The end of the family...Part I

The other day I had a discussion with some classmates over what is a family and more specifically alternatives. It was brought up in our readings ("The Ultimate Revolution" by Shulamith Firestone in Ethical issues in interpersonal communicaiton ISBN0-15-508257-4) that a more positive and ultimately stable form of relationships would be to abolish the institution of marriage. This would be in the context of a open and free society so those who insisted on the continuance of such idea would be free to live as they thought fit.

The purpose of marriage in to define ones family, and there are truly four (albeit disputable) main purposed:

• The procreation of children
• The socialization of children into the larger society
• The mutual care and support of fellow members
• The regulation of sexual behaviours.

If we lived in a society that allowed for the fluid and free forming relations to form, were there was no contractual obligation to remain with the person beyond the mutual desirability, we would eliminate the major cause of domestic abuse. We could call these relationships Eroships. This could be between any number of individuals and exists only as long as there is mutual consent. Intimate relationships would have to exist with in the confines of these friendships, but because of the transient nature of them, lust should still flow freely but only as the will of the participants. This we no-longer need the family for perform duty 4, the regulation of sexual behaviour.

But our needs for companionship and aid exist beyond that of lust, there is also the support, moral, psychological and material, that we offer member of our family, what of these. Again, we look at free forming relationships. We find in the real work that people outside of kin relationships help others. In fact is could be argued that if we had no kin relationships we would treat everyone as though there were kin. By removing the implicit hierarchy found in kin relationships; we remover the hierarchy found in society. These relationships formed for mutual aide, irrespective of kinship, we could call Agapeships a communal living arrangement intended on the mutual care and companionship of fellow members.

Now most people would say that the able and healthy will abandon the needy. That those homes with the able will prosper inequitably and at the expense of the needy. This is true and would happen if it were not for the ingrained believe in the communal. The greater family we form or our Philiaships, our loyalty to the common good. It is the understanding that comes out of the evolution of the traditional hierarchal family unit that we all members of the same family, that we prosper only as much as the lest among us and suffer as little as the one who suffers the most. Martin Luther King put it:

”The…good… [make] concern for others the first law of…life…He is a part of me and I am a part of him. His Agony diminishes me, and his salvation enlarges me”

Societies are not judged by what they for the powerful, they are not judged by how pamper the rich; no they are judged by how they have treated the worst off, by the poorest, the weakest. It is the only measure that any moral person can see having value. So we need to educate our people that wealth is not found in things, but in people; in the whole. When this society is created caring, truly caring for ones fellow person will both a pre-requisite and a necessity at least by the majority and it is the majority that will benefit most from this mindset.