of Desire ...), Mead (Sex and temperament ...) to Sabater Pi (The chimpanzee and the origins of culture ...) ... and even if I immodesty for putting me in the same paragraph, myself (Solitude Mae ...), ....
Biology, psychology (evolutionary) anthropology, neurophysiology, genetics ... except religion and politics (politicians are priests of "new" stamp), we offer an interpretive framework from which the family can be defined as an interaction system constructed by humans to set themselves as socially unfit individuals. And as a system of interaction built, not natural (if you like, innate) and may be modified.
Now, as a structure, and functions as complex and fundamental amendment means an alteration of the entire system of social interactions that forms: economic, political, legal, etc.
Well, for utilitarian reasons, or sheer ignorance, or at the confluence of the two (the interests of a deal the wills of others), you tend to think that two-parent nuclear family / monogamous (father, mother and children) is traditional in our culture (in chronological nuances, of course), is natural. But MNOs mistake, although it may be argued, concluded, justified, etc., There is nothing in nature that determined as the ideal for humans, compared to extended families or single parents or gay.
Similarly, we must accept this, that marriage should not be understood solely from heterosexuality and that from a cultural perspective, there are institutionalized marriages between women (matrifocal: more than two females) between men, between brothers, ... It is very likely that one more chance we have missed.
The key to understanding domestic interactions and the role they play in our society and the result of its amendment, pass, therefore, accept that the nuclear family is not natural. (To be more precise reading of authors and texts cited ...)
Take a very short biological example:
Studies by specialists demonstrate that among chimpanzees, incest between the female and her calf is very rare, like two pups from the same litter. But between the male and his offspring are very common, almost inevitable (J. Itani, Primates).
This is normal and natural among those social animals where the male is not involved in the development of the offspring.
It is therefore curious that the prohibition of incest, which is usually taken as the natural and fundamental element that regulates the relations between males and females (men and women) should only be applied to relations between the male (man) and her calf (daughter).
Now think that if we accept Freud wrongly, eg que el deseo de cometer incesto está muy arraigado en las profundidades de la naturaleza humana, (el instinto empuja al ser humano lo mismo que en el resto de los animales), entonces la prohibición de esta conducta fue el primer acto cultural. De este modo la cultura arraiga en nuestra naturaleza instintiva, por lo que toda nuestra organización cultural tiene su origen en nuestra naturaleza biológica.
Si esto es verdad, entonces, todo lo que tiene carácter universal, es decir las normas o conductas generalizadas culturalmente, o los sistemas de organización generalizados (como la prohibición del incesto o la familia nuclear occidental, pongamos por caso) deben ser lo correcto cultural y naturalmente.
De este modo, considering that two-parent nuclear family is natural, we tend to interpret what they should be, so that everything does not fit this is a deviation from social norms and the biological nature of human beings: a unnatural aberration, so that all these deviations should and must be corrected, as they cause damage to many individual and collective nature: bad socialized individuals, domestic violence, broken families, etc.. With all the emotional burden associated with this statement ...
addition, we do not realize that there is a fundamental rest we take emotionally, but rationally reject it, namely that the complementary (Dominance / submission), which is the basis of intersubjective relations system which determines the relations between women and men, is the foundation of domestic relations which we call family
- The same for women is the domestic (private) the man the political (public).
- The characteristic of the personality of the woman is being a mother (and wife). The characteristic of the personality of man is to be subject business.
- The same for women is to be understanding, loving, sensitive. The same man is being authoritarian, rational, hard ...
- What are women's own tasks and work of man. Etc.
And this system continues to operate in today! (Read my book)
Now, if we interpret the incest taboo from a community perspective (social organization), then we realize that the incest prohibition is intended to reorganize the intersubjective behavior (human groups) and their functions coincide with the functions of the family:
- Avoid inbreeding.
- Control access of young men to women.
- Establish networks of kinship.
- Establish partnerships ...
community functions again giving us clues on how to properly interpret human behavior.
Not that we are not natural, but our nature does that we should consider our relations systems from another perspective that assumes the natural in interaction with cultural, community is always up what is in us.
Once accepted, we must think about the family as an interrelated system structure at all times with the cultural system as a whole. Cognitive and emotional context that significantly determines the personality and behavior of individuals in terms of what is socially expected of them and, therefore, is inseparable from the community that has been inserted. Hence the first statement leads us to conclude that the family is not a private space where individuals develop emotionally its existence, but the field public construction of ethos in relation to .... ".
But this characterization is also a negative dimension (in the sense of control theory and communication), because the family must also be seen as a reactive system whose function is to control the disruptive nature of individuals ( to be thought of as subsystems). That is another of the core functions of the family is "redirect" the ability of individuals to reconstruct reality, cognitive and otherwise emotionally, to ensure the stability of the social system.
The system would be more or less like this: Culture is structure and function is the creation and maintenance of the community, which is done through the family.
From the time women must grasp a range of values \u200b\u200band behavior patterns that reinforce, at least emotionally, submission both family interaction and in the community.
And man must, however, to grasp a range of values \u200b\u200band behavior patterns that reinforce, at least emotionally, the interaction domain in both the family and in community.
The family becomes the place where people grasp these modes of being.
In conclusion, the domestic (family) is a system interconnected cultural, where the ethos shaping factor is presented as the unifying social factor through the inclusion of individuals in a complex mythological system (man and woman complement each course that the woman is mother nature that true love is eternal, that family is the natural place of women, while the world is the man ...) that determines, for starters, the relations between the two basic subsystems of the family system: man and woman , complementary (domain / submission).
Well, the ethos is complementary to the one shown in Neolithic systems of the clans and also our cognitive modes and understand emotional love relationships are developed from medieval ideals (Isolde and Tristan, Heloise and Abelard ...). The family is built and can be changed!
As this occurs, we should consider the possibility that the sacred Western family is not functioning properly. I, as researcher and teacher who is taking a delegation from the parents of the duties incumbent upon them.
Here:
Where learning and apprehend the individual to perform additional behaviors? Where do we learn and grasp to abuse or being abused? Where it becomes possible domestic violence as a manifestation likely complementarity?
The proper place is the family.
For this reason, and despite what people are saying the "experts", the great debate today has nothing to do with the application, or extension of the concept of family: heterosexual nuclear families, nuclear families, homosexuals, single-parent nuclear families , two-parent nuclear families, extended families, .... The truly important thing is not in this, but the waiver endoculturadora function by parents and their transfer to state institutions: Education, Health and Interior, especially.
Despite living in the XXI century, we continue to think and feel emotionally the reality Paleolithic and medieval models. For this reason is not hard to understand why the state (that strange abstraction is nothing that the community model of subjective identity ... But that's another story that belongs to other research), which takes as its starting point the existence of subjects formed, can not assume the functions of the family and, therefore, strategies for solving certain types of phenomena that are increasingly affecting the younger individuals of the community (drugs, obesity, anorexia, school failure, etc.. ) are not working.
that my son drinks, smokes pot, etc., They give talks in schools and colleges and health click campaigns on how bad it is the drink, while I left with less and 18 years is on Fridays and Saturdays until late at night without control. For that, the municipalities or the Interior, to mobilize the police to control alcohol consumption in minors.
that my child has an unhealthy diet, which will give talks in schools about the need to follow the Mediterranean diet and exercise, while I crammed industrial bakery, I feed only what the child wants and what I have all day at home watching TV and playing your game. Thus, ad infinitum.
But it's not a question of modern life, or nature is a matter of assuming the responsibilities arising from the unquestionable fact, that the family does not belong to the sphere of private relations, exclusively, but the public space, as we all are social subjects more or less skillful in her womb .
So not only are the problems of drug addiction, poor nutrition., Which require the intervention of the families for their solution, but there are also other serious problems such as domestic violence that originate and therefore can be alleviated, to and from the family. It would not nothing wrong, in this sense, advertising campaigns aimed not victims of abuse but their family environments.
Do you think the role of families in cases of domestic violence that we see daily is appropriate? Do they believe that within the family develops systems of reciprocity between individuals, rather than complementary, the abuse would be a widespread problem? The family has been and is a factor for the protection of women against men in general and her male partner in particular. But, of course, I'm not saying that since the family must recover violent strategies of coercion against the perpetrator, but the family must be the place where women recognize their own identity and be protected by the revaluation autonomy from their complementary behavior.
Individuals must learn that the family is not a private but a public stronghold, and in it the others will step in when we consider that it is producing a situation of abuse. In addition, individuals must be aware that physical abuse is the ultimate manifestation of a long process of emotional abuse and, therefore, its interference should occur long before the development of physical aggression.
is, therefore, the family, the first place where you have to do battle:
1 º. Through education of the children, reinforcing the identity of women in the daughters and the respect and recognition that identity in children, and no emphasis on equality, but in recognition of the autonomy of female identity and male identity for, from there, to promote mutual relations between them.
2 º. Through a more extensive (transformed) of the family, through which it is intended as a public sphere and not private.
0 comments:
Post a Comment