Talk:Family as a model for the state

Criticism

Mr. Tudoreanu likes to do a lot of editing. He edits and edits and edits. But does he create? Does he reference? Does he quote?

Look at his contrib list. What does he know of the Classical World? Does he read Aristotle, Cicero or any Classical Scholar? None whatsoever. But he does feel himself qualified to edit things out he has no comphrension of.

Please Mr. Tudoreanu leave off the editing until you have read the material yourself and did some research on the subject.WHEELER 18:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article name

Looking at Wikipedia's naming conventions, I think the article's name should be changed to something like 'Family as a State paradigm'. Any opinions out there? --Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't care either way. I just chose the shortest thing I could think of. WHEELER 01:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why include this misuse of the term 'paradignm'? It's surely a model (in most cases explanatory), possibly a theory. Perhaps Family as model for the state? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sound okay with me Mel. Whatever we choose must have the connotations of Politics and Family and influence on the state organization. WHEELER 21:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to this move? Anyone have a better suggestion (I must admit that mine is a little on the clumsy side, but I can't think of anything better). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Sounds a good name. Smoddy (t) (e) 22:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I think that I've changed all the internal links from other articles. Now to get on with improving the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks good. And since I see that you are a Latin speaker maybe there is a single Latin word for this or a Greek word for this we can use. But it looks good. Thanks.WHEELER 17:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paternalism

I have adapted WHEELER's text en bloc to add some weight to the jejune article Paternalism, which seemed to be sketching out a simple-minded context for abortion issues. I toned down WHEELER's characteristically emphatic tone and eliminated all claims that might be attacked as a POV that did not suit our prejudices. I think that when one googles "Family/State paradigm", comes up with no "hits" and attempts on that basis to efface the entry, perhaps there is more motivating force than immediately meets the eye. --Wetman 21:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to transfer a comment from [Paternalism] to here:

"Paternalism refers to a policy that prevents others from doing harm to themselves or a belief in such policies." - I believe that this statement is incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary defines paternalism as "the policy of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of one's subordinates or dependants in their supposed best interest". This is clearly more accurate. The crux is that the justification is "it's in your own best interest", and the scope extends beyond avoiding harm, and includes forcing people to do something because it's better than the alternative, even though that alternative may not be harmful. For example, if I wanted to become an accountant, but because of a governmental psychometric testing policy I was forced to become a lawyer on the grounds that this was the optimum profession for me, and therefore it would be for my own good if I was to pursue it, then what has been averted (my becoming an accountant) was neither harmful to myself nor others. Nevertheless, the government's policy would be described as extreme paternalism. VivaEmilyDavies 00:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paternalism"

I don't think "Paternalism is a right word for this subject matter. I may have gotten the title wrong, i.e. "Family/State paradigm", but I don't think that "paternalism" is the right word for this. I am up for a better title. "Family state paradigm" has the meaning that "of the influence of family structure as a paradigm for state organization". Now what word that does encapsulate this meaning, I am all for. WHEELER 21:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly 'paternalism' is much too narrow for the sort of view found in writers like Aristotle and Locke. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly true. The family as a model for the state is one useful metaphor of paternalism, as paternalism is one product of taking the family as a model for the state. The text there will have an independent evolution I think. --Wetman 20:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted twice

"In hierarchal societies, one finds hierarchal families and hierarchal governments ("I order you to ..."). In consensus societies, one finds consensus families and consensus governments ("Hey, don't I get a vote on that?"). States and families are both governed according to cultural ideas about appropriate power relations and thus necessarily mirror each other in any given culture. Diversity of all kinds abounds (e.g. a soldier's family in a liberal democracy)." 4.250.138.88 23:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. The English is in need of sorting out (for example, it's 'hierarchical'), but
2. the tone is in any case not right for an encyclopædia (it reads more like a transcription of a student debate), and anyway
3. it's PoV. To claim that states and families mirror each other is to put forward a certain theory, which many would argue against; to state it as fact (and, moreover, as necessary fact), is therefore inappropriate in Wikipedia.

I can't see that there's anything in it that ought to be added. This article has just narrowly avoided being deleted after a VfD. The task now is to make it better – more neutral, more scholarly, more contentful – not to add more of the sort of material that caused the problem in the first place. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should probably add that it's obvious that you're not a new editor, despite the recent use of this IP address; I have a shrewd idea who you are, but others are looking into that. Whatever your identity, my points above stand. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:48, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Editors edit. Censors delete. Was there truly nothing in the offered text that satisfied Mel Etitis' personal POV, which is apparently in full control here? How about the following: "States and families are both governed according to cultural norms of appropriate power relations and thus tend to mirror one another. In hierarchical societies hierarchic families are the norm; in consensual societies one tends to find consensual families, though diversity abounds." That would have been editing. Any objections to this revised and neutral text, which sounds rather axiomatic to me? The "problem in the first place" may have been intolerance as much as anything.--Wetman 23:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why take such a pointlessly (and groundlessly) aggressive line? In so far as I have a point of view on this, I'm broadly sympathetic with the notion that there's some relation between a certain sort of family structure and a certain view of the state. My opinion is irrelevant, however; I'm thinking about the quality of the article.

As for your neutral version, not only is it considerably different from what I removed (so that calling it 'editing' rather than 'removing and replacing' is little more than wordplay), but it's in need of evidence. What grounds are there for the claims that families are all governed by 'appropriate power relations' (and what does 'appropriate' mean here)? And what grounds for the claim that that families in hierarchical societies are themselves hierarchical, etc.? It seems common sense and obvious, but I'm not at all sure that it's true. And even if it is true, it can't just be stated as fact.

Wikipedia articles aren't meant to state claims, but to refer to them. This paragraph stated claims, as does your paragraph. The article is in fact riddled with problems of that sort. I voted for its retention, as did many people, on the grounds that it was a mess and needed cleaning up, but that it was a suitable subject for an article. Now that it has been saved from deletion, don't go back to the aggressive response to any editing decision that goes against you that it's 'intolerance' and 'censorship', and all those other debating society terms that serve only to hinder useful discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any reader may judge how simple it was for me to tone dowwn the assertive statements of our anonymous contributor, and whether such editing really is "wordplay." "What grounds are there for the claims that families are all governed by 'appropriate power relations' (and what does 'appropriate' mean here)?" Mel Etitis asks. "Appropriate to the culture" is understood by any reader, and "all" is carefully notasserted. When Mel Etitis claims her/his opinion is not relevant, she/he is being far too modest! --Wetman 04:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wetman, in response to your rewrite of the anon editor's contribution, I'd say it needs to be carefully referenced. It's stated as fact that states and families tend to mirror one another, yet it's not clear how this would be determined (would someone have to go round interviewing them?), never mind whether it has been determined; and "X is the norm, but diversity abounds" doesn't have much meaningful content. You'd need a reference to a scholar who has actually done some research. SlimVirgin 01:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

One ordinarily has no conception of what are the commonplaces of an idea, until one begins to read. Now, here is an essay by a Stanford undergraduate to give Slim Virgin an idea of how very ordinary indeed these received ideas are: Steven Tagle, "Mencius and Plato: Extending the Family Metaphor to Political Theory"

George Lakoff, Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't (University of Chicago Press), finds that central to the conservative worldview is a metaphor of the state as a strict father, and that the "family values" that conservatives espouse are those of a strict father's household: self-reliance, rewards and punishments, responsibility, respect for authority. Conservatives under Ronald Reagan began to understand the deep connection between family and politics, while Liberals remained clueless about their own family metaphor, according to Lakoff, the "nurturant parent" model. Under Reagan, Lakoff says, conservatives drove the language of strict father morality into the media and the body politic. But Lakoff is reducing these familiar metaphors to rather local horizons, wouldn't you agree, SlimVirgin? Perhaps SlimVirgin can offer us a single "careful reference" of any expression of these ideas and add it to the article's "References". Or perhaps not... --Wetman 04:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's the editor wanting to make the edit who has to supply the reference. An undergraduate essay isn't an adequate reference, and when you do find one, the sentence should be written to read something like: "X has argued that . . .", and not written as though it is an established fact that the family mirrors the state. The view you've attributed to Lakoff above is simply, as it says, that the family values of conversatives involve the notion of the strict head of household. This is not the same as saying that the family mirrors the state. SlimVirgin 05:13, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this article so I won't interfere with the recent edit from Wetman, but it isn't terrible encyclopedic. "Long before it was a conscious model, it was an instinctive metaphor, for the king as "father" of the land is as old as the king as "regent" for the goddess or god."

I'm not sure what an "instinctive metaphor" is, and I find the syntax a little confusing. Without the comma, it's an instinctive metaphor for the king as father of the land, in which case the rest of the sentence makes no sense; with the comma (making the "for" a "because"), you're not saying what it's an instinctive metaphor for. And the "it": does it refer to the family? I'm sorry if I'm being dense. SlimVirgin 06:56, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with SlimVirgin's comments here (sorry to come in late; some of us have to sleep occasionally). I've rewritten the summary in order, first, to make it summarise, and secondly, to make it neutral and more scholarly (I hope). Any comments? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We look forward with bated breath to the first contributions of text here from SlimVirgin and from Mel Etitis who has reverted text here more than once but has not yet contributed. --Wetman 12:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I sugest that you look at the history of the article (and read the summary that I wrote about an hour before your comment, as referred to in my comment above). In fact I haven't so far reverted anything without making other changes to the article, albeit sometimes just tidying. Incidentally, if you're going to go round all the articles to which I've made significant contributions, making petty challenges, you should do so less blatantly than on Talk:Necktie; you might get yourself a bad name. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Organisation

There are two main sorts of approach referred to in the article: those people who describe, explain, or justify the state in terms of the family, and people who talk about the family in terms of the state. Of course there's some overlap between them, but shouldn't the distinction be made clearer in the structure of the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis for Admin

Within a few weeks, when Wikipedians will be deciding whether or not Mel Etitis's character will make him a suitable administrator, this Discussion page will be worth looking at. --Wetman 19:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you used your energy making useful edits instead of snide (and bewilderingly irrelevant) comments, think how Wikipedia could be improved. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(The reader may want to check User contributions. I waste little time on Talk pages. --Wetman 21:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Confucianism

Confucius predates Aristotle in using family as a model for the state. He believed the child should be subordinate to the parent, younger brother to the older, wife to husband, and subject to the sovereign who is to be regarded as the father of the nation. The state as the family writ large was the most harmonious, orderly, and natural form of government. This was later expanded to cover international relations(i.e. the emperor of China as the older brother of the king of Korea). Confucian family theory is still espoused in North Korea to justify their method of leadership succession.

Should this be included in the article?

I definitely agree. The Confucian model should be includet. 85.124.176.91 12:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fascism

It's shocking that this page has no reference to fascism. The family metaphor for the state is such a key part of fascism, *the* key part in some expressions (for example, japanese fascism has the "family-system principle" which is very simply the definition of this article; Bertrand de Jouvenel equates the "fascist man" with the "head of family man"; Wilhelm Reich calls the family the fundamental replicating unit of fascism in some sense) 00:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.166.178 (talk)