Collapse of the Family and Intimate Community

Another Harari summary

From earliest times, it seems, people lived in family groups and communities were related by family ties. The agricultural revolution did not break those ties, they glued the smaller groups into clans and tribes. Families took care of you in sickness or in old age. In societies like these, neighbors and friends took care of each other and the communities supported each other by ties of mutual obligation. Relatively little was bought or sold in markets - usually less than 10% of people's needs.

Kings, emperors and the like could do larger scale public works like road building, war fighting, and perhaps major irrigation works. There were insufficient surpluses in the economy to maintain schools, hospitals, or large police forces. Most justice was administered by clan and family. Governments had the quality of a Mafia style protection racket - if you pay up they won't kill you and will protect you from the king of the protection racket next door.

Those without family were almost totally helpless.

The industrial revolution now has changed all that. Families and communities resisted, but state power mostly has triumphed. The market and the state have won most of the battles.

The state and the market promoted a powerful weapon against community and family: individualism. Individuals were freed of the power of family and community. State and market would provide rights, protection, education, justice, jobs, and health care.

The joke is that individualists are portrayed as fighters against the state, but in fact individualism is the most important invention of the state and market against the family. Individuals have been freed from family and community, but now are much more vulnerable to state and market. Market and state shape more and more of our even our romantic and sexual expectations and consequences. More and more community and family are replaced by groups from the state (nationalism) or the market (job, sports team, or consumer tribe).

Are we better for it or not? It's a two edged sword.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more