When I started the LL Passion website, I originally wanted to publish this article. It is about different ideas of family structures and in relation to the organisation/structure of society. The story is somewhat related to my work on the philosophy of love and emotions, and last but not least, how all this relates to society's attitudes towards lesbian and bisexual women? Please bear with me while I make a rather long introduction to the latter topic. I will therefore begin this article with the French historian Emmanuel Todd, whose work I became familiar with a few years ago. Todd's work shows an obvious correlation between family structure and a particular social system of each country, and how we could use this to create inclusive and happy societies that would allow a better acceptance of differences between nations. For example, he talks about how the French family tends to have more equal (but not totally equal) relationships between family members and that power is distributed horizontally, which correlates with the French social system that promotes equality, freedom and brotherhood/sisterhood, whereas the Germans form a family structure with a strong father figure, where power is distributed vertically, which makes for a country with strong leadership and others following. It's a highly organised, disciplined, hard-working nation that follows rules; the French, on the other hand, are not so easy to lead because they are more 'fluid' and have a high value for freedom and equality. And the third example is the UK, which is sort of in between the French and German family structures. Todd then lists which nations within the EU have one of the three family structures and claims that if we knew more about these different structures there would be more peaceful, fruitful dialogue, understanding and acceptance within the EU members and not only within the EU but also in the world. I trust his findings because he clearly has a distinctive method that can be validated and the results can be repeated and verified. Of course, it is the Scandinavian countries that for decades have had the least vertical distribution of power and where men spend almost as much time as women on domestic work, for example. But it should be noted that the modern French nation-state had a very different origin from that of Britain - the former is revolutionary-democratic, the latter capitalist; the former came into being by taking power away from the crown and giving it to the people, the latter became rich not so much through the industrial revolution and trade as through colonialist exploitation. This also clearly shows which nations have more progressive attitudes and policies towards inclusion and diversity in relation to so-called minority and vulnerable groups, such as LGBT people, but there are other factors that have a strong impact on inclusion, as France for example is not as progressive as the UK and even less so than Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.I like the fact that if leaders took Todd's findings into account, there would be more understanding of how to achieve possible long-term peace, equality, tolerance, modernisation, solidarity and prosperity.It fits with my thesis about which family structure, and especially which attitude to child rearing, enables a more democratic, free and equal system.It is the so-called nurturing parent model (caring father and/or caring mother) as opposed to the strict father model. The first is a democratic model and the second is an authoritarian model of family and society, which I will discuss at the end of this article. If Todd speaks from a historian's point of view, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson speak from a philosophical point of view, looking at family structure in relation to politics. Their nurturing parent vs. strict parent model adds another layer of understanding to the creation of politics. The strict parent (or father model) is modelled on the Christian model (morality, discipline) and the nurturing parent on the atheistic, democratic, emphatic model. Her study proved that children of nurturing parents behave morally better than children of strict fathers. The following is an excerpt from the article by Lakoff and Johnson: “The Nurturant Parent Model. > Nurturant Parent. In the Nurturant Parent progressive family, it is assumed that the world is basically good. And, however dangerous and difficult the world may be at present, it can be made better, and it is your responsibility to help make it better. Correspondingly, children are born good, and parents can make them better, and it is their responsibility to do so. Both parents (if there are two) are responsible for running the household and raising the children, although they may divide their activities. The parent's job is to be responsive to their children, nurture them, and raise their children to nurture others. In the Nurturant Parent family, the highest moral values are empathy and responsibility. Effective nurturing requires empathy, which is feeling what someone else feels - parents have to figure out what all their children's signs mean in order to take care of him or her. Responsibility is critical, since being a good nurturer means being responsible not only for looking after the well-being of others, but also for being responsible to ourselves so that we can take care of others. Nurturant parents raise children to be empathetic toward others, responsible to themselves, and responsible to others who are or will be in their care. Empathy connects us to other people in our families, our neighborhoods, and in the larger world. Being responsible to others and oneself requires cooperation. In society, nurturant morality is expressed as social responsibility and that is why nurturant parents are more inclusive and accept diversity. This requires cooperation rather than competition, and recognition of interdependence. Nurturant parents are mostly atheists. This model of the family induces a very different set of moral priorities, which can be characterized by another set of metaphors for morality. Here are the metaphors:
This metaphor entails that moral action requires empathy, involves sacrifices and that helping people who need help is a moral responsibility.
Strict Father: In the conservative worldview, it's assumed that the world is, and always will be, a dangerous and difficult place. It is a competitive world and there will always be winners and losers. Children are naturally bad since they want to do what feels good, not what is moral, so they have to be made good by being taught discipline. There is tangible evil in the world and to stand up to evil, one must be morally strong, or "disciplined." In the "Strict Father" family, the father's job is to protect and support the family. Children are to respect and obey him. The father's moral duty is to teach his children right from wrong, with punishment that is typically physical and can be painful when they do wrong. It is assumed that parental discipline in childhood is required to develop the internal discipline that adults will need in order to be moral and to succeed. Morality and success are linked through discipline. This focus on discipline is seen as a form of love - "tough love." The mother is in the background, not strong enough to protect and support the family or fully discipline the children on her own. Her job is to uphold the authority of the father and to care for and comfort the children. As a "mommy," she tends to be overly soft-hearted and might well coddle or spoil the child. The father must make sure this does not happen, lest the children become weak and dependent. Competition is necessary for discipline. Children are to become self-reliant through discipline and the pursuit of self-interest. Those who succeed as adults are the good (moral) people and parents are not to "meddle" in their lives. Those children who remain dependent - who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant - undergo further discipline or are turned out to face the discipline of the outside world. When everyone is acting morally and responsibly, seeking their own self-interest in a self-disciplined fashion, everyone benefits. Thus, instilling morality and discipline in your children is also acting for the good of society as a whole. In Strict Morality, the Strict Father is the moral authority, determining right from wrong, and protecting the family from a world that is chaotic and threatening. Evil is a major force in the world that must be fought using moral strength, which has the highest moral priority. Evil is both external and internal. Internal evil is fought with self-discipline and self-denial to achieve "self-control." "Weakness," and the tolerance of it, is immoral since it implies being unable to stand up to evil. Punishment is required to balance the "moral books": if you do wrong, you must suffer a negative consequence. Let me conclude. Why is all this knowledge good for LGBT people and especially lesbian and bisexual women? Because the notions of nurturing and strict parents can also be applied to what Emmanuel Todd wrote about the difference between different family structures and how these can be used in politics within the EU and in the world. We have also seen that non-religious people are more open-minded, forgiving, kind and willing to give opportunities to 'all kinds' of people. This knowledge can of course also be used and applied in the politics of LGBT people around the world. It means that homosexuality is more accepted and valued in families where parental power and authority is more evenly distributed, and where love and care come before punishment and discipline. Countries with more supportive family structures also have more laws that protect human rights and freedom of speech and movement, and they have laws and recommendations that protect vulnerable groups and value inclusivity and diversity in the home, the workplace and society in general. Not only that, but the representation of LGBT people in society is better and more visible, as evidenced by the numerous TV shows with LGBT characters played by LGBT people, advertisements featuring LGBT people and couples, employers more willing to hire LGBT people, LGBT people getting more of their projects funded, politicians willing to mention LGBT people, and more protection for single women (either gay or straight). In short, the Nurturant Parent Family makes the world a more peaceful, good, equal, fair, loving and happy place.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.Katarina Majerholdphilsopher, lesbian, editor Archives
May 2023
Categories |