The most important patriarchal institution is obviously the trad family. What isn’t obvious is that this is also the strongest. Unlike others, there is no market of substitutes or an impersonal state-based alt. Exit/voice is very weak. You cannot change families like jobs.
-
Show this thread
-
In a way, the very idea of an impersonal substitute for a family is an oxymoron, since a family is primarily a personal connection to society. There can be impersonal subs for tribal versions of safety net, law and order, jobs, education etc. But not family.
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
Also unlike other patriarchal institutions where power relations are legible and segmentary (bonds can be cleanly broken and remade without disturbing power structure) within a family power exists as an entanglement of lives. Quantum, not classical.
2 replies 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
The presence of a strong functional emotional aspect to your entanglement with your family (or equivalent pack) is not a constitutive cause but an emergent effect. Ie you can’t “substitute” the emotional “need” like backfilling a job when an employee quits.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Emotions emerge when the family entanglement begin to function. Whether healthy or unhealthy (co-dependency, exploitation), once this kicks in, politics cannot easily split the pack. You have to appeal to its interests as a whole.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
Though the family may have a legible public “leader” (say a working father) it is naive to assume that this leader has de facto power or that the interests of the pack coincide with those of any one member.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
This was one of Hannah Arendt’s key insights: in the traditional family, the individual power of the free male head stops at the threshold of the home. Once he steps in, he may enjoy more comforts, but everybody: housewives, children, slaves, male head are fully constrained.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
So when voting members of a functioning family vote, they vote the interests of the whole (I’d be *very* surprised if more than a tiny % of married couples with kids voted diff from each other, and it is significant that young people usually leave home when they can first vote)
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
I've known several that were openly politically divergent and even more that were privately divergent. My intuition is opposite of yours. I suspect it's actually quite common.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto
White women voted roughly along partisan lines for/against Hillary and seem to be lining up similarly re: Kavanaugh. I can’t explain this any other way. Also your sample may be young. I think this likely gets stronger with length of marriages.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Most of my anecdata is from middle aged couples with children living in a semi affluent suburb. Not talking about my peers. Talking about my parents peers.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @vgr
Perhaps partisanship in the present circumstances has gotten so high that there is less divergence now or more divorce or both.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto
Yeah, the current situation must be an unprecedented stress test for many long-term married couples whose divergence hasn't really been tested before.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.