 |
| essentialrealities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Membership
|
FAQ
Essential realities and their meanings Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 1) Isn't the nuclear family an essential reality? Many people consider the nuclear family a natural unit of organization. However, the nuclear family is not identical with any preexisting grouping and therefore may be considered a historically-contingent social construction, as opposed to a fundamental biosocial unit. The family is a group, plus there are sexual bonds and genetic bonds in some cases. As a fundamental unit, the nuclear family has no special identity in the early environment of adaption of 110,000 years, nor does it seem to have much of one in the future, if current trends are any indication (since its value as a production unit has now been lost). So, it no more deserves a special place than the corporation, state, etc. Turner(1987) argues that the family does not function psychologically as a group because the social category "our family" is not salient. It is not salient because no other social categories are present, either actually or symbolically, in the privacy of the contemporary Western home. In an extensive review of the research on child development, Harris (1995) found no support for the idea that parenting and the family as a group influence personality in adulthood. In the early environment of adaption (neolithic period), groups of four sizes seem to have existed. A further breakdown of the concept "group" would focus upon these preexisting "natural" units. They can be analyzed in terms of resources available for building interpersonal networks: Emotional, symbolic/stylistic, and material/exchange. The "intimate" group is comprised of significant others (emotional bonds), usually an immediate household unit (symbolic/stylistic bonds) of about five persons. Next in size is an "effective" group, based upon friendship bonds, which might be comprised of a lineage (material/exchange bonds). Collectives of this type consist of about 20 persons. In the popular literature, this type of collective is sometimes characterized as a "ten" group: A key to accomplishment in the workplace. Twenty is the limit in size for discussion-based decision making, if information technology is not employed. Groups of up to 30 persons are also called a band (or deme). Individuals acquire a social identity and shared worldview in them. Friends of friends comprise an "extended" group of about four hundred. The extended group can function as an influence target for the effective group (symbolic/stylistic bonds). In material/exchange terms, an extended group can be characterized as a tribe. Finally, there is a "global" level of organization, which creates a forum for selecting mates. These assemblies of about 2,500 persons may have met only yearly. Each of these different sized groups evolved as a result of evolutionary pressures. Thus, humans are thought to be predisposed to operate effectively within groupings of such sizes. In fact, it is more accurate to say that the group guided the evolution of the individual, when we consider the development of our species (not just the last 110,000 years). Groups are fundamental units of social organization which precede the development of humans. The human cortex evolved to deal with the complexity of group behavior. Sheets-Johnston argues in "The Roots of Thinking" that human interaction was the driving force behind upright posture and language development. In "Re-introducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences (Behavioral and Brain Sciences)," Wilson and Sober argue that kin selection and reciprocity reappear as special cases of group selection. The nuclear family has existed as a unit for only about 10,000 years, too short a period for evolutionary adaption beyond superficial characteristics, such as skin color. 2) Isn't the gene an essential reality? The distinction between genotype (genome) and phenotype (body) is critical for understanding evolution. However, genes function within an environment. The human cell contains both nuclear and mitochondrial genes, which form an environment for each other. Therefore, the single cell has been chosen as the unit of analysis at this level. Discrepancies between genetic "predispositions" and cellular "drives" are considered minimal. Oparin (1924) proposed a "enzymes before genes" approach, which suggests the existence of life prior to the gene. In 1933 John Burdon Sanderson Haldane and Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin advanced a heterotroph (An organism that uses organic compounds as its source of carbon.) theory of the origin of life. References Harris, J. R. (1995). Where Is the Child's Environment? A Group Socialization Theory of Development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489. Sheets-Johnston, M. (1990). The roots of thinking. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Spiro, M. (1954). Is the Family Universal? American Anthropologist, 56, 839-846. Spiro, M. (1975). Gender and culture: Kibbutz women revisited. Durham: Duke Univ. Press. Turner, J. C., (with Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
|
|
||
|
