“The strongest and most instinctively compelling of social
groups was, and still is, the family. The family is
necessitated among human beings by the great length of
infancy, and by the fact that the mother of young infants is
seriously handicapped in the work of food gathering. It was
this circumstance that with human beings, as with most
species of birds, made the father an essential member of
the family group. This must have led to a division of labour
in which the men hunted while the women stayed at home.The transition from the family to the small tribe was presumably biologically connected with the fact that hunting could be more efficient if it was co-operative, and from a very early time the cohesion of the tribe must have been increased and developed by conflicts with other tribes. ” Pages 3 to 4
Bertrand’s argument basically states that the family is the strongest form of social group solely because a mother and father have to work together to support the family. To do so, the mother and father have to split up the work. In the case that Bertrand is speaking of the man is the hunter while the women are responsible for taking care of the children. I agree with the argument that Russel put forth. Families are important to the social structure of society. Our personality as human beings, our likes and dislikes are all probably influenced by our families. The roles and jobs that are divided within the household makes raising a family less strenuous on an individual member of the family. As a result, each member of the family is important to their role whether it be hunting or taking care of the family. The cooperation seen within families ultimately leads to cooperation in other aspects of society.
I agree with your response in a sense, but my rebuttal would be that women can and have in today’s society been able to do those things that men are usually responsible for. Although, it is important to split roles within a family, it is also important to distribute them in a way that is most beneficial towards a family’s well-being. That can be interpreted in many different ways, whether the father stays at home or the mother stays at home. I believe that the quote that you picked is in fact quite controversial, especially in today’s world where gender roles are changing tremendously. My agreement with your response lies in your statement that responsibilities must be split evenly between members of the family. My disagreement, however, as stated before, is the question of “Why can’t women be considered to do tasks of men?”. Overall, I feel that your representation of the argument was in-line with the quotation from the article.
– Arraf Ahmed
I find your thoughts to be similar to mine because I have personally witnessed this from my life as a child. My mother would take care of me and my siblings while my father worked and provided for the family. Although I agree strongly with Russel’s idea, America has shown both sides to this story. There are many cases of women who work while the father watched the children. However, this is simply because our individualistic culture allows it. Thousands of years ago, men had to hunt and gather because of the physical means. But in modern day, physical means is not necessary.
I dislike gender roles because I feel that gender roles put so much restrictions on what a person can do. However, I understand your argument. I agree with you on the point that “our personality as human beings, our likes and dislikes are all probably influenced by our families,” because I’ve grown to believe that the man is the head of the house and his main and important job is to provide for his family and also to protect them. I also agree with your statement that “the roles and jobs that are divided within the household makes raising a family less strenuous on an individual member of the family.” Gender roles do in a way create order in a household because everyone knows what they should be doing as a member of the family.
I agree with the statement that family is the strongest form of social group. A family not only bonds together by consanguinity but also the concepts of love, loyalty, responsibility, and etc. Family members always have the heart to be caring to one another. For what I believe, the reason of that is most people spend a significant amount of time in life with family members, thus develop a deep emotional attachment. While I don’t necessarily agree with the part of gender roles, I do agree that parents take great responsibilities to support the family as a united group, whether as the father does the hunting or the mother does the nurturing. In modern days, these roles can be switched around, and both parents can still support the family amazingly. Most importantly, all family members devote to the family with their own supporting role.
Thanks for all of your cogent responses! I’ve summed up some of the more provocative points that you have all made, and I’m responding to those points.
Most of you found the following to be important arguments that Russell is making:
1) The idea that the traditional family is central, and that our society is modeled after this traditional unit;
2) The idea that the individual is central to the community’s progress;
3) The idea that social cohesion results from a common fear of one’s enemies;
4) The idea that competition is central to a society’s growth;
5) The idea that competition should be “updated” so that we don’t do one another harm.
6) The idea that social cohesion can backfire and evolve into Fascism;
7) The idea that social cohesion has shifted from simple fear of enemy to fear of different creeds and beliefs;
8) The idea that we need competition to stay interested in life.
Some interesting questions you brought up, and that we will discuss further in class on Feb. 10th:
1) Is our idea of “family” changing?
2) It is innate to develop friends and foes (according to Russell) but is this still necessary? Is this rather a simplistic way of categorizing our relationships, both personal and professional, and have we evolved beyond this?
3) Is it innate for a nation to want to always acquire more land, have resources, more wealth?
4) Does “true” social cohesion equal stagnation?
5) Has our technological advancements over-reached our understanding of what is ethical?
6) Is the “war of conquest” still ongoing? Are we (both as Americans and globally) still, in one way or another, making our citizens feel marginalized?
7) Have we evolved to a point where there are no more true challenges in our lives? For example, as one of you noted, we no longer have to fight for food (or most of us, anyway, in this country, but perhaps this is overstated).