This is all very interesting. But I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn I come at this from a different and more conservative direction.
I will start by saying I left the world of anthropological/archaeological gender theory in 1995 after an unsatisfying experience with an archaeology seminar called "Gender in Prehistory." My general approach though is shaped by this archaeological/anthropological training, and it is to assume social structures flow out of economic system and general level of security and lawfulness (i.e. can a member of society assume that they will be protect by "government" or society and if not, how do they handle it). So I assume our present system of nuclear families comes out of an agrarian/industrial economy. Social systems are propped up by laws (e.g. the tax code that gives deductions for children) and by social pressures and perceptions of morality. Conversely, the decrease in daily freedoms of women in places like Iraq and Afghanistan could be attributed at least in part to a desire for more security in an extremely insecure place. (Havenstone gives a good anecdotal example of this with a description of the rise of the burqa in one Afghani city).
Given all that background, I see the last 50-60 years as a time of huge upheaval of the family as domestic concerns no longer enough to fully engage women and they seek to become fully economically integrated into the industrialized/knowledge based economy that doesn't require brute physical labor. So I see social changes as flowing from this economic change. (As an aside, my professor of that archaeology class saw the rise of labor saving domestic appliances like washing machines as "bribes" to get women to leave the workforce they had entered in WWII and return home).
Anyway, all that is preface to my saying that a structured heteronormative "patriarchal" environment arose because it met some social need. Obviously there are people who don't fit in to that, and I think as a subculture they should be supported and celebrated. But I question whether the advocates you start out quoting will meet the needs of the majority. They may or they may not, but there may be as many people out there who would be as underserved by a free-wheeling, anything goes, pluralistic society as those who are underserved by a heteronormative one. That's my main response to the example you cite above: some people do need to belong and there's nothing more wrong with that than with the people who follow a different path, and coercion to follow a new norm is no better than coercion to follow the old. I see that coercion though as a natural part of just getting along in society.
We're at a time of huge upheaval and instability in our social structures. I think that's why the "Culture Wars" have been so fiercely played out in politics over the past 20 years. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I'm a little confused as to whether you're addressing issues 1 or 2. On the issue of the needs of the majority, I agree that I think the free-wheeling anything goes pluralistic society is likely to spark social chaos and confusion. I agree also that I think people like structures and categories as means of shaping and defining society, and that these often, although not necessarily, arise out of economic motives. However, women are no longer a primary means of exchange/cementing social bonds between men in the aforementioned young coastal elite American society.
So I'd argue that the social/economic need in the above subgroup currently is for forming supportive communities that nurture the individual and their needs. I think that such a social network will become more stable if there are clearer signs distinguishing members of the group and their relationship to each other, and I suppose I'm offering that as one possibility for resolving the upheaval and instability, because I don't think that the traditional patriarchal heteronormative nuclear family model is working terribly well at the moment.
Indeed I think it's pretty clear that the traditional patriarchal heteronormative nuclear family model is crashing and burning in our generation. Which is why I find the anti-gay-marriage movement so frustrating. I mean, hardly anyone wants to get married anymore, so why not respect the ones who do? I agree with karakara98 that some order is needed, and I think the people who suffer the most from lack of clear family structure are children, who deserve to be protected and nurtured. There's a lot of interaction with that issue and questions of traditional and nontraditional relationships between adults. As well as questions of two-job families, day care, etc. It's clear that the status quo is not stable as a way of raising children, and while I support the feminist advances that have helped lead to these issues, something is going to have to give. It's one reason (among many) why I don't myself have children. I wonder what kind of standard family structure we'll have when the dust settles out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I will start by saying I left the world of anthropological/archaeological gender theory in 1995 after an unsatisfying experience with an archaeology seminar called "Gender in Prehistory." My general approach though is shaped by this archaeological/anthropological training, and it is to assume social structures flow out of economic system and general level of security and lawfulness (i.e. can a member of society assume that they will be protect by "government" or society and if not, how do they handle it). So I assume our present system of nuclear families comes out of an agrarian/industrial economy. Social systems are propped up by laws (e.g. the tax code that gives deductions for children) and by social pressures and perceptions of morality. Conversely, the decrease in daily freedoms of women in places like Iraq and Afghanistan could be attributed at least in part to a desire for more security in an extremely insecure place. (Havenstone gives a good anecdotal example of this with a description of the rise of the burqa in one Afghani city).
Given all that background, I see the last 50-60 years as a time of huge upheaval of the family as domestic concerns no longer enough to fully engage women and they seek to become fully economically integrated into the industrialized/knowledge based economy that doesn't require brute physical labor. So I see social changes as flowing from this economic change. (As an aside, my professor of that archaeology class saw the rise of labor saving domestic appliances like washing machines as "bribes" to get women to leave the workforce they had entered in WWII and return home).
Anyway, all that is preface to my saying that a structured heteronormative "patriarchal" environment arose because it met some social need. Obviously there are people who don't fit in to that, and I think as a subculture they should be supported and celebrated. But I question whether the advocates you start out quoting will meet the needs of the majority. They may or they may not, but there may be as many people out there who would be as underserved by a free-wheeling, anything goes, pluralistic society as those who are underserved by a heteronormative one. That's my main response to the example you cite above: some people do need to belong and there's nothing more wrong with that than with the people who follow a different path, and coercion to follow a new norm is no better than coercion to follow the old. I see that coercion though as a natural part of just getting along in society.
We're at a time of huge upheaval and instability in our social structures. I think that's why the "Culture Wars" have been so fiercely played out in politics over the past 20 years. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
(no subject)
So I'd argue that the social/economic need in the above subgroup currently is for forming supportive communities that nurture the individual and their needs. I think that such a social network will become more stable if there are clearer signs distinguishing members of the group and their relationship to each other, and I suppose I'm offering that as one possibility for resolving the upheaval and instability, because I don't think that the traditional patriarchal heteronormative nuclear family model is working terribly well at the moment.
(no subject)
I agree that clear signals have not yet been established and may be needed.
(no subject)