Russell claims “The strongest and most instinctively compelling of social
groups was, and still is, the family” (13). He supports his claim by observing the structure of the family, and the balance it contains. Russell argues that the mothers of the family lack in hunter-gathering skills, which brings a need to have a father figure in the family. The father will protect and provide food for the family. The women watch over the children to ensure a new generation will develop and eventually have children of their own. I agree to Russell’s claim to an extent. I believe in the past many families have carried out their lives in this way, but now times are different. The mother of the family no longer has to stay at home and can work. Although families may have started out the same, recently every family has been unique in their own way.
Quote: “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” (Russell 13).
Firstly, Russell does not argue that the mother innately lacks in hunting and or gathering skills but rather that she is unable to perform those duties while also caring for a newborn or infant. Here, Russell was not arguing that this is by any means, the way a family functions or should function in modern times. He continues to use this example from ancient times to address his reasoning for why early civilizations developed bonds with others. He continues to say,
“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,” (Pg. 32, Bertrand Russell, Authority and the Individual).
I of course agree that mothers in this day and age can work but Russell was not claiming that they couldn’t.
I agree with your analysis that due to family values and morals and work ethics, we can coexist in society. You clearly explain the ideas that family is the reason we can coexist int society, just like family members distribute chores and responsibility amongst themselves people in society can emulate the same behaviors that they leanered fro family and coexist. Therefore proving his claim that “The strongest and most instinctively compelling of social groups was, and still is, the family. ”
Although, I also do agree with the comment before me that although Russell did say that “The strongest and most instinctively compelling of social groups was, and still is, the family.” he did not say “The women watch over the children to ensure a new generation will develop and eventually have children of their own.”