Nuclear Family vs Extended Family

[HondurasKeiser]

I see this article promoting ideas that are contrary to Gods instructions for living. And so on that basis, I cannot really endorse this article.

What particularly did you see that strikes you as contrary to God's instruction for living?

[Ken]

Brook’s article is very US-centric but what he describes is still the norm in much of Latin America.

My wife’s family is Chilean and her extended family all still live in Chile. The multi-generational thing of everyone living in the same house is not that common in urban Chile mainly because it is a big city and people live in apartments or condos for the most part unless they are very wealthy and have estates. But families are very much more connected. Sunday dinner at grandma’s house is still the absolute expectation. And kids tend to stay at home until they are married. Almost no one leaves home for college. You still live at home and take the subway to school to whichever college suits you that is within commuting distance. I don’t think they even have dorms at most Latin American universities.

It can be claustrophobic if you are in a family that is abusive or difficult. But really there is something good about getting the extended family together just about every week. And these days it goes way beyond actual physical meeting. When something happens within the “family” even if it is to a cousin my wife’s phone just blows up. Everyone is into everyone else’s business and everyone has an opinion. For example, if someone goes to the hospital, even for something simple like a broken leg there will be 20 different family members showing up and about 150 phone calls and text messages generated. Whereas in my family here in the US we’d take care of it perhaps without even telling anyone else unless it was really serious.

[Ken]

I see this article promoting ideas that are contrary to Gods instructions for living. And so on that basis, I cannot really endorse this article.

What particularly did you see that strikes you as contrary to God's instruction for living?

It seemed to me like what Brooks is describing is basically what the Amish still do with the Dawdy Haus and so forth. And I expect the way life was for 99% of the population in biblical times.

[RZehr]

I see this article promoting ideas that are contrary to Gods instructions for living. And so on that basis, I cannot really endorse this article.

What particularly did you see that strikes you as contrary to God's instruction for living?

There is plenty I do like about this article. But for one thing, the title. The nuclear family is not, never was a mistake. He seems to spend the first part of the article extolling the strengths of the past, and then the end trying to figure out how to regain what was lost, via some other way than Gods way. If it was a mistake, why try to regain it?
Like it or hate it, the Bible does say the women should keep the home, says children are a blessing, says we are supposed to train our children (which isn't possible when the dad is running around). He makes all these accurate observations, but then instead of calling us to follow Gods way, he says that we can't go back. And then, instead of looking to God for answers, he offers to us as a society the circa 1980s San Francisco LG community, and New Orleans street gangs, as a blueprint for a viable alternative.
He presents the decline as an inevitable result of progress and change. That is not true. The decline is not have inevitable, and it is because of sin. We just have to be willing to sacrifice for family, which he correctly says most have been unwilling to do.

Seeing the author marital history/status, how handy for him to simply declare that family institution is fundamental flawed nowadays! Not his fault. Can’t hold him responsible.

[ken_sylvania]

I see this article promoting ideas that are contrary to Gods instructions for living. And so on that basis, I cannot really endorse this article.

What particularly did you see that strikes you as contrary to God's instruction for living?

There is plenty I do like about this article. But for one thing, the title. The nuclear family is not, never was a mistake. He seems to spend the first part of the article extolling the strengths of the past, and then the end trying to figure out how to regain what was lost, via some other way than Gods way. If it was a mistake, why try to regain it?
Like it or hate it, the Bible does say the women should keep the home, says children are a blessing, says we are supposed to train our children (which isn't possible when the dad is running around). He makes all these accurate observations, but then instead of calling us to follow Gods way, he says that we can't go back. And then, instead of looking to God for answers, he offers to us as a society the circa 1980s San Francisco LG community, and New Orleans street gangs, as a blueprint for a viable alternative.
He presents the decline as an inevitable result of progress and change. That is not true. The decline is not have inevitable, and it is because of sin. We just have to be willing to sacrifice for family, which he correctly says most have been unwilling to do.

Seeing the author marital history/status, how handy for him to simply declare that family institution is fundamental flawed nowadays! Not his fault. Can’t hold him responsible.

Is there maybe a sense though that the absence of grandparents and great-grandparents in the home is somewhat of a mistake? I could agree that modern America has trended too much toward personal independence, and that the privacy that we seem to all feel entitled to isn't all good.

[RZehr]

We want privacy more and more, but at the same time we are addicted to social media. It’s super handy to be able to reveal only what makes us look good, and at the same time our pride keeps all our junk hidden and limit our interaction away from those who know us best.

[barnhart]

Someone once pointed out that democrats want to work in the fifties and republicans want to live there. This article points out that both quests are yearnings for things that never really existed even in the 50's.

When Brooks says the nuclear family was "a mistake", he is critiquing the abandonment of extended family, with its joys and sorrows, by shaking off its obligations and pursuing an individual fulfillment version of the family.

I agree with him on two points: this vision of a nuclear family based in adult fulfillment is not and never was sustainable and the damage lies heaviest on the children.

His observation that extended family may be on the rebound is interesting. Some of that growth is in co-habitation and other anti-biblical practices but some is admirable, such as the increase of children living with parents and making plans to care for them as they age.

[Szdfan]

Maybe it would help to define what a “nuclear family” is because it’s my impression that it’s a rather new term describing a rather new social family structure.

When I read Scripture, I don’t see it describe families that are one husband + one wife + children. When Scripture depicts families, it often describes one husband + multiple wives + concubines + children + servants + slaves + elderly parents + other dependent relations. In other words, it describes the expansive, multigenerational “household” that I read Brooks saying we lost when industrialized society defined family as just parents and kids.

[justme]

i think i'm reading the article just a bit differently than some of you are.

i read it as: nuclear family is mum, dad, 2 or 3 kids. if a relationship breaks down, there's no one to take its place and help you fix it. whereas extended family, has a lot of built in safety nets.

and when he says the nuclear family is a mistake, he's saying by focusing on the nuclear family, we've cut away the safety net of extended family. that's what i hear him saying. and it makes sense to me.

but then i think, leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife?

[RZehr]

There is nothing unbiblical about extended family. It is a blessing, and a natural result of nature. But there isn't a leave and cleave directive like there is for the immediate family either that comes to my mind. It would be nice to have Grampa and Grandma and aunts and uncles and cousins around. Having my parents and 12 siblings scatter to various church plants, does make me wish at times for a large extended family network locally. Only one sibling is now left in the home community.

A traditionally defined nuclear family is a dad, mom, and their minor children. The most basic family unit. The writer seems to pretty much shrug at the thought of its decline, apparently thinking it is outdated and can be reconstructed just fine to fit the modern era. Yet he does display some sadness at the thought of the extended family relationships disappearing for some reason.
How does one reasonably expect to retain hold on extended family relationships, without first retaining your own family unit?

But I do support alternative "family" style relationships if that is all someone has. It is better than nothing.