From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 20:40:36 MST
Dan wrote:
> On Friday, January 10, 2003 2:07 AM Brett Paatsch paatschb@ocean.com.au
> wrote:
> >>>> See "The Functions of the Family in the Great
> >>>> Society" by Steven Horwitz at:
> >>>> http://it.stlawu.edu/shor/Papers/Functions.htm
> [snip]
> >> In Horwitz's paper, I think he's approaching family
> >> as a social phenomena.In other words, to some
> >> extent, he's assuming it exists and then analyzing
> >> it along various axes.
> >
> > In fairness I've printed but not yet read Horwitz's
> > paper so I'm talking more generally and
> > responding to you, not to it.
>
> Fair enough. When you do, let me know what you think of it.
Ok Dan you got me :-) Having seen the paper was 28 pages
I was not super-inclined to read it, but in a manner that has
some resonance with a theme in the paper itself, (that "family
members" will do things for each other that they would not
do for "anonymous" others in society), I have now read the
paper due to the additional impetus of you (an extropian I
presume) wanting to discuss it. Without your interest and
prompting I would almost certainly have chosen to have
invested my time in reading something else.
What we do now, that you (I presume:-) )and I, have read it,
I am not sure though. Any conversation we have might now
be based on a specific knowledge of the paper that might
be hard for others who don't have the time or inclination to
read it to follow. This offers a poor return on investment
effort for a "social politician" like myself but what the hell.
Now to the point.
I agree Horwitz is approaching family as social phenomena.
He (Horwitz) does assume it exist (quite validly in my view)
and does then proceed to consider it from a variety of
disciplinary standpoints such as, the economic, the sociological
and the psychological, and to some extent the legal.
Horwitz, sets as background the notion that there has been
some "grand debate" around "the question of the market
versus the state". He invokes Hayek as am eminent thinker
in this area and points out that its generally accepted that
"the market and the state do not exhaust all possible sets
of social institutions" and that amongst these is the family.
Horwitz asserts that Hodgson, apparently a critic of Hayek,
argues that "given the supposed devotion of Hayekians to
"market individualism," there is no room within their
ideological framework for institutions such as the family".
And that in Hodgson's view, Hayekians, to be consistent,
must banish the family.
Horowitz then sets out in the paper to show that 'Hodgson's
claim that Hayekians believe that "the market is the best way
of ordering all socio-economic activities" is simply false. And
that there is nothing in Hayek's social theory to suggest that
the institution of the family has become unnecessary due to
the march of "market individualism".
Horowitz's paper "explores the existing theories of the
*functions* of the family with an eye towards examining
the relevance of these functions within Hayekian social
theory.
Along the way, and striping away much of the background
positioning, he makes the point that family can be considered
and should be considered from the separate standpoints
of what are the "functions" of families (widely defined) and
what are forms of families (with new forms clearly emerging).
I think Horwitz does a good job of laying out a groundwork
for considering families in terms of their function separately
to considering them in terms of their form, and he also makes
the point that to date these two aspects have been blurred
together to the detriment of clear social policy.
The functions of a family outlined by Horwitz include:
(A) some aspect of acting as an economic unit do to the "fact"
that families tend to share at least one household and
households tend to utilize some economies such as division of
labor and specialisation and buying power etc.
(B) From a sociological standpoint families are the primary
locus of socialization instilling and reinforcing social values in
microcosm and allowing children to learn social skills in a
forgiving context rich environment.
(C) From a legal standpoint families name their members,
denoting some "identity" and the legal frameworks of society
determine substantially the sorts of forms of family that can
exist and provide incentives and disincentives for some forms.
(D) From a psychological standpoint families especially in
relation to children provide "secure attachment bonds" which
enable infants the security they need in order to have the
confidence to explore, play, learn and develop.
The forms of the family include (but significantly, are not
limited too): Male-Female, (married or defacto), Male-female
with child or children, Single parent, Gay couples, extended
families etc etc. Horwitz's point is that the changing forms
of family are causing concern in areas of the community
particularly because the members of the community don't
seem to clearly get that the useful functions can be preserved
in many cases in different forms of family. Indeed some new
forms of family may in many particular cases be more
functional. Divorces, separations, child-care, opportunities for
women to escape economic dependence may all have the
effect of retaining in the family those things that are good and
eliminating those things that can be done just as well by the
market. Eg. Instead of a mother spending heaps of time
on domestic chores unrelated to direct care-giving she may
earn money and use that money to pay for alternate ways
of getting chores done. She may still choose to spend "quality
time", time at play etc with the child and possibly this makes
the family's core functions better able to be carried out. In
some cases. Its horses for courses. That's Horowitz's point.
I think Horwitz's thrusts are essentially correct, if not
particularly profound, but then often things do look a lot more
obvious *after* they have been reasonable well explained.
I think that as transhumanists and extropians are strongly
concerned with shaping and choosing from possible futures,
and with taking what has served us well in the past forward
whilst modifying or dropping what has no longer serves us
well that the paper makes some interesting suggestions and
the point on the prudence of decoupling function and form of
family seems sound.
Imo, the functions of family will largely remain important going
forward. Whilst the forms of family are, will and should change.
But this is still not an area of strong interest to me personally
so I am especially open to alternative views as I have barely
formed any views of my own at all.
So. What do you want to discuss about the paper?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST