The Hyperfamily Idea
| Editing is currently in progress on this article. Although editing is incomplete, the author or editor has saved their work to prevent loss. Please check back later by reloading the page, and do not edit while this message is still showing. Thank you. |
The Hyperfamily
An Alternative to the Nuclear and Extended Family Models Of Social Cooperative Organization
Why
In summary: 1. One can’t choose one’s blood relatives. 2. One does not always get along with one’s blood relatives, even if they are reasonable people. 3. Even people who don’t get along with their families sometimes want stable living arrangements. 4. Sometimes two people aren’t enough1.
The Life-Cycle of the Archetypal Postwar Western Middle-Class Family
Two people of opposite chromosomal gender meet during their childbearing years and enter into the cultural/legal institution known as “marriage”. They then produce a number of offspring, who mature one by one and leave home to finish their education and seek employment. These offspring eventually pair up with unrelated others of opposite chromosomal gender and similar age as above and begin families of their own. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
What’s Wrong with This Picture
Several things. First, the reality of the situation is that the offspring often end up scattered far from their parents and far from each other. Second, it is often the case (especially among the “better educated” of the middle class) that several relocations of residence are necessary for reasons of employment which is in turn heavily linked to social standing. What is ironic is that in order to maintain one’s social standing it is often necessary to leave the group in which one’s social standing exists. Contact between relocated individuals/families and their former social milieu is generally maintained via electronic telecommunication and letters and cards on paper media, though these latter are usually seen more as an obligation than as enjoyable. Typically this contact is gradually reduced to none over the course of months or years. Also it often takes years in the new location to build up one’s social circle to a comfortable size and mix, and often by this time another career-related relocation is necessary.
Another problem is that care for the parents, once they become “too old to work” (an age which varies greatly depending on the individual’s skill set, mindset, work history, and mental/physical health), is generally unplanned. Often the elder parents face the choice of living independently in greatly reduced circumstances or moving in with their children. Depending on the elder’s health, daily assistance of some sort may be required which reduces the elder’s choices to imposing even more greatly on those with whom they move in, or moving to a “rest home”. Rest homes are usually expensive and often unpleasant places where even with the best of “care”, the elder is usually not in the company of friends or family on a daily basis. Moving in with the (grown-up) children is usually a problem for a number of reasons, including: 1. the fact (as mentioned earlier) that individuals don’t always get along with their blood relatives; 2. the fact that usually the children are not yet at a stage in their lives where combined resources are sufficient to obtain a dwelling of adequate size to accommodate the elder(s) moving in.
A further point: unless the elder is able to write extensively during this time, opportunities for passing on of any acquired wisdom are scarce and brief. Although the rapid rate of change of today’s society outdates a substantial amount of such acquired wisdom, this “break” in the chain of spoken memory leaves huge gaps in the knowledge base of succeeding generations.
And a final note: although much progress has been made towards ending the “opposite chromosomal gender” restriction, it still seems odd to me that the focus of such relationships is still the couple, i.e. two people plus any offspring. To the best of my knowledge, the only purely social unit that is legally recognized is the couple-plus-offspring family configuration. In many locations, it is illegal for more than a certain number of “unrelated” people to live together, and yet there are no procedures for legally declaring oneself to be “related” to anyone else except through marriage. All of this severely limits the freedoms people have for organizing themselves along social lines, and it is limitations like this which cause problems such as those outlined above.
Lest anyone dismiss these problems as “just the way things are”, let me make a larger point:
I believe the knowledge of the unhappiness resulting from situations such as this causes many people to be depressed and unhappy with their lives in general, though they may not realize this consciously. The existence of misery in the world – especially misery over which we have some control as a culture but relatively little as individuals – is one of the first things we learn not to think about when growing up. The knowledge resides quietly in the back of our minds, gnawing at our happiness like the serpent eating the roots of Yggdrasil (the World Tree) in Norse mythology. (Why is suicide the second leading cause of death in teenagers? Why are antidepressants becoming so overwhelmingly popular among adults? Ok, you can argue that there are other reasons for being depressed – but my take on it is that a lot of the dramatic increase in depression rates etc. over the last few decades has a lot to do with this dismantling and disintegrating of existing communities and the gradual eradication of the whole concept of community, really.)
If our society is crumbling at the foundations as many claim, I think it may have a great deal to do with the destruction of our “social ecology”, if you will – the family and community structures with which humanity evolved and on which we depend for emotional sustenance, sanity maintenance, and optimal contact with reality.
A Different Approach
It is my contention that most people need other people, and are happiest when they are able to physically interact with a collection of friends whose membership does not change too quickly or exceed a reasonable size (too large or too small).
Anthropologists believe1 that when we humans did most of our evolving, we made our living travelling around in small groups working together on a daily basis to hunt, to gather food, and to carry out the various tasks necessary to sustain life. Our nature as a social animal is built around this way of life. Most humans become unhappy when forced into solitude or limited company – or when forced to deal with too many other people; all in a group, too many people become a “crowd”. Taken one at a time, people can become “faceless” or “anonymous” when interaction with the same individual is not repeated on a regular basis.
To put this in less objective terms, most people need friends: people to come home to, people to trust, people to “hang out” with, people to share work, frustration, happiness, ideas, etc. Some people apparently need this less than others, and are willing to pay the consequences. I personally am not, and that is why I’m putting this proposal together. It is my hope that there are enough other people (a) who feel the same way, (b) with whom I would get along (and vice-versa, of course) when placed in daily proximity, and (c) with whom I can somehow make arranging such a thing a practical possibility.
Some Examples from Experience
Example 1: When I was working at Brown University, some of my friends joined a “literary fraternity” where most of the members lived in the same large house. The frat was highly egalitarian and geek-oriented, and was therefore largely ignored or avoided by the usual frat crowd. Thus we had a highly selective bunch of people, male and female in more or less equal proportions, with a lot of common interests. Even though I was not a member of the fraternity, when those who were got together (often with “outsiders” like myself present) it felt like a family should feel (in fact, the frat was often referred to internally as “The Framily”). People usually enjoyed being with the others in the group; there were frequent informal get-togethers for music making, food sharing, random discussions, mutual moral support, etc. Eventually all of those I knew graduated or moved away to take jobs (myself included), but I kept thinking to myself that if I were to start a family, this is how I would want it to be.
A few years before this, I was in a pre-college summer school program with about 100 other kids. It wasn’t as great an experience as the literary frat; for one thing, males and females were segregated (which I despise for personal reasons). For another, I wasn’t that fond of most of the people there. But I did rather like a few of them, and we used to get together in the common areas of the dormitory as well as nearby hangouts (the university cafeteria, mostly). Simply living in the same building and being able to “hang out” with this group of people (without, for example, having to drive anywhere) was enjoyable and helped in carrying out the various work we each had to do, not to mention keeping sane in the face of work pressures.
My proposal is, in a nutshell, to create a similar arrangement but with parameters which do not give it a predetermined expiration date. Ideally, the family unit should be able to endure indefinitely. Individuals should be able to join or leave over the course of the time essentially as they wish, and younger people should be able to join to replace expired biological units (as well as those who decide they have “grown up and moved on”).