What does “Family” mean?

1100 words plus one reader comment

Among those opposed to the evils of Transhumanism and aiming to reverse the obvious decline of Western civilisation, there is frequent recourse to the need to reinvigorate “Family values.” This goes alongside phrases about “God-given rights” and appeals to the Bible and especially the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament.

When they spell out what they mean, the talk is quickly of marital fidelity, or monogamy, which is assumed to be best for all children issuing from the relationship.

Below I delve deeper into what is behind “family.”

At an initial level, “family” is the sum of familiar faces that a newborn awakening to consciousness recognises. These faces may include that of the home-help, but seldom those of uncles & aunts related by blood.

It is essential for a newborn to see faces which become familiar. Babies need focus. It is known that those who are cared for perfectly but by ever-changing people give up the ghost and die.

At another level, tho, I see the roots of “family” elsewhere. It is in fatherhood.

Being a good mother is easily defined even if in practice it may be difficult. It is less clear what being a good father involves.

By nature, mothers, and women in general, are endowed with baby-caring attributes or propensities, whether they are breast-feeding or not. In their absence, men may step in, but for many this is reluctantly and awkwardly, irrespective of acknowledgement and affirmation of paternity.

One essential aspect which is neglected is the role of co-habitation. In the early years of a child, this has countless advantages, given that caring for a baby or young child may be too demanding for a sole parent. Someone needs to be on call night & day.

On the other hand, my lifelong observations, which readers or statisticians may confirm, are that much of the discordance which typically arises among parents stems from domestic disputes, with different styles and temperaments causing continuous friction.

I propose, therefore, that mother & father should live close to each other, but not together, at least not for long. Again, given the prevailing dispensation, I leave aside the economic viability of this solution. (The prevailing economic dispensation could be transformed, but there are vested interests opposed to this.)

Note that in centuries past, there were material dependencies which, with our mod-coms, we no longer suffer from.

Given this proximity, we might have a vision of the role of the father as introducing the growing child to society at large. This has a longer time-scale than the earliest years of a child’s life. The mother’s energies may be taken up with new children.

Hence when the mainstream, mostly Judaeo-Christian, speaks of family, I wish to speak of fatherhood.

But I go further. One father is not enough, nor, for that matter, one mother. Either might have quirks which need to be spared the child.

I wish to see marriage vows replaced with parental contracts, which do not include either cohabitation or so-called fidelity (i.e. sexual exclusiveness).

Such contracts are not enough. There must be checks & balances, here as universally elsewhere.

Which brings me to my concept of statutory godparenthood. This is derived from the idea of godparenthood as it emerged, I believe first in France, in the Middle Ages. Unlike modern usage, I understand the principle as having been that the godparents should be unrelated to the parents. In those troubled times, with frequent early deaths, they would be replacement parents. (I was told by the daughter of my godmother that, had my parents died suddenly, for example in an accident, my unrelated godmother would have adopted me and my siblings.)

This principle of non-relatedness enables a cohesion in society which extends beyond the blood ties of family.

By “statutory godparenthood” (choose a different expression if the “god” disturbs you) I mean that those assuming this role have rights and duties. They must cultivate a regular relationship with their godchild, and the parents cannot refuse them access.

In the event of severe child abuse, the statutory godparents would have to answer in court as to why they knew nothing and failed to intervene or alert the judiciary.

_________________

The following is a comment by Evelyn K. Brunswick made on 17 Oct 2025, republished here with permission.

I think you are touching on something a bit more natural. I am one who always tends to go back to humans in their natural state, that's to say the (social) environment in which their brains (thus their behaviour and psychology etc.) evolved in an adaptive way. So we are talking about small, tight-knit communities of around 150 people, all living in the same relatively small area. In a situation like this, especially when alloparenting is the norm, there are no so-called nuclear families. The nuclear family concept is extremely recent inhuman history (like 1-2% of the time in which humans have been humans). All the children are brought up by all the adults. All the adults, in other words, biologically related or not, are 'godparents' (using your/the generally accepted definition of a godparent). Furthermore, the child doesn't actually care about 'biologically related', because the child's brain doesn't work like that. The child attaches itself to the familiar caregiver, on whom they rely of course. Doesn't matter whether that's a biological mother or a completely unrelated father. Obviously there's the breast-feeding to consider, but in such a commune of 150 there will always be multiple women lactating at the same time. Alloparenting also has significant health benefits (especially to the immune system). Given that humans have an 'intimate relationship' capacity of 150 other humans, that child is going to see the entire group as 'family'. Biology quite frankly doesn't come into it (let alone 'marriage' and 'cohabitation').Emotional connection is far more important. So perhaps it's time for a new definition of the word 'family' along those lines. How that works in this modern, somewhat unnatural age is another matter, of course. Extended families, closer communities would help. But certainly, humans need to get back in touch with their original nature. The separation from that original nature is, somewhat obviously, a real cause of all the stress that people face. The pandemic of mental illness. Dystopia itself, one might say. And yes, I would also say that Judaeo-Christianity, with its restrictive and repressive family relationships (and gender roles), much of it based on 'possession', is very much responsible for this malaise. Perhaps, then, it should be the duty of 'the state' to facilitate and encourage this more natural way of organising human social groups. Localism, perhaps we could call it.

_____________________________________