I never, ever talk to my neighbors and that's what makes me happy. I wonder if they could figure out what gene I have that's responsible for that and then sell it as a CRISPR modification.
Look at the date of the Betty Friedan book mentioned the article, or consider the Stones' song about "Mother's little helper" (valium) or, for that matter, Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina. All far predated the Internet or even the ARPANET.
I think its exacerbated the issue. Social anxiety ramped up due to social networks, plenty of cheap entertainment over the internet to just barely keep going while sinking ever deeper.
Not long ago your social options were extremely limited. Today you can (roughly) be anywhere an 8000 square mile area within an hour, and talk to almost anybody on the planet within seconds.
Without the Internet (personal cars being a thing not long before), you were stuck with whoever lived within a mile or so, with "instant" communications limited to your neighbors - which was great if you liked them, and sucked massively if you didn't.
I'm oddly reminded of Victorian novels revolving around the notion "I dislike you and you're marginally ugly, but you're the only social option I've got so let's wed."
Spot on. This is something my wife and I have known for a while now. The shitty part of this reality, is that there isn't much anyone who isn't extremely can do about it. In countries like Denmark, there are many apartment communities which have communal areas and kitchens, which allows folks to have "villages" in close quarters to city centers.
My experience on the west coast of the USA however, is that no such thing exists outside of convalescent homes for elderly people.
Some people have gone to extreme lengths to buy up land with a 503c corp in order to create communes in the countryside, which is great! While that solves the issues around villages and communal living, it divorces itself from the life and culture of society at large. How can we still benefit from communal living, while still providing the option to work a modern job in a downtown office?
In Japan (mostly Tokyo), the concept of "share houses" are super popular. With the ever increasing workload on everyone, people have a hard time spending social time with others. These share houses, with large common living areas and kitchens, give people a little bit more social interaction than they'd otherwise get. I've lived in a few myself, and as long as its a quality house (medium price range and up), it's a great experience.
Next up: "Could modern work in downtown offices be the reason why we're all miserable?"
I'm only half joking.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that staring at a computer screen 40+ hours a week is not healthy at all. Couple that with the known psychological ill-effects of social media together with the hysterical, outrage-driven news-cycle, which we consume while staring into said screens, and the effect is downright toxic for mental and physical health and general happiness.
It's pretty much a given that staring at a screen 40+ hours is bad for you. It's bad physically and mentally. I used to take long trips between 6 and 8 weeks for vacation and I always noticed how after a few weeks I started seeing the world around me much clearer than when I work. I think we are losing the ability to take a break.
>I think we are losing the ability to take a break.
I'm not sure if it's just me, but I've been feeling a huge sense of urgency lately. The news just keeps coming that endemic corruption has finally eaten through the woodwork, and I feel like if I don't take the opportunity to learn while the learning is good, I'll be screwed in 2-5 years when the norms collapse.
I guess that's a similar mindset to 'preppers', but I'm focusing on knowledge rather than things. Soon enough, I probably won't be able to look up how to...oh I dunno, make a blacksmithing forge on the cheap.
Maybe if we felt like we lived in a stable situation, we'd be more able to step back and breathe. Relentlessly tap-dancing on quicksand isn't good for anyone's mental health.
It is, but the people in those eras bled and died for the protections that we are starting to eschew rather than strengthen. And people do have less time today than they did in the early 20th century. Smartphones have made sure of that. Maybe it's a moral failing to waste a significant amount of time on them, but do you know many people who don't? It seems more like a reliable exploit than an individual failing to me.
"Things used to be worse" cannot be used to excuse "things will not get better."
> I'm not sure if it's just me, but I've been feeling a huge sense of urgency lately. The news just keeps coming that endemic corruption has finally eaten through the woodwork, and I feel like if I don't take the opportunity to learn while the learning is good, I'll be screwed in 2-5 years when the norms collapse.
I think you can blame that on social media, the mainstream media and the internet in general. There's definitely a 'sky is falling' panic on sites like Twitter and Reddit. Might be best to sometimes switch off your smartphone, avoid TV news and take it easy.
Being isolated is a social function that has nothing to do with marriage.
At least within a family there is a micro community. There's no reason not to be active and engaged as families.
If anything - the 'problem' is modernity and consumer culture.
When people lived in villages, and everyone knew everyone - it may not have been great, but I suggest people were less lonely.
Even the more isolated people in small towns - have places they can go 'where everyone knows their name'. This is fulfilling - to know that 'people care' even if they don't know you very well. It's something to be 85 years old in a town where basically every resident knows you, and knows about you.
I agree with what you're saying. I think the author was wrong in trying to pin it completely on the "nuclear family."
I was more or less agreeing with the notion that many of us pursue this path to self-sufficiency with our nuclear families. We buy our own house. Do our own laundry, our own cooking and yard work, our own house repairs, etc, etc. After all that work, I personally find I have little time and energy to socialize.
So then we work harder so we can afford services like maids and gardeners.
I think the answer is akin to what the author mentions: we need a village! It would be great if I used my handy skills to help my neighbors, and the local green thumb helped me with my yard in turn. It would be great if a retired woman in the neighborhood wanted to help take care of the babies for a night while my wife and I go out.
Back in the days of villages, this was how it worked. Now, along with the consumerist culture you mentioned, and the dogma about self-sufficiency, we are all working ourselves to death.
+ We don't put a number value on these things, so it doesn't work into the GDP, ergo, things that do have a numbered value get overrepresented in policy making. This is how 'big business' and business/libertarian types move against communities without realizing it.
+ 'Old' cultural artifacts come with a lot of baggage (ie gender, sexuality), and it's hard to change - so lefty progressive types like to discount almost anything 'traditional' in favour of modern 'culturally secular' values of their own intellectual making. But they throw the baby out with the bathwater. This to me is how progressive type people and thinkers move against communities without realizing it.
I am originally from a very small town, and I go back often, and I am very thankful for it.
What scares me the most about modern culture - is the suburban kids I know have the concept of 'community' completely erased from their cultural knowledge after only one generation in the 'new world'.
These are the types that get sold 'Starbucks' as being some kind of legit 'community meeting spot'. They don't grasp that the 'warm glow of a Starbucks' is manufactured in a marketing meeting!
We are very much in alignment. I wish there were more folks that think the way you do -- then we might actually find good solutions to these issues.
I am one of those suburban kids, but thankfully as an adult I've learned how important community is, and I've been in search of it ever since. You've hit the nail on the head with the baggage that comes with cultural traditions. That's one of the things that makes finding community very difficult.
I honestly think kids these days view online communities as the most important, since they have much more freedom to "go there" and meet others without the restrictions of having mom drop them off, or even more broadly, without the geographical restrictions they might have. Unfortunately, online communities can't make up for face-to-face bonding, affection, or support.
I read an article a few days ago (possibly posted here on HN) that was talking about a group that's been buying up properties in SF and turning them into (more or less) communal homes for middle-income people who make too much to qualify for affordable housing, but not enough to afford SF. They have small private bedrooms with semi-shared bathrooms, but with a large common kitchen and eating area where everyone can get together and cook and eat together.
I hope something like this takes off; it's interesting that it's coming about in SF because of housing costs.
Being part of a Nuclear family doesn't mean that you can't branch out and be more involved in a community. Raising kids is hard, and can be lonely but also gives you a strong bond and shared experience to talk to a HUGE part of the world and make introductions.
The community, layout of housing, etc are all extremely impactful on this. So too, is the ability of the community to organize. You can have a GREAT community in a cookie cutter suburb. This is especially true if you have communal gathering areas like a pool, park, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that the Nuclear family is not the underlying reason for any of this. The ability to be alone if one wants to be alone for all things (think about how technology has basically enabled you to function without any human interaction if you choose, and people DO choose this), and the idea that you're being rude by taking the risk of saying hello is a larger cause.
EDIT/ corollary: Advice to new parents - try to find a place with other young families. They're all looking for this connection. These are some of the strongest networks that you will find especially if they live in close proximity.
At the bottom of her post she says she did just what you suggest. She started interacting with other people. I don't think the whole "nuclear family causes misery" thing made much sense. She evidently didn't either since her solution to being lonely was to go do things with other people rather than trying to change her family social unit.
Honestly, that author's note at the bottom reads a lot like "this whole post is wrong, but I already wrote it."
If joining shared-interest groups solves isolation induced misery, then the nuclear family isn't an irreparable problem. It's at worst one factor in broader atomization, and should be viewed as such.
I have a very weird perspective because both my parents worked from home AND homeschooled us. We did a lot of church activities and swim team. We were 0% lonely, in fact I longed to be alone as a kid ;)
And I was homeschooled by a single mom who obviously had to also work to put food on the table and a roof over our head. I'd say I was 95% lonely. In general kids need the socialization an organized school would provide.
Wow that must have been difficult. I would personally not homeschool my own kids, but I think it's a good option in certain situations. I'd like to send my own kids to a school, but one that's maybe more a "hippie" school that allows them ample free time and activity.
If you're part of a nuclear family in urban/suburban America, you'll notice that neighborhoods tend to turn over at about the pace children go through K-12 school. That is, new developments are frequently bought up by new parents (or aspiring couples), then the houses start turning over in 8-12 years as kids grow up. It's a natural cycle.
I was entertaining the theory the other day that when families first emigrate they carry over customs from the farms or inner city neighbourhoods they came from, but following generations lose touch with those customs as the new built environment is no longer facilitates them.
I was on a Sunday evening bike ride in the summer, in an older but still suburban style neighbourhood with lots of immigrants. The kids were all out playing, the neighbours were hanging out on their front porches and mingling with other neighbours doing the same. I was like 'wow, this is like the idyllic 1950's vision of the suburbs except everyone is brown.' Then you get out to the newer outer ring suburbs where all the white people live and nobody is outside.
There are things like getting exercise and talking to your neighbours that are essential for a person's health and happiness, but when their circumstances make these things unessecary there is a tendency not to do them. We're suffering because of it.
The whole uptopian notion of the mechanized garden city that America embraced as the standard model for modernity was poorly thought out. Now it's like a paperclip maximizing AI: Mindless and unstoppable.
That's interesting - but it seems like the absence of kids playing outside is very recent in US culture. I grew in, in SF west of twin peaks, and all kids played outside unsupervised for hours. This had been true for generations, going way back, through wave after wave of families, both immigrant from overseas, relocated from other parts the US, or born and bred in SF.
This really doesn't happen where I live in SF neighborhood (with two kids), nowhere near to the same extent. And it still is a very immigrant heavy neighborhood, and unusually diverse in terms of country of origin, even by SF's (perhaps diminishing) standards.
Part of the reason, I think, is critical mass. of kids I'd happily allow my kids to play outside, but there isn't a giant mass of kids already out there, which was the case when I was younger. This may partly be due to the collapse in the child age population in SF (not a collapse, it seems, in infant or toddler ages, it's stroller bumper cars around, but people often move when their kids get older). In my time (early 70s to today), it's gone from like 25% to below 14%, which in such a short time does represent a kind of collapse.
But even that doesn't seem to explain it, since the less expensive SFH neighborhoods south of 280 are still the parts of SF with percentages of under 18 residents similar to the more remote 'burbs.
But it got to the point where I enrolled my kid in the YMCA school after-care program, because it seems like that is where most of the after school socializing goes on now. It is somewhat unstructured, schoolyard play, but there's an authority figure around to appeal to. I don't want to overly nostalgize the lack of any supervision when I was a kid, there actually was some bad shit, but no doubt, kids are growing up in an environment that is different from the zero supervision environment I had when I was a kid. Something is probably lost in all this as well.
It seems like the author bought in to a specific family structure without considering other alternatives and now, having discovered it's not her cup of tea, wants to blame it for humanity's misery. It's not the reason we're all miserable, but it might be the reason you are.
Many families live with grandparents, many have one or three children, some have a single mom, a single dad, or two dads and they're all getting along fine. Some of these families are even on the West coast!
I am currently acting as a stay at home dad in what would otherwise be a standard American Atomic Family on the West coast of the United States. I am not depressed and suicidal, in fact I am perhaps more content than I have ever been. I don't mind doing "women's work" and when I go to the park near where I live there are almost always other people there. My wife does have to sometimes rush home from work to get our daughter from preschool, but she doesn't have to cook dinner because that's something I enjoy doing.
You can, and should, find the lifestyle and family structure that works for you and your family.
I'm not sure the isolation she mentions is because of a nuclear family unless there is something about her family that prohibits her from doing things with other people. For example, going to the park as you do.
This is really a loaded article giving a false dilemma fallacy, and seems like projection from a lonely person.
A nuclear family doesn't inherently make us miserable, nor does it force us to avoid our extended family.
No one is stopping the author from meeting other moms or other people.
In my town, many moms (of many different races too) meet up at the local coffee shop, they trade tips, setup play dates, and sometimes they even go shopping together.
She could visit her extended family, she could make friends, she could try to be part of her community.
This kind of stuff doesn't magically happen even in the asian communities, where we live in extended families. Plus even in extended families we have different griefs, interfamily conflict is a common.
EDIT:
Another comment now dead mentioned suburban nation.
Its a good but biased book.
It gives some good explanations of how housing subdivisions, shopping centers, office parks, civic institutions, and roadways affect people.
The article wouldn't have been as marketable if the title was "Could Not Doing Things With Others Be The Reason We are Lonely?" Yet at the bottom of the article the author explains that she joined a group of other people who were also caring for their children and made friends. That has always been the solution to feeling lonely and isolated.
We could find all kinds of things to blame from television to HVAC systems to larger houses to the Internet. Picking nuclear families as a target seems like quite a stretch. There are plenty of pictures from the time period she mentions that show people outside talking over fences, on their front porches, helping each other, and otherwise interacting with people around them. When we stop doing those types of things, we get lonely. The social unit of nuclear families isn't the reason people feel isolated.
The focus on the nuclear family, in American terms, seems to be a product of post-war development and suburban living in the 1950s. And yet even harsh critics of the 1950s mostly focus on the people excluded from or hurt by that lifestyle; atomization and familial loneliness are hardly ever raised as major objections.
(I've certainly seen the isolation of housewives raised, but that's not the same as "the nuclear family" and in fact was largely about a stay-at-home lifestyle.)
So I think you're exactly right here: the nuclear family is at worst one of many changes that enabled social isolation. The actual fact of isolation didn't set in until much later, and it's origin could be equally well blamed on problems from cheap consumer goods (no need to share or borrow) to the decentralization of media (no shared icons like Edward R. Murrow).
A proper treatment of the question would admit that the problem is polygenic and look for shared causes or solutions. But the hot-take approach is to pick one convenient issue and treat it as a singular cause.
It sounds like you've hit on an opportunity for further exploration and writing. Will you be taking that on, or were you just postulating? I'd be interested in reading it.
Well shit. I wasn't planning to write it up, but I do have a whole list of thoughts on this topic. Tell you what - I'll hit up this comment with some more extensive thoughts in the next two days?
Meantime I can recommend some relevant, interesting reading here (not my blog, but definitely one that's helped me think about this stuff): https://balioc.wordpress.com
So as a sociological phenomenon, our relative aloneness is interesting, but I've been hearing about it for decades, not in a way that just applies to mothers. The whole "we used to know our neighbors!!" cry seems a bit dated now.
The interesting twist these days is social media. Even though you are being social using those apps, from what I've seen, it doesn't fill the gap.
Nuclear families though? I'm not sure how they get the blame outside of the general trend.
I think the question is a correlation versus causation question that sociology seems to have a hard time answering so far. Our society's increasing relative aloneness (to past societies, especially) is definitely correlated to a sense of the strong nuclear family as the preferred household unit (over various sorts of multi-generational or clan/tribe household units).
This article posits two causations, with ideas like the 50s suburban American dream (of advertisers) causing a stronger focus on nuclear family as household unit, and the stronger focus on nuclear family as household unit as a causation for increased relative aloneness.
If those posits are correct, then yes a case can be made that you can directly blame the modern conception of strong nuclear family as household unit for the general trend of relative aloneness.
I think another thing is the definition of nuclear family and making implications about that.
Nuclear family, in vernacular tends to mean a fam where there is a mother figure, father figure (this includes same sex couples) children and by extension associated relatives (grandparents, cousins, etc) who you have some contact with, as opposed to a family where there is either a missing mother figure, father figure or both or those figures are peripheral and often times absent (aka broken homes).
Of course, we can define a nuclear family to mean other things as well depending on context as well as to serve a narrative.
My understanding is that "nuclear family" means just two parents and their kids, and no more[0]. The associated relatives you mention are considered "extended family", and in this structure, usually do not live with the nuclear family.
If you consider cultures where it's common to have multiple generations and cousin-families living in the same house, that's in stark contrast to the nuclear family.
> ... as opposed to a family where there is either a missing mother figure, father figure or both or those figures are peripheral and often times absent (aka broken homes).
Not at all. The nuclear family is a family as you describe, as opposed to one living with extended family (grandparents, for instance).
Isn't, however, this gandparental extended family just the previous gen nuclear family?
There is no reason to consider a nuclear family an island onto itself. Extended families are often times, but not always, the linking of multigenerational nuclear families. Now, one can have extended families that are not blood relatives.
But yeah, it is tricky sometimes. If you get shipped off to aunts and uncles or other relatives while mom and dad figs stay together because of issues beyond their control that may not be a nuclear family as it is disruptive to the kids.
I think the context in the article here is "nuclear family [as household unit]", with the elided part in square brackets implied. So there may be no reason in general to consider the nuclear family an island unto itself, but this article is referring to the trend to think of a nuclear family as a household unit (island) unto itself.
A nuclear family as a unit unto itself is most evident when people move to the city or cross country for [reason]. Then you rely on the tendrils offered by modern communication till you establish yourself and begin forming new local relationships. In some settings it may be difficult to do.
It can be difficult in the suburbs as elicited in Robert Adams's "New West"[1] and it can also be difficult in the dense cityscapes of Japan[2].
We can dream of the times people were born and died in the same house or village and lived in multigenerational houses out of need rather than will. Today economies are different and the way we organize depends on many things, economic ability, economic forces, culture, etc. Some for the better, others for the worse.
Staying at home with children is marvellous. Interactions with adult friends are staid and stereotypical by comparison. Plus with the internet one has access to the world's knowledge. Any boredom is therefore one's own problem.
>Yet we long for more than just that one perfect mate — we need to be a part of something bigger to feel happy and alive. We need community and a variety of ages and friends. No one person can be everything to us.
Some equivocation there. Isn't sexual adventure really just another version of 'Valium and liquor'?
I remember coming to US, Chicago specifically, less then 15 yrs ago, coming to suburbs and discovering weird silence and lack of people. It freaked me out so much that I am still in the city /w my wife and 3 kids. Suburbs are weird and can make you crazy.
I don't want to comment on other parts of the post, as I just don't share same concerns.
I think that the issue is less to do with the family and more to do with the fact that as an adult most of your adult interaction comes from your profession. Your friends as a child and young adult come from school, as an adult they only come from social groups that form around things such as sports, hobbies, and social groups such as a church.
With a move to first world status there is usually an associated decrease in religious adherence. People then naturally define themselves as what they do first. Getting friends as an adult is very hard as competing schedules and interests can conspire to push people apart, so the default is to make friends with those with whom your work. As a stay at home parent that requires actually seeking out the parental groups.
tl;dr making friends as an adult is difficult and can lead to loneliness.
As somebody who tried to find a community with religious adherence, I can sadly report making friends in that environment is equally difficult as it is in the real world, you still have to impress people, adopt their vocabulary, etc.
It can certainly be difficult regardless of whether or not there is a defined place, but the benefits of a repeated time and place for events, much like sports bars, is what I was getting at. In a sports bar you would still need to support the local team and learn the lingo to impress people, but that doesn't mean it's easy.
I think maybe this author is overly defining nuclear family in such a way that the issues are all really problems with living in the suburbs. A family living together in a city could have a much stronger community and social outlets for all the family members.
Seconded. I hang out with my nuclear family most of the time. It's awesome. Hard work and lot's of responsibility, but rewarding. To be honest, a career seems so much less significant since I've had children.
The article reads like a case greener grass. Perhaps there were other factors which led to the loneliness and unhappiness, rather than the concept itself.
"Recently, I was following a thread on Facebook in which several men were debating the reasons for why it seems that men and women are drifting apart. "
politics. politics put a strong divide between white and black in the US. "vote for me, all your problems are because of white people, white privilege" etc. it drove both groups away from eachother like water and oil.
then that shifted between men and women, and I knew immediately what the outcome would be.
every race has experienced hardships, but its comments like that that divide people in group 1: 'i didnt succeed because of my skin color' and the other people from group 2: 'they are complaining they dont have enough because of their skin color, calling me privileged because of my skin color, when I have nothing either'.
you do nothing for the conversation, you only prolong the back and forth. We are in control of our own destinies and comments like yours convince people otherwise.
>you do nothing for the conversation, you only prolong the back and forth
This is an important contribution - the back and forth has to be prolonged, it has to be argued endlessly, to change the status quo. Not everyone has to become a leader. Awareness is also good enough for many.
>We are in control of our own destinies
Yes we are, but the ease of control could be much better for many people than what it is today.
You should check out Ta-Nehisi Coates' "Between the World and Me." It's an interesting discussion of the above -- and somewhat more nuanced than would be possible in Hacker News comments.
I think a lot of people here are missing the psychological effects of the nuclear family because of a focus on housing or community.
I think she's right to point at the nuclear family, because of what it is: self-sufficient. Income, forming a household, reproducing the structure in the next generation, it's all there. You don't need other people. And when you don't need other people, it's easier to go it alone. It's easier for other people to go it alone. You don't have your friends help you move, instead you hire movers. You don't cook together, at best you host, and then as we dive into modernity we neither host nor cook. We hire people to watch the kids. We don't want to burden other people. We don't actually NEED help, so we don't ask for help. We'll finish it all off by hiring people to watch us die.
I see some wisdom in the conservative critique that the state should not replace family, should not replace mutual support, that needing each other is a gift for both the person who needs and the person provides help. But it's not government per se, it's the professionalization of support.
It's small, but I have extended family that shares carpooling for the kids. We need to talk about schedules, and sometimes we resent each other, and we take over for each other when someone is sick, and it can be annoying, but I see all these kids regularly, and we can't fall out of contact.
I SHOULD invite people over for dinner, except also have them help me prepare for dinner, maybe even clean for dinner. I personally would not be offended to myself receive such an invitation. But I don't do it. It would pierce the facade on our nuclear family, and my wife is not comfortable with compromising that facade. (Being a man I don't place any self-worth in my housekeeping, and so it is admittedly easier for me to expose any failings.)
> I SHOULD invite people over for dinner, except also have them help me prepare for dinner, maybe even clean for dinner.
This bit really resonated with me. I don't personally enjoy cooking. My girlfriend and I have started doing it reasonably often for simple, easy-to-prepare meals. We ended up hosting Thanksgiving at my place this year, and almost everyone showed up early, either bringing something to eat, or bringing some raw materials of things so we could prep and cook together. It was so much fun, and was a truly worthwhile and bonding collective experience. We'd done this in previous years, but this was the first time I hosted, and it actually felt really different from that perspective.
My friends and I haven't done this for random non-holiday occasions, but I'd really like to do this again.
It's a "thing", too -- Friendsgiving. And it is fabulous, and hopefully has become the stimulus folks needed to casually reopen their doors at dinner time to any of their friends and neighbors. I miss this from when I was a kid [born in '77].
No, the nuclear family is not the reason we're all miserable, but if the nuclear family is your sole outlet for community then it may well be.
I've recently realized that my wife and I are very much people who want a "village" for lack of a better word. A wide circle of friends whose lives we regularly move through as they move through ours and is in close geographic area. It takes effort and time, especially with peoples busy schedules. It means that we do things like host a Halloween potluck on our front lawn for the neighborhood before we were off to trick-or-treat with the kids, that we speak to our neighbors when we're on walks and know their dogs names, making some encouragement signs for the elementary schools 5k run that passed in front of our house, and dozens of other things.
We've made our home in an area that facilitates this, with a little "downtown" area with a pharmacy, a neighborhood bar, and a few restaurants within walking distance an easy 15 minute commute from city center. We can't go anywhere on the weekend without seeing and talking to someone we know or being introduced to someone we don't. And as a bit of an introvert I don't always enjoy every interaction, but I do crave it for my family. I don't get into playing with kids much and their volume is at time stressful, but I love seeing mine run around with friends on long summer evenings and being so excited to see them when we're out running errands and how my wife enjoys being able to catch up with our friends for a shared dinner around our table or theirs on a week night.
It also means that there is some amount of shared responsibility for each other, which means things like being offered a generator when our power was out for a couple of days thanks to this seasons hurricanes. It means an extra set of hands for whatever tasks is usually no further than a text message way. It means that our homes are full of condolences and offerings of food/child care when there is a serious sickness or death in the family.
It takes a lot of work, and the stay at home parents (mostly women and maybe as much as a quarter or so of the families in our group) all put a lot of effort in facilitating these kinds of relationships, reinforcing those connections on a daily and weekly basis that the whole profits from. Its not for everyone, but for people like the OP finding a community like this can go well past solving any sense of isolation.
I think the argument the article is trying to make (maybe not entirely successfully) is that your "village" concept used to be the default and now the default is strong-self-supporting nuclear family without a stronger community. The argument, as I see it, isn't that you can't put in the work and find a bigger community, it's that in general as a society we don't, by default (in part because it is more work now).
Way to blame everyone else for being duplicitous and not understanding that some wants are diametrically opposed.
If you don't want to live in some safe, serene, upscale, cookie-cutter white bread neighborhood where everyone is house-poor and has to hustle to survive, then don't. There's plenty of places that aren't like that! What a relief it would be for working men to not have to put up with so many materialistic wants!
I highly encourage reading Sex at Dawn [1]. It's an amazing paradigm-shifter regarding human sexuality.
In a nutshell, it (convincingly, IMHO) argues that the modern story society tells itself about mating and family is dead wrong, and that we as a species are wired for communal (or rather tribal) mating. It's a deep rabbithole. It's also available in audiobook form, if you prefer.
You can get the gist of the argument from wikipedia [1] and a TED talk one of the authors gave [2].
This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs. It's about as accurate as a Greek myth.
From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is), if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it. It is very difficult to find partners who do not exhibit some form of negative emotions when their partners seek out other partners. These outcomes happen even when both partners are trying hard not to hurt each others' feelings.
It's certainly possible that the growth of agricultural societies changed the dynamics of sexual relationships, but it's doubtful that in 10,000 years our brains were rewired to find any alternative model to be emotionally reprehensible. Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism!
Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today. It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices.
> This is weak theoretical propaganda pushed by biased amateurs.
How so? What makes these authors biased. I'm genuinely interested. I haven't read their bio, but what makes these people biased against the current model of sexuality or for the alternative one?
> From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is)
It's hard to avoid anecdotes in this subject matter. Yes, the book gathers bits and pieces from different disciplines to look at how developed societies behave sexually, and contrasts that with prehistoric sexuality (which we know little of) and sexuality in some less developed societies and close primates. They show that an alternative narrative of human sexuality fits many of the known facts (and best guesses) better than the standard one. Is anyone sure that either of these narratives is correct? No. Can anyone point to anything but anecdotes to support either one? I think not. That doesn't mean that the idea should be dismissed.
> if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it.
We are unequipped at the societal level. The book claims that we are equipped at the biological one. With divorce, infidelity and depression rates being what they are, I'm not sure anyone can claim that we're any better equipped to handle the current model. Also, there's a difference between being socially unequipped and being biologically unequipped. If tomorrow's society decides to turn veterinarian, a few generations from now will be socially unequipped to eating meat. They won't find meat in the stores, and might even consider eating meat a taboo of sorts. That doesn't mean that they'll be unable to eat meat, or that the smell or taste of meat will stop being appealing.
> Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism!
That doesn't mean that Sex at Dawn's model is wrong. It just says that you wish it were wrong. That's hardly the same thing.
> Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today.
Agreed. But we're having a discussion, aren't we? No one is saying anything about changing how humans behave.
> It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices.
Why is that more important? Maybe that's what some people would like to discuss, that doesn't make it more important. Perhaps that whole discussion is moot since it start with an incorrect premise.
The Wikipedia page for the book has a good description of the negative criticism of the book, and the authors are non-monogamists who wanted to form an argument in favor of non-monogamy, and they have stated as much. So it's like a researcher publishing a study specifically to confirm a theory they had rather than test for its accuracy.
The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution.
I would be very happy to find more concrete evidence of the sexual relationships of people 10,000 years ago! But I think it's going to take significant advances in paleoanthropology (if it's even possible) and that is probably a long way off.
> The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!".
That's not my understanding of the book. Heck, I remember that at some point in the book the authors explicitly say that they themselves don't know what to do with the consequences of their model. I never got an impression that they were trying to convince readers to have give any "alternative' lifestyle a try.
EDIT:
Here, I found relevant passage from the book:
Our model might strike you as absurd, salacious, insulting,
scandalous, fascinating, depressing, illuminating, or obvious. But whether or not you are comfortable with what we present here, we hope you’ll keep reading. We are not advocating any particular response to the information we’ve put together. Frankly, we’re not sure what to do with it ourselves.
> But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution.
You're right. The fact that you can't beat evolution is key here. BUT we can talk about societal institutions all we want, but if the whole time we assume that monogamy is the natural and only way in which society can function, then the whole discussion is moot since we might be asking the wrong questions. For instance, think about what would happen to any discussion about the institution of marriage if we remove the monogamy assumption. What would happen any discussion of the nuclear family?
Religion being a driving force for a lot of these discussions, it does not matter what is natural, because a book is telling you it is wrong. They follow the book, not science, or logic.
Yeah, I'm always a bit dumbfounded when I hear the communal/polyamory argument. It seems to go against the observed behavior of almost every major society across the world. Exceptions are rare, and the ones I've read about didn't seem to function well at all.
It also seems to me to go against all instinct, and for the lack of a better term, "evolutionary" psychology. Males mammals tend to get aggressive when another male encroaches on their "space" or dominion - homicidal even.
I don't think humans are an exception to this pattern of behavior.
> Males mammals tend to get aggressive when another male encroaches on their "space" or dominion - homicidal even.
While that's probably true about many mammals, that doesn't mean that it's true for humans, at least not at the biological level. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that our men's aggressiveness towards other men that approach upon "their women" is a societal construct, not a biological one. This is supported by the fact that there are human (and close ape) societies in which that is the case.
Sex at dawn pokes quite a lot of holes in the standard narrative of human sexuality; and they propose an alternative one which seems to fit some of the facts better. While their model might not be accurate or, and may even be wrong, I've yet to seen anyone poke serious holes in it or manage to patch the holes they've poked in the standard narrative. I'd appreciate being pointed to such arguments.
“Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.
In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future.”
Worth noting that "neoliberalism" as a term must be taken in context of the era in which Chomsky wrote this.
Both "neo" and "liberal" as word roots are relative by nature, and no longer apply in a modern context to that which they were attributed in this case.
Because "the left" has all but abandoned the working class. The used to care about shopping malls taking out the little guys and global trade undermining local jobs but the former is now seen as unwilling to adapt to the new economy and the later is seen as racist. "White male" is now used as an insult when it should form the core of the left.
110 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadIt's the Internet.
Without the Internet (personal cars being a thing not long before), you were stuck with whoever lived within a mile or so, with "instant" communications limited to your neighbors - which was great if you liked them, and sucked massively if you didn't.
I'm oddly reminded of Victorian novels revolving around the notion "I dislike you and you're marginally ugly, but you're the only social option I've got so let's wed."
My experience on the west coast of the USA however, is that no such thing exists outside of convalescent homes for elderly people.
Some people have gone to extreme lengths to buy up land with a 503c corp in order to create communes in the countryside, which is great! While that solves the issues around villages and communal living, it divorces itself from the life and culture of society at large. How can we still benefit from communal living, while still providing the option to work a modern job in a downtown office?
I'm only half joking.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that staring at a computer screen 40+ hours a week is not healthy at all. Couple that with the known psychological ill-effects of social media together with the hysterical, outrage-driven news-cycle, which we consume while staring into said screens, and the effect is downright toxic for mental and physical health and general happiness.
I'm not sure if it's just me, but I've been feeling a huge sense of urgency lately. The news just keeps coming that endemic corruption has finally eaten through the woodwork, and I feel like if I don't take the opportunity to learn while the learning is good, I'll be screwed in 2-5 years when the norms collapse.
I guess that's a similar mindset to 'preppers', but I'm focusing on knowledge rather than things. Soon enough, I probably won't be able to look up how to...oh I dunno, make a blacksmithing forge on the cheap.
Maybe if we felt like we lived in a stable situation, we'd be more able to step back and breathe. Relentlessly tap-dancing on quicksand isn't good for anyone's mental health.
"Things used to be worse" cannot be used to excuse "things will not get better."
Certainly not. But we shouldn't forget that we have it pretty good and make sure we keep it that way and build upon it.
I think you can blame that on social media, the mainstream media and the internet in general. There's definitely a 'sky is falling' panic on sites like Twitter and Reddit. Might be best to sometimes switch off your smartphone, avoid TV news and take it easy.
Being isolated is a social function that has nothing to do with marriage.
At least within a family there is a micro community. There's no reason not to be active and engaged as families.
If anything - the 'problem' is modernity and consumer culture.
When people lived in villages, and everyone knew everyone - it may not have been great, but I suggest people were less lonely.
Even the more isolated people in small towns - have places they can go 'where everyone knows their name'. This is fulfilling - to know that 'people care' even if they don't know you very well. It's something to be 85 years old in a town where basically every resident knows you, and knows about you.
I was more or less agreeing with the notion that many of us pursue this path to self-sufficiency with our nuclear families. We buy our own house. Do our own laundry, our own cooking and yard work, our own house repairs, etc, etc. After all that work, I personally find I have little time and energy to socialize.
So then we work harder so we can afford services like maids and gardeners.
I think the answer is akin to what the author mentions: we need a village! It would be great if I used my handy skills to help my neighbors, and the local green thumb helped me with my yard in turn. It would be great if a retired woman in the neighborhood wanted to help take care of the babies for a night while my wife and I go out.
Back in the days of villages, this was how it worked. Now, along with the consumerist culture you mentioned, and the dogma about self-sufficiency, we are all working ourselves to death.
Existential problems:
+ We don't put a number value on these things, so it doesn't work into the GDP, ergo, things that do have a numbered value get overrepresented in policy making. This is how 'big business' and business/libertarian types move against communities without realizing it.
+ 'Old' cultural artifacts come with a lot of baggage (ie gender, sexuality), and it's hard to change - so lefty progressive types like to discount almost anything 'traditional' in favour of modern 'culturally secular' values of their own intellectual making. But they throw the baby out with the bathwater. This to me is how progressive type people and thinkers move against communities without realizing it.
I am originally from a very small town, and I go back often, and I am very thankful for it.
What scares me the most about modern culture - is the suburban kids I know have the concept of 'community' completely erased from their cultural knowledge after only one generation in the 'new world'.
These are the types that get sold 'Starbucks' as being some kind of legit 'community meeting spot'. They don't grasp that the 'warm glow of a Starbucks' is manufactured in a marketing meeting!
Ok, enough with my 'I'm getting old' rants :)
I am one of those suburban kids, but thankfully as an adult I've learned how important community is, and I've been in search of it ever since. You've hit the nail on the head with the baggage that comes with cultural traditions. That's one of the things that makes finding community very difficult.
I honestly think kids these days view online communities as the most important, since they have much more freedom to "go there" and meet others without the restrictions of having mom drop them off, or even more broadly, without the geographical restrictions they might have. Unfortunately, online communities can't make up for face-to-face bonding, affection, or support.
I hope something like this takes off; it's interesting that it's coming about in SF because of housing costs.
The community, layout of housing, etc are all extremely impactful on this. So too, is the ability of the community to organize. You can have a GREAT community in a cookie cutter suburb. This is especially true if you have communal gathering areas like a pool, park, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is that the Nuclear family is not the underlying reason for any of this. The ability to be alone if one wants to be alone for all things (think about how technology has basically enabled you to function without any human interaction if you choose, and people DO choose this), and the idea that you're being rude by taking the risk of saying hello is a larger cause.
EDIT/ corollary: Advice to new parents - try to find a place with other young families. They're all looking for this connection. These are some of the strongest networks that you will find especially if they live in close proximity.
If joining shared-interest groups solves isolation induced misery, then the nuclear family isn't an irreparable problem. It's at worst one factor in broader atomization, and should be viewed as such.
No, it's hyperconnectivity ("'social' media) and completely unrealistic expectations about one another that is making us miserable.
I quit using Twitter on a day-to-day basis around Trump's election. Best thing I have done for my personal health in the last five years or so.
I was on a Sunday evening bike ride in the summer, in an older but still suburban style neighbourhood with lots of immigrants. The kids were all out playing, the neighbours were hanging out on their front porches and mingling with other neighbours doing the same. I was like 'wow, this is like the idyllic 1950's vision of the suburbs except everyone is brown.' Then you get out to the newer outer ring suburbs where all the white people live and nobody is outside.
There are things like getting exercise and talking to your neighbours that are essential for a person's health and happiness, but when their circumstances make these things unessecary there is a tendency not to do them. We're suffering because of it.
The whole uptopian notion of the mechanized garden city that America embraced as the standard model for modernity was poorly thought out. Now it's like a paperclip maximizing AI: Mindless and unstoppable.
This really doesn't happen where I live in SF neighborhood (with two kids), nowhere near to the same extent. And it still is a very immigrant heavy neighborhood, and unusually diverse in terms of country of origin, even by SF's (perhaps diminishing) standards.
Part of the reason, I think, is critical mass. of kids I'd happily allow my kids to play outside, but there isn't a giant mass of kids already out there, which was the case when I was younger. This may partly be due to the collapse in the child age population in SF (not a collapse, it seems, in infant or toddler ages, it's stroller bumper cars around, but people often move when their kids get older). In my time (early 70s to today), it's gone from like 25% to below 14%, which in such a short time does represent a kind of collapse.
But even that doesn't seem to explain it, since the less expensive SFH neighborhoods south of 280 are still the parts of SF with percentages of under 18 residents similar to the more remote 'burbs.
But it got to the point where I enrolled my kid in the YMCA school after-care program, because it seems like that is where most of the after school socializing goes on now. It is somewhat unstructured, schoolyard play, but there's an authority figure around to appeal to. I don't want to overly nostalgize the lack of any supervision when I was a kid, there actually was some bad shit, but no doubt, kids are growing up in an environment that is different from the zero supervision environment I had when I was a kid. Something is probably lost in all this as well.
Many families live with grandparents, many have one or three children, some have a single mom, a single dad, or two dads and they're all getting along fine. Some of these families are even on the West coast!
I am currently acting as a stay at home dad in what would otherwise be a standard American Atomic Family on the West coast of the United States. I am not depressed and suicidal, in fact I am perhaps more content than I have ever been. I don't mind doing "women's work" and when I go to the park near where I live there are almost always other people there. My wife does have to sometimes rush home from work to get our daughter from preschool, but she doesn't have to cook dinner because that's something I enjoy doing.
You can, and should, find the lifestyle and family structure that works for you and your family.
A nuclear family doesn't inherently make us miserable, nor does it force us to avoid our extended family. No one is stopping the author from meeting other moms or other people.
In my town, many moms (of many different races too) meet up at the local coffee shop, they trade tips, setup play dates, and sometimes they even go shopping together.
She could visit her extended family, she could make friends, she could try to be part of her community.
This kind of stuff doesn't magically happen even in the asian communities, where we live in extended families. Plus even in extended families we have different griefs, interfamily conflict is a common.
EDIT: Another comment now dead mentioned suburban nation. Its a good but biased book.
It gives some good explanations of how housing subdivisions, shopping centers, office parks, civic institutions, and roadways affect people.
We could find all kinds of things to blame from television to HVAC systems to larger houses to the Internet. Picking nuclear families as a target seems like quite a stretch. There are plenty of pictures from the time period she mentions that show people outside talking over fences, on their front porches, helping each other, and otherwise interacting with people around them. When we stop doing those types of things, we get lonely. The social unit of nuclear families isn't the reason people feel isolated.
(I've certainly seen the isolation of housewives raised, but that's not the same as "the nuclear family" and in fact was largely about a stay-at-home lifestyle.)
So I think you're exactly right here: the nuclear family is at worst one of many changes that enabled social isolation. The actual fact of isolation didn't set in until much later, and it's origin could be equally well blamed on problems from cheap consumer goods (no need to share or borrow) to the decentralization of media (no shared icons like Edward R. Murrow).
A proper treatment of the question would admit that the problem is polygenic and look for shared causes or solutions. But the hot-take approach is to pick one convenient issue and treat it as a singular cause.
Meantime I can recommend some relevant, interesting reading here (not my blog, but definitely one that's helped me think about this stuff): https://balioc.wordpress.com
The interesting twist these days is social media. Even though you are being social using those apps, from what I've seen, it doesn't fill the gap.
Nuclear families though? I'm not sure how they get the blame outside of the general trend.
This article posits two causations, with ideas like the 50s suburban American dream (of advertisers) causing a stronger focus on nuclear family as household unit, and the stronger focus on nuclear family as household unit as a causation for increased relative aloneness.
If those posits are correct, then yes a case can be made that you can directly blame the modern conception of strong nuclear family as household unit for the general trend of relative aloneness.
But I'd agree, it's not clear if that was a product of advancing the nuclear family, or if the nuclear family was a consequence of that.
Either way, I feel like that version of the American dream has been something young people have moved sharply away from the last couple decades, no?
Nuclear family, in vernacular tends to mean a fam where there is a mother figure, father figure (this includes same sex couples) children and by extension associated relatives (grandparents, cousins, etc) who you have some contact with, as opposed to a family where there is either a missing mother figure, father figure or both or those figures are peripheral and often times absent (aka broken homes).
Of course, we can define a nuclear family to mean other things as well depending on context as well as to serve a narrative.
If you consider cultures where it's common to have multiple generations and cousin-families living in the same house, that's in stark contrast to the nuclear family.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family
Not at all. The nuclear family is a family as you describe, as opposed to one living with extended family (grandparents, for instance).
There is no reason to consider a nuclear family an island onto itself. Extended families are often times, but not always, the linking of multigenerational nuclear families. Now, one can have extended families that are not blood relatives.
But yeah, it is tricky sometimes. If you get shipped off to aunts and uncles or other relatives while mom and dad figs stay together because of issues beyond their control that may not be a nuclear family as it is disruptive to the kids.
It can be difficult in the suburbs as elicited in Robert Adams's "New West"[1] and it can also be difficult in the dense cityscapes of Japan[2].
We can dream of the times people were born and died in the same house or village and lived in multigenerational houses out of need rather than will. Today economies are different and the way we organize depends on many things, economic ability, economic forces, culture, etc. Some for the better, others for the worse.
[1]http://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/8618/robert-adams-...
[2]https://longreads.com/2017/12/01/a-lonely-death-the-extreme-...
>Yet we long for more than just that one perfect mate — we need to be a part of something bigger to feel happy and alive. We need community and a variety of ages and friends. No one person can be everything to us.
Some equivocation there. Isn't sexual adventure really just another version of 'Valium and liquor'?
I don't want to comment on other parts of the post, as I just don't share same concerns.
With a move to first world status there is usually an associated decrease in religious adherence. People then naturally define themselves as what they do first. Getting friends as an adult is very hard as competing schedules and interests can conspire to push people apart, so the default is to make friends with those with whom your work. As a stay at home parent that requires actually seeking out the parental groups.
tl;dr making friends as an adult is difficult and can lead to loneliness.
The article reads like a case greener grass. Perhaps there were other factors which led to the loneliness and unhappiness, rather than the concept itself.
politics. politics put a strong divide between white and black in the US. "vote for me, all your problems are because of white people, white privilege" etc. it drove both groups away from eachother like water and oil.
then that shifted between men and women, and I knew immediately what the outcome would be.
Not the relatively recent trend of politicians trying to correct that social injustice.
you do nothing for the conversation, you only prolong the back and forth. We are in control of our own destinies and comments like yours convince people otherwise.
This is an important contribution - the back and forth has to be prolonged, it has to be argued endlessly, to change the status quo. Not everyone has to become a leader. Awareness is also good enough for many.
>We are in control of our own destinies
Yes we are, but the ease of control could be much better for many people than what it is today.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25489625-between-the-wor...
I think she's right to point at the nuclear family, because of what it is: self-sufficient. Income, forming a household, reproducing the structure in the next generation, it's all there. You don't need other people. And when you don't need other people, it's easier to go it alone. It's easier for other people to go it alone. You don't have your friends help you move, instead you hire movers. You don't cook together, at best you host, and then as we dive into modernity we neither host nor cook. We hire people to watch the kids. We don't want to burden other people. We don't actually NEED help, so we don't ask for help. We'll finish it all off by hiring people to watch us die.
I see some wisdom in the conservative critique that the state should not replace family, should not replace mutual support, that needing each other is a gift for both the person who needs and the person provides help. But it's not government per se, it's the professionalization of support.
It's small, but I have extended family that shares carpooling for the kids. We need to talk about schedules, and sometimes we resent each other, and we take over for each other when someone is sick, and it can be annoying, but I see all these kids regularly, and we can't fall out of contact.
I SHOULD invite people over for dinner, except also have them help me prepare for dinner, maybe even clean for dinner. I personally would not be offended to myself receive such an invitation. But I don't do it. It would pierce the facade on our nuclear family, and my wife is not comfortable with compromising that facade. (Being a man I don't place any self-worth in my housekeeping, and so it is admittedly easier for me to expose any failings.)
This bit really resonated with me. I don't personally enjoy cooking. My girlfriend and I have started doing it reasonably often for simple, easy-to-prepare meals. We ended up hosting Thanksgiving at my place this year, and almost everyone showed up early, either bringing something to eat, or bringing some raw materials of things so we could prep and cook together. It was so much fun, and was a truly worthwhile and bonding collective experience. We'd done this in previous years, but this was the first time I hosted, and it actually felt really different from that perspective.
My friends and I haven't done this for random non-holiday occasions, but I'd really like to do this again.
I've recently realized that my wife and I are very much people who want a "village" for lack of a better word. A wide circle of friends whose lives we regularly move through as they move through ours and is in close geographic area. It takes effort and time, especially with peoples busy schedules. It means that we do things like host a Halloween potluck on our front lawn for the neighborhood before we were off to trick-or-treat with the kids, that we speak to our neighbors when we're on walks and know their dogs names, making some encouragement signs for the elementary schools 5k run that passed in front of our house, and dozens of other things.
We've made our home in an area that facilitates this, with a little "downtown" area with a pharmacy, a neighborhood bar, and a few restaurants within walking distance an easy 15 minute commute from city center. We can't go anywhere on the weekend without seeing and talking to someone we know or being introduced to someone we don't. And as a bit of an introvert I don't always enjoy every interaction, but I do crave it for my family. I don't get into playing with kids much and their volume is at time stressful, but I love seeing mine run around with friends on long summer evenings and being so excited to see them when we're out running errands and how my wife enjoys being able to catch up with our friends for a shared dinner around our table or theirs on a week night.
It also means that there is some amount of shared responsibility for each other, which means things like being offered a generator when our power was out for a couple of days thanks to this seasons hurricanes. It means an extra set of hands for whatever tasks is usually no further than a text message way. It means that our homes are full of condolences and offerings of food/child care when there is a serious sickness or death in the family.
It takes a lot of work, and the stay at home parents (mostly women and maybe as much as a quarter or so of the families in our group) all put a lot of effort in facilitating these kinds of relationships, reinforcing those connections on a daily and weekly basis that the whole profits from. Its not for everyone, but for people like the OP finding a community like this can go well past solving any sense of isolation.
Yawn.
If you don't want to live in some safe, serene, upscale, cookie-cutter white bread neighborhood where everyone is house-poor and has to hustle to survive, then don't. There's plenty of places that aren't like that! What a relief it would be for working men to not have to put up with so many materialistic wants!
In a nutshell, it (convincingly, IMHO) argues that the modern story society tells itself about mating and family is dead wrong, and that we as a species are wired for communal (or rather tribal) mating. It's a deep rabbithole. It's also available in audiobook form, if you prefer.
You can get the gist of the argument from wikipedia [1] and a TED talk one of the authors gave [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn
[2] https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_ryan_are_we_designed_t...
From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is), if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it. It is very difficult to find partners who do not exhibit some form of negative emotions when their partners seek out other partners. These outcomes happen even when both partners are trying hard not to hurt each others' feelings.
It's certainly possible that the growth of agricultural societies changed the dynamics of sexual relationships, but it's doubtful that in 10,000 years our brains were rewired to find any alternative model to be emotionally reprehensible. Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism!
Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today. It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices.
How so? What makes these authors biased. I'm genuinely interested. I haven't read their bio, but what makes these people biased against the current model of sexuality or for the alternative one?
> From a purely anecdotal perspective (which is pretty much what that book is)
It's hard to avoid anecdotes in this subject matter. Yes, the book gathers bits and pieces from different disciplines to look at how developed societies behave sexually, and contrasts that with prehistoric sexuality (which we know little of) and sexuality in some less developed societies and close primates. They show that an alternative narrative of human sexuality fits many of the known facts (and best guesses) better than the standard one. Is anyone sure that either of these narratives is correct? No. Can anyone point to anything but anecdotes to support either one? I think not. That doesn't mean that the idea should be dismissed.
> if you actually take a random sampling of regular humans in pretty much any developed society, they are woefully unequipped to handle non-monogamy, even when they are both in favor of it.
We are unequipped at the societal level. The book claims that we are equipped at the biological one. With divorce, infidelity and depression rates being what they are, I'm not sure anyone can claim that we're any better equipped to handle the current model. Also, there's a difference between being socially unequipped and being biologically unequipped. If tomorrow's society decides to turn veterinarian, a few generations from now will be socially unequipped to eating meat. They won't find meat in the stores, and might even consider eating meat a taboo of sorts. That doesn't mean that they'll be unable to eat meat, or that the smell or taste of meat will stop being appealing.
> Even if this were the case, though, it may take another 10,000 years to outgrow these emotional bonds, making non-monogamy akin to emotional masochism!
That doesn't mean that Sex at Dawn's model is wrong. It just says that you wish it were wrong. That's hardly the same thing.
> Regardless of what you think of the book or its theories, none of it will change how humans relate today.
Agreed. But we're having a discussion, aren't we? No one is saying anything about changing how humans behave.
> It's more important to understand how current societal trends developed in recent history through the use of pressure from social groups (using factors like religion, environment, or government) to suppress alternative lifestyle choices.
Why is that more important? Maybe that's what some people would like to discuss, that doesn't make it more important. Perhaps that whole discussion is moot since it start with an incorrect premise.
The purpose of the discussion is basically to address whether non-monogamy is something people should consider - the idea being "hey, we were born for non-monogamy, so let people give it a try!". But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution.
I would be very happy to find more concrete evidence of the sexual relationships of people 10,000 years ago! But I think it's going to take significant advances in paleoanthropology (if it's even possible) and that is probably a long way off.
That's not my understanding of the book. Heck, I remember that at some point in the book the authors explicitly say that they themselves don't know what to do with the consequences of their model. I never got an impression that they were trying to convince readers to have give any "alternative' lifestyle a try.
EDIT: Here, I found relevant passage from the book:
Our model might strike you as absurd, salacious, insulting, scandalous, fascinating, depressing, illuminating, or obvious. But whether or not you are comfortable with what we present here, we hope you’ll keep reading. We are not advocating any particular response to the information we’ve put together. Frankly, we’re not sure what to do with it ourselves.
> But it's modern social structures that have been limiting the engagement in non-monogamy in recent history, not our lack of a pre-historical understanding. So I think that aspect of the discussion is more important, because you can actually defeat modern social structures. You can't defeat evolution.
You're right. The fact that you can't beat evolution is key here. BUT we can talk about societal institutions all we want, but if the whole time we assume that monogamy is the natural and only way in which society can function, then the whole discussion is moot since we might be asking the wrong questions. For instance, think about what would happen to any discussion about the institution of marriage if we remove the monogamy assumption. What would happen any discussion of the nuclear family?
That’s true in the US. Not universally.
It also seems to me to go against all instinct, and for the lack of a better term, "evolutionary" psychology. Males mammals tend to get aggressive when another male encroaches on their "space" or dominion - homicidal even.
I don't think humans are an exception to this pattern of behavior.
While that's probably true about many mammals, that doesn't mean that it's true for humans, at least not at the biological level. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that our men's aggressiveness towards other men that approach upon "their women" is a societal construct, not a biological one. This is supported by the fact that there are human (and close ape) societies in which that is the case.
Sex at dawn pokes quite a lot of holes in the standard narrative of human sexuality; and they propose an alternative one which seems to fit some of the facts better. While their model might not be accurate or, and may even be wrong, I've yet to seen anyone poke serious holes in it or manage to patch the holes they've poked in the standard narrative. I'd appreciate being pointed to such arguments.
Yes unlike the mythical, one man, one women and a lifetime of marital bliss pattern pushed by the bible and mainstream media.
If monogamy is so damn natural, why are so many people having such a hard time with it?
In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future.”
― Noam Chomsky
Both "neo" and "liberal" as word roots are relative by nature, and no longer apply in a modern context to that which they were attributed in this case.
Interesting times.
The alt-right has just filled the void.