Man, Family and State

[Mariam]

What do you think guys, how true is it that one's position towards the state and the government is more likely to be a psychological reflection to his position towards figures of authority in the family?

I thought I'd post this here, after reading a theory on family as a model for the state that was first discussed by Aristotle,however Man, Family and State (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN44xdQj2Cc) by Stefan Molyneux is what really made me think about it.

[gilhyle]

He talks about a moral evaluation of the family. In so confining his evaluation he confines himself fatally, under the influence of his wife (itself an amusing irony that he seems to miss). He also counterposes the irrational and emotional to the rational and logical in a very reified way. Rational sequences of thought, emotional structures and socio-economic structures work in the same direction - not be coincidence but by interaction. Failing to see the unity of social phenomena which distribute power he counterposes alternative mechanisms of distribution of power so as to isolate a so-called arbitrary allocation of power.

This puzzlement in the face of irrationalism is an Enlightenment view which Marxism goes beyond.

Thus Marxism can well accept the emotional influence of the family on wider social structures, but does so by placing the identification of the mechanisms of emotional inheritance within a wider idenification of all the mechanisms of social structuring. Read Engels, the Family, Private Property and the State, watch Ken Loach's film 'Family Life'.

The underlying problem with his methodologiy is that, as a libertarian, he is haunted with an ideal of rational and virtuous decision making procedures. This haunting comes from abstracting one's conception of reasoning from the social context within which it is created and to which it must be adapted.

This error is closely linked to his assumption that reasoning is a process taking the person from circumstance to judgement, rather than as a feature attaching only to a part of that process of transition from circumstance to judgement.

having so reified reasoning, he finds himself constructing a realm of the will distinct from the realm of reason - feeding off the tradition of Schopenhauer, Kiergegaard, and Nietzsche. This is an entirely mythical realm of irrational submission to the will of another, invalidly abstracted from the totality of social relations.

He seeks rational debate on the nature of authority by disspelling irrationalism therapeutically. This is based on a false analysis which separates the mind from its environment - no wonder he ends with the conclusion that if we free our minds we can escape the State, since he has methodolgocially given the mind priority.

[Asstrumpet]

Originally posted by Mariam+--> (Mariam)a theory on family as a model for the state [/b]

A family as a model for the State could only be a petty-bourgeoise or bourgeoise family with a mom, dad, boy, girl, dog, a big backyard, robots to the State, etc. Because they have sworn alliegence to the State and obey laws and live the model middle class life that appeals to people and makes said State look good and free.

In the same instance, families in the Proletariat and the Ghetto are stereotyped as spiting themselves, doing crime, there's nothing the State could do because of freedom, etc. These are all popular arguments Politicians have presented, as well as the Bourgeoise in general.


Mariam
how true is it that one's position towards the state and the government is more likely to be a psychological reflection to his position towards figures of authority in the family?

It may generate a distaste for hierarchy, oppression, etc., yes. But this only contributes to an opinion on authority and the State. It could be determined by an actual political opinion, such as the opinion presented by most Leftists that the State is oppressive, and therefore they oppose it. An argument an opposition is formulated by many components, as is most opinions. Opinions that are thought out anyway... <_<

[apathy maybe]

I would have to say that it is not necessary for you to believe in "the family" as an institution and believe in the state. (Proudhon, I believe, believed in "the family", but not the state, for example.)

On a slightly different note, what is the family? Do you mean the "nuclear family" (mum, dad, two & 1/2 kids) or extended families (common still in many parts of the world), or what?

[gilhyle]

Bizarrely, I came across the following yesterday, from Adorno writing in the mid 1960s:

"People are not so bound to authority because of identifying with their father imago as was supposed as recently as some thirty years ago.What we are experiencing is rather a neutralising effect caused by the pressure to conform. This results in a closing off of the entire horizon of freedom or dependency. Where no freedom is experienced there can no longer be any authority. The vanishing of this conceptual pair, freedom and authority, is more significant than the growing apathy. This process of neutraliztion is what should concern us."

P.7 History and Freedom Theodor Adorno, Polity Press 2007

[BobKKKindle$]

What do you think guys, how true is it that one&#39;s position towards the state and the government is more likely to be a psychological reflection to his position towards figures of authority in the family?

Hm. I would say that the family is an important unit of socialisation; interaction with out parents and the way we are treated shapes the way we view the world and out experiences within it. However, it is by no means the only unit of socialisation; other institutions encourage the acceptance of the state as a legitimate entity, such as the education system which is partly reponsible for the development of civic nationalism in countries such as the United States.

If the structure of the nuclear family does encourage acceptance of the state, it is also worth noting that governments encourage the (arguably, patriarchal) family as a &#39;normal&#39; or desirable form of social organisation and portray family life in unrealistic and idealistic terms. So any relationship that does exist &#39;flows&#39; in both directions.

[BobKKKindle$]

To continue from the above; We must be careful though, not to dismiss the nuclear family as part of &#39;bourgeois&#39; society and as entirely negative. The family can sometimes have a progressive and even revolutionary role; blacks suffering persecution have often valued the family as a haven from racial abuse and discrimination and an environment in which they can discuss the problems they face. Some socialists seem to always try to portray the family as &#39;supportive&#39; of the state and the capitalist system - lets not make such crass generalisations - as AM suggested, many different forms of the &#39;family&#39; exist and there is no universal family power dynamic.