Despite all the rhetoric about the importance of the integrity of the human family as a unit and the frequently stated belief that the ideal family unit should consist of mother, father and offspring, there are many problems that arise in families. Marriages break up, affairs are common, children are born outside of the family unit. And then there is the abuse, by parents of each other, and by them of their children. Solo parents are common. A housing estate may present on the exterior as an ordered collection of individual families ensconced in their separate housing units as if all is well and normal, but much is wrong behind too many of the front doors. If, as is claimed by governments and religions, the family unit is the rational and appropriate way to organise society, why are there so many breakdowns and disruptions of the system?

And then there is the constant ‘problem’ of old age. How does this precious family unit manage grandparents who not longer provide an income, who may be physically and/or mentally incapacitated, and incapable of looking after themselves, and when the family house has been designed to accommodate only two parents and one or more active children? We pack the oldies off to an unfamiliar retirement home or hospice to live with a bunch of strangers in the same plight and be looked after by even more strangers who lack any relationship with them and who are working on low wages. A similar problem arises when one member of a family is disabled.

How has this fragmentation of society come about? Let’s step back ten thousand or more years. The archaeological evidence is that the basic human group consisted of perhaps a hundred or hundred and fifty individuals occupying an area of land wide enough to supply them with sufficient resources – food, water, fuel, tools and shelter. They were ‘hunter gatherers’. Many groups migrated yearly or more frequently to conserve and renew their supplies. The critical aspect of this way of life was the group structure which provided security and knowledge for all. A nuclear family consisting of only mother, father, children, and perhaps grandparents, would have had far less chance of survival.

But there is much more value for humans when living in groups, rather than in isolated solo families. The constant proximity of a hundred or more kinfolk, would have ameliorated the tensions that inevitably arise within the modern isolated family. There would have been relatives for the parents to discuss problems with, and traditional and acceptable ways to behave within the group. Children would have had others to play with, and their aunts, uncles and the elders would have looked out for their safety and contributed to their education. The yearning for membership of a larger group and its benefits is still within us, as evidenced by the myriad associations, clubs, discussion groups, religious congregations and political parties.

So what is the cause of the unfortunate social contraction from group to family? The answer is wealth. Previously, when a group had an excess of a resource such as fruit or tools it could be traded with another group. The introduction of agriculture around fixed settlements and the need to stay around for the harvest and then to store and protect the products produced in this deliberate and intensive way, meant that resources were no longer owned by a group but by the family which did the work. Land and resources became private and their value was passed on to the next generation. The private family had accumulated wealth that could be, as well as through the invention of coinage, used to acquire other goods. The capitalist society was born.

Once this private family structure was in place, the public tensions which it generated could only be managed through general laws and religious strictures. The nuclear family was born. More later…