From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 17:41:38 MDT
Ron writes
> [Lee wrote]
> > Okay, we have to distinguish the out of sort feelings that
> > people from extended family structures might feel as they
> > become less extended, and vice versa.
>
> That comment is valid but I think the reality goes much further. If I
> look at the misgivings my wife and I had when we discovered what we were
> letting ourselves in for when we accepted the inducements to become a "Modern
> Middle-class Family" (lets use your term) then our feelings went much further
> than simply being "out of sorts." Today having read Gatto I say if his
> criticism is sustained then the modern middle class society and family is at
> least mildly dysfunctional.
Well, I guess we need some historical examples of societies whose
families were *not* dysfunctional. Everywhere I read, whatever
society it is that is being discussed, the family for one reason
or another appears "dysfunctional". Nineteenth century families
are described as being sexually repressed, or male dominated.
Today's families are described as being unstable, and so forth.
Undoubtedly it depends on the values of the writer. So probably
we should try to identify
(a) what works best at a given point in history
(b) what might appear to "work best" over time given
the values of the people in the discussion (e.g.,
it's not acceptable for husbands to beat wives)
(c) what is the ESS at any point in time, i.e., what
leads to the greatest fitness
(d) what is the ESS, if it exists, over most points
in time
(e) what is in 2003 the ESS, again in terms of fitness
The key concept in several items here is *fitness*, which
should be taken in its objective Darwinian meaning. If
for example North America becomes predominantly Hispanic
in the 21st century, that will be an indication that the
structure of Mexican families is closer to an ESS than its
rivals.
> You also said, "What is germane to this discussion is which kind
> of life is more of an ESS (evolutionarily stable strategy)."
A further complication, as if there weren't enough already, is
that in 2003 we anticipate a Singularity some time in the current
century. To embrace or credit any ESS in the above senses (a)-(e)
is a conservative strategy supposing a remote Singularity, perhaps
one not even occurring until the next century. But if a Singularity
occurs within just a few years, talk of an ESS will lose much of
its salience.
> I think determining which is the best ESS is what we need to be discussing.
> However, I do want to emphasize that I am looking at an evolutionary society
> not a static one. The problem with the southern middle class society was
> that in many ways it was too static.
Why would you say so? Was (or is) it likely to be too unaccepting
of new ideas, have too little emphasis on education, or what?
> Do you have any basic list that you believe people need to read before
> engaging the keyboard? <G> I will start with Gatto and de Soto.
Not really. This subject seems to lie in the intersection of
history, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and acceleration
studies (futurism). Few academics have dared go here for fear of
brickbats, so it's about as virgin as Sociobiology was in 1970.
I hope that we can get into a nice argument about Gatto, and that
Michael Wiik will join in (although I don't think that he likes
to criticize or get criticized too much). He has read a lot of
Gatto, and we started a discussion about it in the summer.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 17:55:06 MDT