Families Matter

Why Societal Origin and Family Structures
Are Important


PREMISE 2__SEC 5

The absence of an interactive and unified view

Mother with Daughter

Just as most psychotherapists have typically approached their subject oblivious of the family tendencies described here, so seemingly was the European economic union developed without regard for the vast differences in spending, taxing, and economic management traditions of its North/West industrial and South/East pre-industrial members.

As further evidence of the obvious lack of consistency in assessing cultural factors regarding the parallel lines of CULTURE < > FAMILY < > INDIVIDUAL we present this book review of 3 books addressing man's social nature or lack thereof, by a leading international financial newspaper, FT.com. Disregarding agreement or disagreement with what is said, we cite the following voids


1 - no social science integration

2 - no accepted integrated vocabulary relevant to the social-individual connection

3 - no accepted fContentramework and approach in meaningfully exploring men, tribes, demographic groups and differing ways of living,

While "tribes" and "families" are mentioned short and quick, their relevance to the question is clearly not at the top of anyone's (3 authors + reviewer) list.

Jan 3, 2014, FT.com book review by Julian Baginni

Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect, by Matthew Lieberman, OUP, RRP£18.99/Crown, RRP$26, 384 pages

"As life goes on, our social connections continue to be vital. We live in families, tribes and nations, and increasingly as part of an interconnected global community. The problem is that these groups make different and often competing demands on us. We may well be social animals but our habitats are changing, and we haven’t yet adapted to them.

"That is the central problem dealt with in three very different books about being with others…. Matthew Lieberman’s aim in Social is to impress upon us just how much we have learnt in recent years about the wiring of our brains. Social thinking is so fundamental that it fills our consciousness whenever we switch off from any pressing task. This “default mode network” activity “precedes any conscious interest in the social world”, having been detected in babies as young as two days.

"Most neuroscientists believe we have a dedicated system for social reasoning, quite different to the one that is used for non-social thinking. What’s more, when one system is on, the other turns off….

"Lieberman has a social and political purpose. The contemporary western world just doesn’t take enough account of our fundamentally social nature. “We are square (social) pegs being forced into round (nonsocial) holes,” he says. Part of the blame for this lands on the enlightenment idea of the autonomous rational agent. This individualism is so ingrained in the west that what eastern cultures and Lieberman call “harmonizing” is more often thought of as “conforming”, with all the negative connotations that entails.

“Some day we will look back and wonder how we ever had lives, work and schools that weren’t guided by the principles of the social brain,” he says….

"While Lieberman presents a sunny picture of the potential of unlocking the social brain, in Moral Tribes Joshua Greene exposes a serious problem with its wiring. Our moral brains were designed to solve the problem of “Me versus Us”. It does this by creating emotions such as guilt, shame and loyalty, all of which are necessary to keep our narrow selfishness in check, so that we can reap the benefits of co-operation.

"Evolution has thus made us tribal. On our crowded planet today, however, our biggest problem is that of “Us versus Them”, and tribalism just makes it worse. “Our moral brains evolved for co-operation within groups”, he says, but they “did not evolve for co-operation between groups”. This is what Greene calls “The Tragedy of Commonsense Morality”: what our intuition tells us is morally right is often very wrong, if we want to live peacefully with those who hold different values."

"The good news is that “being wired for tribalism does not mean being hardwired for tribalism”, a vital distinction that is often missed when people write about how the brain determines all that we do. “Morality can do things it did not evolve (biologically) to do,” says Greene. How can it do this? By switching from the intuitive “automatic mode” that underpins our gut reactions to the calculating, rational “manual mode”. This, for Greene, means embracing utilitarianism, “the native philosophy of the manual mode”. Utilitarianism takes the idea that “happiness is what matters, and everyone’s happiness counts the same”, generating the simple three-word maxim, “maximise happiness impartially”.

"Greene is not the first to think that he has found “a universal moral philosophy that members of all human tribes can share” and that those who disagree are simply not being rational enough. Many a philosopher will raise an eyebrow at his claim that “the only truly compelling objection to utilitarianism is that it gets the intuitively wrong answers in certain cases”.

"At least one strong objection is suggested by what Greene himself says. He knows full well that the kind of absolutely impartial perspective demanded by utilitarianism – in which the interests of your own child, partner or friends count for no more than any others – “is simply incompatible with the life for which our brains were designed”. Greene takes this as a flaw of human beings, not his preferred moral theory. But when someone, for example, dedicates a book to his wife, as Greene does, this does not reflect a failure to be appropriately objective. A world in which people showed no such preferences would be an inhuman, not an ideal, one. A morality that values human flourishing, as Greene thinks it should, should put our particular attachments at its core, not view them as “species-typical moral limitations” to be overcome.

"If Greene overreaches, he achieves a great deal in the attempt. This is an important synthesizing work of great depth and breadth. Time and again he nails what is centrally important, such as in his observation that “The problem is that we’ve been looking for universal moral principles that feel right, and there may be no such thing.” He also makes it clear how people can pursue their own interests while being genuinely motivated by justice. “Groups can have selfish reasons for favoring some moral values over others,” he says, naming this phenomenon “biased fairness”.

"Having long argued for the importance of emotion in ethics, Martha Nussbaum must be pleased to see these distinguished peers rallying to the cause. In Political Emotions, she argues more specifically for the importance of love in politics. She is well aware that many liberal-minded intellectuals are wary about bringing too much emotion into the public square but she argues persuasively that “ceding the terrain of emotion-shaping to anti-liberal forces gives them a huge advantage in the people’s hearts and risks making people think of liberal values as tepid and boring”. The political cultivation of emotions is needed “to engender and sustain strong commitment to worthy projects that require effort and sacrifice”.

"Nussbaum makes the general point eloquently and persuasively but her lengthy, at times repetitive, elaboration of it is not usually as compelling. She advocates an inclusive patriotism, for example, arguing that the nation is “a necessary intermediary between the ego and the whole of humanity”. As evidence of the possibility of such a benign belonging she examines in detail not only the speeches but also sometimes the dress and demeanor of Washington, Lincoln, King, Gandhi and Nehru, all of whom “understood the need to touch citizens’ hearts and to inspire, deliberately, strong emotions”. But these were exceptional people talking at exceptional times in their countries’ histories, and such cherry-picking is also evident elsewhere. She acknowledges, for instance, that “patriotic emotion continually needs critical examination” but doesn’t take seriously enough the problem that flag-waving tends to make this more difficult, with dissenters dismissed as unpatriotic.

"Some other sections are not so much overlong as largely redundant. She doesn’t need contentious psychoanalytic ideas about the role of narcissism in child development to make her point about its pernicious influence in adult life, and nor does there seem to be any real insight into human affairs from a discussion of compassion among animals. As is often the case with Nussbaum, the reader is left with the sense of a good, insightful thin book trapped in the body of a fat and verbose, albeit impressively erudite, one.

"Taken together, these books show how the personal is political in ways that have not been fully appreciated. None comes up with entirely convincing solutions to problems of social co-operation, within and between nations, but all help us to understand more clearly how we must take account of our affective as well as rational natures if we are to deal with them. Emotion is not the spanner in the works of a more rational society. It is the engine that powers it, which reason must understand in order to steer it wisely."

Julian Baggini is author of ‘The Ego Trick’. His latest book, ‘The Virtues of the Table’, is published by Granta


To summarize briefly;

Different countries in the EU have experienced significantly different histories. Each country or region has had to adapt in its own way to these unique circumstances. The effects are historical over generations and centuries. And the explanations for why they are the way they are not linear but multi-factorial. In other words, it is my hypothesis that those countries that have been consistently – over generations – ruled by others of dissimilar cultures will not trust their government. Law has been imposed and uses tyranny as an enforcement mechanism. They will not trust the larger world that they interact with.

Mothers with Their Daughters

They will not trust or revere the public school teachers that are educating their children because these teachers were once appointed by aliens; not from another planet, but from another exploitative group that had a different sense of moral standards and demands. That lack of trust in authorities has multi-factorial, non-linear consequences. So if you don’t trust the authorities, you don’t guide your behavior by what the authorities either believe in or enforce. You try to work your way around the authorities rather than listening to the authorities.

And what happens is that you develop a culture and a cultural character that is surreptitious, that travels under the radar, that functions by black market principles. Now, if you and your children and your grandchildren and your parents and your grandparents all live in this under-the-radar psychic environment, then your character will be shaped by it and you will not be forthright. You will not believe in direct communication. Direct articulated communication can be dangerous.

All that matters is results, because communication with the outside world is not two-way and cannot be trusted.

Moreover, you will not empathize with the outside world because you do not experience the outside world as empathizing and caring about you. The democratic, civic and public-minded responsibility inherent in republican citizenship are not factors you take seriously. That’s an example of the multi-factorial nature of self-perpetuating systems.

An economy cannot be productive (postindustrial) in that kind of a society compared to a more communicative, self-reliant but trusting, self-confident, interactive population. We know this. States that have open communication are more productive. Society moves forward through interaction with strangers. We cross-cultivate.

In the more tyrannized societies you’re either in or you’re out (of the extended family, village or tribe), and there’s nothing in between. The concept of "self-esteem" is paramount in the west. But in the preindustrial south and east there is no SELF esteem. Esteem is based on the tribe, group and subgroup and is mediated by denial, reaction formation and projection onto other subgroups. That’s what can be learned about economics and governance from clinical experience

George Jonisch, PhD,

clinical psychologist, (ret.)

family therapist,

855 512-5449