(No subject)

[Guest guest]

What does it matter how a society is? One theme in sociology is the

idea that how a society is, just reflects the whims of the present

leaders plus the cultural influences of past leaders. -That it is

possible for any type of society to exist, and, the specific way a

society is, doesn't make a difference overall in the larger scheme of

things. -so that it is in the individual's best interest to conform

to the ways of whatever their society is, as it is only individuals

who care if they are rewarded or punished for obedience or

disobedience; and that whether they are rewarded or punished or

obedient or disobedient makes no difference overall. However, this

is actually somewhat incorrect. And the evidence for this

incorrectness is found in the existence of the social structure

called 'family'.

Societal institutions are how essential societal tasks get

carried out in an organized fashion. Producing the next generation

is an essential task. But dealing with sexual activity and plus the

birth and care of children from sexual activity, are the essential

societal tasks carried out by family or kinship institutions.

Closely related is the institution of marriage. Here in the US and

much of the world, we can come out and say that marriage is a

socially legitimate sexual union with the price that the partners

limit their sexual activity to only each other. i.e., a monogamous

relationship. Thus the offspring produced can be tied to that

couple, and then that group of people are considered a family.

Even without the institution of family, nature, through pre

history, has provided a means for social reproduction where the next

generation is produced, through the innate male and female physical

attraction, and a tribal community to raise the offspring produced

(unlike gorilla primates which live in nuclear family units). If a

society tied the burden of raising offspring solely to the couple who

bore them, then this would discourage childbearing (to a degree) -

(compared to a tribal society where all members helped with the

burdens of child rearing). With less offspring produced, this would

free up resources to make better the lives of the existing offspring,

as well as everybody else. So that tribes who adopted the concept

of 'family' would achieve an improving standard of living, which

would allow them to dominate tribes with the natural tribal form.

And so, this is perhaps, (I would suggest) why most modern societies

have the concept of 'family' (where the burden of raising the

children is laid solely on the couple who bore them): and that

perhaps this has contributed to our higher standard of living

especially in developed countries. Yet, what has all this wealth

gotten us; when today, those who have, use hunger and deprivation to

manipulate the rest of us? What difference has (family) made?

Not all things make a difference, but depending on how friendly,

nurturing and kind a society is to its members, does make a

difference. One reason is, is because the human infant is so

helpless.

In a very nurturing society, an infant can survive and thrive simply

by being a member. But in a harsher and colder society, infants

couldn't survive just being part of that society. In order for

harsher colder cultures to survive beyond one generation, a more

nurturing but limited environment must be provided to that society's

infants. -hence a mother or couple can be designated to care for and

use their resources to provide a small nurturing enriched environment

for their infant; allowing the rest of society to continue on in its

cold negative ways. -otherwise harsh societies would cease to exist. -

hence the institution of family can be a crutch by which harsh unkind

negative societies continue to exist.

The institution of the family has been given the domain of

socialization of the children as part of the essential societal task

it performs. When the human mind is young as in an infant or child,

it has special learning abilities. For example, at a certain young

age, a human easily learns languages; whereas when older, an adult

has great difficulty learning a new language. It is well agreed

among sociologists that the early socialization of humans during

young childhood, has a marked effect in determining who they will be

and how they will act (as out of their culture) later in life. In my

family when I was growing up, I went through this process where my

brain had a special ability to learn and be formed (programmed) that

as an adult I no longer have. Of course the innate biological

ability to learn, by itself, is insufficient to cause socialization:

also present must be interactions with society.

The trouble is, with children, a special artificial world is

created around them (the whole school curriculum, parental activities

geared to children), while the adult world is hidden away from them. -

So that they become socialized to the artificial world and not to the

harsher adult world because it is hidden away. My parents would have

chores for me to do or encourage me to do my school work or send me

to camp or to music lessons (which I never was any good at). So

that as I was being socialized to this artificial world contrived for

children, the harsher world of adults remained hidden away and I was

not socialized to it. Of course my parents were just trying to give

me a happy childhood, but because of it, I missed out on being

socialized to the nasty ways of adult society. -thus the special

ability my young brain had to learn culture and be programmed, passed

without me learning the ropes of adult culture.

What marriage and family meant to me as a child, although I

didn't realize it at the time, was that I exist in a society with a

fairly high standard of living, but that wasn't necessarily very warm

or nurturing but could instead be cold and harsh, that wasn't going

to allow me a leg up on it by letting my childhood mind have a crack

at it. And also that I am still alive at all, because without my

family, I probably wouldn't be one of the skillful few who survived

socialization into a harsh society as it was self destructing. (In

order to cause negative and harsh societies to expire naturally while

maintaining the nurturing ones: disband the family. -something that

seems to be happening already as a response to the new pressures of

specialization and globalization. I suppose that wouldn't be the end

of it as some cloning program would be attempted.)