The Reality of the Family: Why Do We Need a Family - Essay Example

The reality of the family: Why do we need a family? The family unit cannot be defined and identified by any given perspective. Most would defineor describe the family as a legal unit which consists of a female (wife), a male (husband) and, possibly, children (offspring). The family has fulfilled the universal need, “…the act of reproduction, that is, mating, pregnancy, and childbirth” (Collier, Rosaldo, and Yanagisako 2). In an era where the traditional notion of the family is being challenged by same-sex marriages, single-parent households, and foster-parent families, it is necessary to redefine the concept of the family. This traditional notion of the family is not only being challenged by new social realities but by anthropologists such as Jane Collier, Michelle Z. Rosaldo and Sylvia Yanagisako, the authors of “Is there a family?” who quite persuasively argue that the family is not “…a universal human institution.” They argue, “…the family is not as a concrete institution designed to fulfill universal human needs, but as an ideological construct associated with the modern state” (Collier 1). As controversial as this argument may sound, one finds support from Diane Ackerman’s, “A Natural History of Love” and in Sara Ruddick’s “Thinking about the Father.” Scientific and anthropological perspectives concerning the family concept invalidate earlier understandings. It establishes that the family is not a universal phenomenon and that even when it does exist in its traditional form it reflects the human desire for familiar patterns which is derived from the biological instincts. The most generalized concept of family, as the nuclear family which consists of a father, a mother, and children, still exists overwhelmingly in human society, however, new perspectives on the concept of the family is gathering strength. Social anthropologist, Bronislaw Malinowski is responsible for the popular traditional concept of the family as a universal phenomenon. He states, “The human infant needs parental protection for a much longer period than does the young of even the highest anthropoid apes. The father and mother have to look after the children for a long period, and in turn, derive certain benefits from the care and trouble taken” (Collier 2). According to his argument, the family fulfilled the universal need and so it is a universal institution. The universal function of a family is to nurture children. As he noted, the family unit was preserved and protected by the commitment of its members to one another, by the well-defined roles of father-husband, mother-wife and children-offspring of the individuals within a unit of the family. In addition to the affection which members of the unit feel towards one another, it establishes the universal nature of the family, called a universal human institution. Later anthropologists, however, disagreed with Malinowski’s view regarding the need of the father to define a family. They denied the need of the presence of a father role to compose the unit of family. Collier, Rosaldo, and Yanagisako argue that “…the basic social unit is not the nuclear family including father but the unit composed of a mother and her children” (Collier 4). They state, “…the family is not a concrete “thing” that fulfills concrete “needs” but an ideological construct with moral implications” (Collier 15). The fact that it is being challenged is also clearly evident in Sara Ruddick’s argument, “Thinking about the Father.” As Ruddick explains, the idea of men in charge of the family threatens the systems such as household arrangements, political alliances, inter sex friendship, and heterosexual relationships. In a feminist’s view, domination in the family and career is the issue when a man´s presence comes into the picture in a unit, as they tend to suppress the women’s right to deliberately manage household concerns. Diane Ackerman, through her essay, “The Chemistry of Love,” agrees indirectly to the fatherless system of the family. According to Ackerman, “…young children go berserk when separated from their mothers, but not necessarily when separated from their fathers”(Ackerman 159). Ackerman states that, “…females are predisposed to feel an instinctive, automatic concern for children; but men learn to feel that way only when they have children of their own.” In other words, the mother’s love is absolute and unconditional. On the other side of the spectrum the father’s love is conditional, and more distant. As above examples have demonstrated, the latter perspectives deny the need of the presence of a father role to compose the family unit. The traditional belief of the family as a universal institution has been colliding over different perspectives. It means that the traditional notion of a family no longer holds true in the present social reality. Even though the popular definition of the family falls apart when it is critically scrutinized and denied by the new social reality, the fact is that it has persisted. The traditional notion of the family is still a dominant one over time and most families exist firmly in its traditional form and inherited through generations. How and why should a definition, which is not supported by social facts and realities, still remain popular? It is due to the fact that the family is a social pattern, which means human beings are designed to follow the social and emotional guideline. Diane Ackerman in “Patterns in Nature” provides the answer to this question. As Ackerman explains, human beings are psychologically conditioned to seek out and establish patterns. As she writes, “…we crave patterns. We find it all around us, in sand dunes and in pinecones” and, “…sometimes, we even imagine patterns and create ones where they do not exist.”(Ackerman 259) Human kind, in general, are obsessed with patterns and are constantly engaged in creating, designing, and imposing them. The reason for the obsession with patterns is that patterns represent organization and guidelines. It is believe that patterns help define elements, help define individuals, and most importantly, help structure lives. According to Collier, Rosaldo, and Yanagisko, “…the family is not a concrete “thing” that fulfills concrete “needs” but an ideological construct with moral implications” (Collier 15). People are looking for “…a heaven where they can obtain emotional support and gratification…” within a specialized form or pattern, which is called the family. Whether or not patterns actually fulfill these functions are not so much the issues as is the belief and conviction that they do so. From this perspective and as Ackerman explains, a family unit is a type of social pattern that helps individuals define themselves, status and position in society (Ackerman 275-76). The family pattern gives human beings a social direction and provides a guideline for the nature of a relationship with the opposite sex. Hence, at a certain age, in general, individuals begin to date, get engaged, and finally make the marriage commitment and raise a family, generation after generation, therefore the pattern is repeated. This, quite simply stated, means that the family is not a universal and natural unit as most popularly assumed but a social pattern which human beings devised and designed to provide their lives with a social and emotional direction. The fact that human beings devised the family unit as a strategy for the social and emotional direction is because of the biological need, to a large extent, pushed people in that direction. In other words, people’s desire for forming their own family is derived from the biological instincts and physical reactions. For example, Ackerman explains in “The Chemistry of Love,” “The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances” (Ackerman 165). Wide range of body chemicals are stimulated when humans are emotionally aroused. If two people feel each other attractive, “…a hormone that speeds up the flow of information between nerve cells”, PEA (phenylethylamine) is stimulated and after the first period, the new group of chemicals which are in control are “…intimacy, warmth, empathy, dependability and shared experiences trigger the production of that mental comfort food, the endorphins” takes over (Ackerman 166). The hormones also play a role in parenting. When a mother is cuddling her infant, certain chemicals are released in her body and give her a positive and secure feeling which she communicates to her infant. Similarly, when a father is with his child, certain chemicals are released causing him to act protectively towards the child (Ackerman 162). The chemical cycle falters and breaks, it picks itself up and starts again. The implication here is that biological instincts and physical reactions to certain people led to the formation of units, which is called the family. In conclusion, the argument presented previously, the traditional definition of the family no longer holds true. It is, in these days and ages, impossible for one to continue to define the family as a unit, which consists of: a male, a female, and their biological children. Certainly, while some family units fit this description there are some that do not. It is important to redefine the family as a social pattern which partly defines the social role and provides social guidelines but there needs to be an emphasis that this pattern is not universal and does not need to be composed of a male, a female, and their children. Instead, family units are people who may be connected to each other through blood and legal relations but more importantly, are emotionally and psychologically linked to one another. Read More