A genetic study of nearly 100 corpses in a French cemetery reconstructs seven generations of a Neolithic clan in which the men stayed in their places of origin for their entire lives while the women went to other groups
Nuclear families are common in hunter gatherer societies, like the American tribes I think you’re thinking about. But settled societies – the large societies that took shape after the adoption of agriculture in various places around the world, starting from prehistoric times – are generally based on clans and other extended kinship groups. Even today, some societies remain heavily clan-based, like the Afghan tribes that have given the West so much vexation over the past twenty years. Within living memory, there have been many countries that have made the disorienting shift from clan-based to family- or individual-based social organization, as part of “modernization”.
The historical role of the Catholic church in weakening clans in Europe has been remarked upon by many scholars and can’t be dismissed as bogus. The idea that this led (inadvertently) to long-run benefits for the European economy and innovation is more provocative, but seems plausible. Again, within living memory, there have been writers and social reformers in the developing world (e.g. India and China) who have criticized the stifling effects of traditional clan or caste based social organization, following pretty much the same line of reasoning.
I wrote a great reply that was brilliant and generous and had all the clever bits, and then Lemmy deleted it.
You’re right, clan-based practices have had and continue to have struggles both with modernisation and basic human rights. They are not idealised Rousseauean societies.
But the author is basically saying that this shift in marriage practices is the sole contributor to Western science. It’s a stretch to be sure, and it doesn’t even have the evidence right.
Here’s a critique with quotes from people way smarter than me.
Yes, the “weird” guy definitely over-hyped the hypothesis to sell his book. Fukuyama had a more nuanced take in his book The Origins of Political Order, which was that the church-influenced marriage (and inheritance) practices provided long term benefits by aiding the evolution of the concept of rule of law. But it was only one of a very large number of historical factors.
Haven’t read that, sounds like an interesting take. Thanks for that. I love anything about how ‘order’ was established, since it seems like a given today, but it definitely isn’t.
It can be a contributing factor without being the only factor, of course. We can accept the author’s general ideas without accepting all of the conclusions he draws from them.
Most Native American groups did not rely on nuclear family setups, including the few “hunter gatherer” tribes that I know of. Nuclear families actually were most common among pastoral groups, to my knowledge.
Nuclear families are common in hunter gatherer societies, like the American tribes I think you’re thinking about. But settled societies – the large societies that took shape after the adoption of agriculture in various places around the world, starting from prehistoric times – are generally based on clans and other extended kinship groups. Even today, some societies remain heavily clan-based, like the Afghan tribes that have given the West so much vexation over the past twenty years. Within living memory, there have been many countries that have made the disorienting shift from clan-based to family- or individual-based social organization, as part of “modernization”.
The historical role of the Catholic church in weakening clans in Europe has been remarked upon by many scholars and can’t be dismissed as bogus. The idea that this led (inadvertently) to long-run benefits for the European economy and innovation is more provocative, but seems plausible. Again, within living memory, there have been writers and social reformers in the developing world (e.g. India and China) who have criticized the stifling effects of traditional clan or caste based social organization, following pretty much the same line of reasoning.
I wrote a great reply that was brilliant and generous and had all the clever bits, and then Lemmy deleted it.
You’re right, clan-based practices have had and continue to have struggles both with modernisation and basic human rights. They are not idealised Rousseauean societies. But the author is basically saying that this shift in marriage practices is the sole contributor to Western science. It’s a stretch to be sure, and it doesn’t even have the evidence right.
Here’s a critique with quotes from people way smarter than me.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/20/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-review-a-theory-of-everything-study
Yes, the “weird” guy definitely over-hyped the hypothesis to sell his book. Fukuyama had a more nuanced take in his book The Origins of Political Order, which was that the church-influenced marriage (and inheritance) practices provided long term benefits by aiding the evolution of the concept of rule of law. But it was only one of a very large number of historical factors.
Haven’t read that, sounds like an interesting take. Thanks for that. I love anything about how ‘order’ was established, since it seems like a given today, but it definitely isn’t.
It can be a contributing factor without being the only factor, of course. We can accept the author’s general ideas without accepting all of the conclusions he draws from them.
Most Native American groups did not rely on nuclear family setups, including the few “hunter gatherer” tribes that I know of. Nuclear families actually were most common among pastoral groups, to my knowledge.