Family Values

[NIJamesHughes]

I am studying the New Right movement, and in researching it I hear a lot about "Family Values" but I have yet to find out what exactly they are. Anyone have any clues?

[redfarmer]

From my experience in the radical right, "family values" seems to be an arbitrary concept with no exact definition. It's accepted by those who use it that it refers to traditional Judeo-Christian values.

There really is no precise definition, but the best I coud find is from Wikipedia:

As popularly understood, family values also have a more restrictive aspect that includes opposition to the creation or recognition of what they consider to be "non-traditional" families or households, as well as opposition to behavior thought to be sinful, and opposition to some forms of open communication about sex.

Thus, while "family values" is defined differently by many people, the term is often used to promote the elimination or repression of homosexuality, the support of political measures to ban or restrict abortion, softening the separation of church and state, supporting school prayer and corporal punishment of children, opposing sex education, reinforcing gender roles, and eliminating violence and human sexuality from public discourse.

[The Durande]

"Family Values" as used by the right is a euphemism for censorship and anti-abortion. Please don't take this as support for the left. I voted for Bush.

[NIJamesHughes]

here are some clues from the "Family Research Council" (a group i have been researching and antagonizing )

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04E01

"After all, is not America really a nation of individuals and individualism,[?]....This is, I believe, a false reading of American history and identity. For alongside affirmation of the integrity and worth of the individual, the American nation has also been a land uniquely defined, from its origin to the modern era, by its commitment to marriage"

what is the dicotomy between individualism and marriage that they propose?

[NIJamesHughes]

"Family Values" as used by the right is a euphemism for censorship and anti-abortion.  Please don't take this as support for the left.  I voted for Bush.

right, but they don't say that that is what they support.. what are family values supposed to be, i mean what is the positive?

but what is it that they seek to gain by being pro-censorship and anti abortion, ie what do they value?

[Tom Rexton]

here are some clues from the "Family Research Council" (a group i have been researching and antagonizing )

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04E01

"After all, is not America really a nation of individuals and individualism,[?]....This is, I believe, a false reading of American history and identity. For alongside affirmation of the integrity and worth of the individual, the American nation has also been a land uniquely defined, from its origin to the modern era, by its commitment to marriage"

what is the dicotomy between individualism and marriage that they propose?

You know how "individualism" is popularly understood. It's understood not as independence of mind/thought as held by Objectivism, but independence from almost anything, including people. Relationships are thought to be "anti-indivudalistic" or "collectivist" because it involves a formal relationship/union between two individuals. At the same time, wearing certain styles that are totally opposite of the popular trends for the sake of being different is considered "individualistic".

[NIJamesHughes]

You know how "individualism" is popularly understood.  It's understood not as independence of mind/thought as held by Objectivism, but independence from almost anything, including people.  Relationships are thought to be "anti-indivudalistic" or "collectivist" because it involves a formal relationship/union between two individuals.  At the same time, wearing certain styles that are totally opposite of the popular trends for the sake of being different is considered "individualistic".  

That is true, but we also know what these idea (no matter if they mean them or not) lead to.

I really don't think that this is a case of misunderstanding after reading the article. I think that they really advocate collectivism (specifically fascism, see the attacks on socialism). Also notice they way that the author states that puritans did marry for rational reasons, but then proceeds to apologize and concede that they were also very emotional about it...

[redfarmer]

You know how "individualism" is popularly understood.  It's understood not as independence of mind/thought as held by Objectivism, but independence from almost anything, including people.  Relationships are thought to be "anti-indivudalistic" or "collectivist" because it involves a formal relationship/union between two individuals.  At the same time, wearing certain styles that are totally opposite of the popular trends for the sake of being different is considered "individualistic".  

It's funny. After my background in the religious right, this is what I originally thought Rand meant when I read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It's so ingrained in most people from their earliest years that this is what individualism is that it's taken for granted.

As for why they are so anti-abortion and pro-censorship, they are anti-life. The New Right is so desperate to uphold their "values" that they would rather take away other people's rights than admit they are wrong.

[BurgessLau]

I am studying the New Right movement, and in researching it I hear a lot about "Family Values" but I have yet to find out what exactly they are. Anyone have any clues?

Following is my most essentialized attempt to define "family values" -- as a result of having talked to some Christian conservatives online and in person:

Family values, taken as a set, means ...

(1) Valuing the family as the basic unit of society.

(2) Valuing anything which either supports or protects the family.

By "family" they mean: One male heterosexual, one female heterosexual, and as many children as they can breed.

If you think there is a collectivist implication in (1), you are right. The individual is not the basic unit of society. That is why these conservatives (not necessarily others) have no problem with violating individual rights. They don't say so, but they strive for "family rights" just as leftists strive for their collectivist equivalents of group "rights."

As a consequence, in part, of (1), essential characteristic (2) entails anti-abortion, pro-censorship, differential taxation, and even anti-divorce positions.

Also keep in mind the Big Family that many of these Christians (and perhaps some Jews) assume: God the Father is the head of the whole family of not only Man but all of His creatures. Throughout history, some monotheists have always tried to enforce a parallel of families: God the Father, the King as the paternal guide for the nation, and the father of the family as ruler of that unit of society.

The 1950s TV series title, "Father Knows Best," aptly captures that view, in part.

[Sherlock]

I would agree with BurgessLau: "family values" generally means, 1) Valuing the family as the basic unit of society, and 2) Valuing anything which either supports or protects the family.

Arguments against this, then, need to argue first against the family as the basic unit of society. If it is, then that obviously that justifies and necessitates #2. So, how would you argue against #1?

[tommyedison]

I would agree with BurgessLau: "family values" generally means, 1) Valuing the family as the basic unit of society, and 2) Valuing anything which either supports or protects the family.

Arguments against this, then, need to argue first against the family as the basic unit of society. If it is, then that obviously that justifies and necessitates #2. So, how would you argue against #1?

If family is the basic unit of the society, it would mean that the society cannot exist without a family and that a family is indivisible since it is basic.

But a society can exist without a family and a family is divisible. Therefore the family is not a basic unit.

A society cannot however exist without an individual. An individual is indivisible. Therefore an individual is the basic unit of the society.

[Sherlock]

I don't agree with your reasoning.

Indivisibility is not the essential aspect of a society: by definition, a society is made up of more than one individual. One individual does not a society make---by definition, a society (especially in its larger sense, i.e: an enduring and cooperating group, interacting with one another, having common traditions, interests, etc. such as a nation) has to consist of more than one individual. Therefore, divisibility will always be a hallmark of a society. Also, families produce children, not individuals. The more prone to divisibility the family is (high divorce rates, etc), the less stable the resulting society is (for example, fatherless children are more inclined to violence than those raised in two-parent, stable households). You can have a society without families, but not for very long.

So you need to take a different approach, as this one doesn't work.

[NIJamesHughes]

I don't agree with your reasoning.

Indivisibility is not the essential aspect of a society: by definition, a society is made up of more than one individual. One individual does not a society make---by definition, a society (especially in its larger sense, i.e: an enduring and cooperating group, interacting with one another, having common traditions, interests, etc. such as a  nation) has to consist of more than one individual. Therefore, divisibility will always be a hallmark of a society. Also, families produce children, not individuals. The more prone to divisibility the family is (high divorce rates, etc), the less stable the resulting society is (for example, fatherless children are more inclined to violence than those raised in two-parent, stable households). You can have a society without families, but not for very long.

So you need to take a different approach, as this one doesn't work.

How do you justify the claim that human children are not individuals?

Noone said that indivisibility was the essential aspect of society, it is individuals that make up society. With out individual's, you have no society. The fact that they are members of a society, does not change the fundamental fact that they are individuals.

Also your assessment of one parent families is completely deterministic and is refuted by the concept of free will.

[BurgessLau]

[...]Indivisibility is not the essential aspect of a society: [...]

Did someone in this forum say that indivisibility is an essential characteristic of a society?

Also, families produce children, not individuals.[...]

What are children if not individuals? Or are you trying to say that one individual can't conceive and give birth to a child? I know women who conceived without forming a family with the male donor, bore the child, and raised the child successfully. The family was the mother and child -- plus extensions as the mother saw fit.

The more prone to divisibility the family is (high divorce rates, etc), the less stable the resulting society is (for example, fatherless children are more inclined to violence than those raised in two-parent, stable households).[...]

Are you saying there is a causal connection between high divorce rates and violence by children? Or is this merely a correlation? If it is causal, then do all fatherless children become aggressive, for life? If not, why not?

And are you assuming that divorce itself means fatherlessness? I know couples who divorce and continue raising their children, but in circumstances that some conservative collectivists wouldn't approve of -- separate households.

Further, what is a "stable" society? Is that good or bad?

You can have a society without families, but not for very long.

Do you mean here "families" as defined by conservative collectivists -- who are the subject of this thread? There are other kinds of families. Single-parent families are numerous. Some are broadened by support from grandparents, uncles, aunts, and friends. Sometimes the "parents" are relatives -- such as two brothers of a deceased father whose wife has also died.

So you need to take a different approach, as this one doesn't work.

What approach would you recommend as an alternative way of dealing with conservative collectivists' "family values" parade?

[realitycheck44]

What defines "fatherless"? Never seeing your father? Having your father leave or die at a young age? If so, what age? Does having a dead-beat dad qualify you as fatherless?

As Mr. Laughlin already stated, it cannot simply mean divorce. My parents are divorced, but have such a good relationship that my dad comes for the weekend and stays in our guest room once or twice a month. I would definitely not consider myself fatherless, but I do have to do quite a few of the things he would do around the house. I actually think this is a good thing. If I could change the past and put them back together, I really don't think I would.

[Sherlock]

NIJamesHughes,

You asked, "

How do you justify the claim that human children are not individuals?"

I didn't make that claim. I was merely pointing out that if the basic unit of a society is the individual, then one presumably accepts the idea that one individual can make a society. How does the society then reproduce itself?

You wrote: "The fact that they are members of a society, does not change the fundamental fact that they are individuals."

I agree. I never meant to imply that they weren't.

You wrote: "Also your assessment of one parent families is completely deterministic and is refuted by the concept of free will."

I would hardly call it "completely deterministic"---shzeesh! Nor would I ever, ever refute free will. It's called "facts": children from unstable or one-parent households face more difficulties than do those from stable, two-parent households. I don't see how one can rationally deny the harmful effects of fatherlessness when:

# 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

[u. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census]

# 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

# 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

[Center for Disease Control]

# 80% of rapist motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

[Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26]

# 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

[National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools]

# 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes

[u.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988]

# 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.

[Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992].

Deny reality if you must.

[NIJamesHughes]

' "Family values" taken as a set..." '

how can they be defined individually?

[BurgessLau]

' "Family values" taken as a set..." '

how can they be defined individually?

I don't understand the question. Which individual family value do you want to define? The conservatives whom I have heard speak of "family values" speak of them as a set, and these conservatives are vague about enumerating the values. However, I suspect that implied values are:

- stability (opposition to divorce).

- caring for the welfare of members (state welfare for the "deserving").

- protecting members from corrupting outside influences (like pornography and drugs).

- fertility (as opposed to abortion and contraceptives).

If these are what you have in mind, do you really need to define them? Or did you mean you want to identify them?

P. S. -- Earlier I said:

"(1) Valuing the family as the basic unit of society."

In re-examining some of the perplexing replies to that post, I now realize that the term "unit" is ambiguous, that is, it names two or more divergent ideas. Thus, I introduced a problem rather than a solution.

The two uses of "unit" are the following.

One idea named by "unit" is "instance," as in the fact that this table, the one my computer is on, is a unit referred to by the concept table. (A "concept is a mental integration of two or more units," notes Ayn Rand, IOE, p. 13) Here unit means entity.

A second idea named by "unit" is "part" or "component." This is the meaning I had in mind when I said that conservative collectivists value the family as the basic unit of (the larger) society. That is, I meant that such conservatives see the father/mother/children family as the most important component of the "big family" we call society.

The two uses are related. In both cases, the unit goes to making up something bigger. The first usage is epistemological. The second usage is metaphysical.

And it is also true that a family -- for example, 10,000 years ago, wandering across the countryside gathering foodstuffs -- is a society, in the sense that it is a group of individuals interacting with each other on a regular basis.

This is a frustrating but illuminating thread. I am sure that part of the frustration in dealing with "family values" is that we are, as someone said earlier, dealing ultimately with the arbitrary. It is similar to trying to discuss rationally the nature of God when we don't believe in "His" existence.

[NIJamesHughes]

If these are what you have in mind, do you really need to define them? Or did you mean you want to identify them?

I wanted to identify them individually. I appreciate your response, it has been the most helpful answer to my question.

[NIJamesHughes]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showth...ed=1#post202397

Here is a thread on a conservative board that I started to investigate the concept "family value."

Please post your comments and thoughts.

[NIJamesHughes]

Here is a quote about marriage from the family research council website. And, yes, they are serious.

"Focusing only on the needs of the couple ignores the communitarian nature of true marriage and the claims of these others ['kith and kin, of friends and neighbors, of former teachers and co-workers'] on each marriage."

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PL04C04

[tommyedison]

I didn't make that claim. I was merely pointing out that if the basic unit of a society is the individual, then one presumably accepts the idea that one individual can make a society. How does the society then reproduce itself?

Neuron is the basic unit of the nervous system. Can one neuron make a nervous system?

Society is a system whose basic unit is the individual.

[gadfly]

Indivisibility is not the essential aspect of a society:

tommyedison did not say that. The argument was: since families are divisible, they cannot be a basic unit. Since individuals are not divisible, they can. Indivisibility was applied to family vs. individual, not society.

[gadfly]

I am studying the New Right movement, and in researching it I hear a lot about "Family Values" but I have yet to find out what exactly they are. Anyone have any clues?

I've noticed that missing definition too. Frankly, I don't think they have much of a vested interest in defining it, basically allowing them to install themselves as the defenders of "the family". Keeping it vague allows the idea to sound good without requiring rational discussion.

[Sherlock]

Tommyedison,

You wrote: "Neuron is the basic unit of the nervous system. Can one neuron make a nervous system? Society is a system whose basic unit is the individual."

BurgessLau had an excellent clarification of the use of the word "unit" in an earlier post. In your case, you are using the word "unit" with the first understanding of that word that he posits. With that as your understanding, you are correct. I was using the word consistent with his explanation of the second meaning of the term "unit".