Such is the conundrum within the metaphysics of
family that some see in it a value central to the disciplining
of a properly functioning society. It is they
say the central unit within the wider community. They know with
precision how it should look, because they know with precision how
society should look. And of course those who think this way
live in ivory towers with a good view of the river surrounded by a barbed
wire fence, a watch tower and fierce dogs.
The traditional family is inherently
unfair. It's traditional status emerges from a dominance by male, the
subjugation of female, and the serfdom of children. An echo of the
Roman and medieval
world which is re-echoed in the corridors of current religious thought, I think.
Certainly it is
not the chant of free people.
The family more accurately is a breeding
stop during which males and females first copulate, then bond and then, if
they become friends, stay a while to pursue purpose. A blessed union in the days when
death was achieved at around the age of forty. A more problematic
union when males and females linger on into their eighties, or nineties. And
either way always a political matter because families consist of people.
This might sound sacrilegious, but I
think it does so only because I am referencing people. Were I to say
this of the Ivory Toothed River Baboon, my statements might be better
For those of us who claim to have no idea
how a society should look, we cannot then claim to know how a family should
look. Here "The I that is me" is mostly dominated by
"The I that is we".