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.
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @vgr
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Perhaps partisanship in the present circumstances has gotten so high that there is less divergence now or more divorce or both.
-
-
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 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.