As outlined before, and from many points of view, the contraction from the large earlier kin group to the tiny nuclear family has been a backward step. However, this change has not been worldwide or complete and many societies have retained the group structure or aspects of it. Australian aborigines have been living in kinship groups for thousands of years and still cherish this way of living despite the pressures of modern society. The inhabitants of middle eastern countries such as Lebanon place value on, and gain much support from, their extended families even when they do not occupy the same building. Polynesians, Maoris for example, also value extended family relationships and frequently congregate in their tribal groups for social occasions. The concept of the private nuclear family seems to be confined to the northern countries of the northern hemisphere, especially the UK and USA, and appears to be more associated with the Protestant religions.

This is not to say that living in a kin group or extended family is all good. There are disadvantages, especially if the group is allied to a religion or sect with rigid beliefs about the roles of individuals. When women and girls are treated as inferior to men and boys, capable only of rearing children and keeping house, confined to the home and prevented from getting an education, the attitudes and behaviours of such an extended family can be very restrictive. This is, as is the nuclear family, a distortion of the function and value of the kin group. In Australian aboriginal tribal groups, and in Maori society, women and men have equal status and both contribute to the stability of their communities.

There is a close association between the nuclear family and capitalism. The need for individual houses on private land, separate family cars, furniture, kitchen and bathroom equipment, garden tools, cooking utensils, children’s toys, and so on, is supported, promoted and exploited by commerce. Retirement homes, childcare facilities and private schools are opportunities for commercial organisations to profit. And then, of course, there are the many other businesses that benefit from the nuclear family, through legal services, house and car sales, house construction and maintenance, garden maintenance, counseling, taxis, and the myriad of other peripheral props of this way of life. When governments, corporations and private organisations extol the importance of the nuclear family and the need to support this social arrangement, it is certainly not for moral or ethical reasons. but just good for business.

Furthermore, the persistence of the nuclear family, and its inherent problems and associated disadvantages for both adults and children, results in the need for ‘retail therapy’. When we get a new lounge suite, bigger TV, spa pool and barbecue, and all the children have their own computers, bikes, skate boards and video games, we will be happy. More possessions, more distractions and more time spent apart in separate rooms is seen as the answer to the tensions and frustrations of living in a nuclear family and within the confines of the private home.