David Brooks has a 500,000-word essay in The Atlantic arguing that the American nuclear family — mom, dad, and a couple of kids — is a relatively recent invention and has been catastrophic for those who don’t live in the upper-middle class; in short, we need to find a new way to live … or go back to an old way.
The small detached nuclear family is great for the upper middle class. It’s been a disaster for almost everybody else. https://t.co/HW4KeR4KGg
— David Brooks (@nytdavidbrooks) February 10, 2020
In “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” Brooks writes about the transition from the extended family to the nuclear family:
This is the story of our times—the story of the family, once a dense cluster of many siblings and extended kin, fragmenting into ever smaller and more fragile forms. The initial result of that fragmentation, the nuclear family, didn’t seem so bad. But then, because the nuclear family is so brittle, the fragmentation continued. In many sectors of society, nuclear families fragmented into single-parent families, single-parent families into chaotic families or no families.
If you want to summarize the changes in family structure over the past century, the truest thing to say is this: We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families. We’ve made life better for adults but worse for children. We’ve moved from big, interconnected, and extended families, which helped protect the most vulnerable people in society from the shocks of life, to smaller, detached nuclear families (a married couple and their children), which give the most privileged people in society room to maximize their talents and expand their options. The shift from bigger and interconnected extended families to smaller and detached nuclear families ultimately led to a familial system that liberates the rich and ravages the working-class and the poor.
We notice how Brooks just managed to slip in there nuclear families fragmenting into single-parent families. Is the nuclear family so bad itself, or is it just the next closest step to a one-parent household?
After scrolling down for about a hour-and-a-half to figure out which family structure is ideal, we learn it’s the extended family: “This is a significant opportunity, a chance to thicken and broaden family relationships, a chance to allow more adults and children to live and grow under the loving gaze of a dozen pairs of eyes, and be caught, when they fall, by a dozen pairs of arms.”
Meanwhile, we’ve got others suggesting that young adults live in dormitories for grown-ups or that they move into PodShare housing, which just looks like a bunk bed with a TV at the foot of it and a shared kitchen and bathroom.
If the nuclear family living in its own home really is that bad, let’s not tell the millennials — they’re busy wondering what sort of house they’ll have in socialist America.
Says the upper middle class dude who abandoned his own spouse to run off with his research assistant.
Brooks turns his own nuclear family into radioactive waste, then prances amid the ashes spouting "ideas" for the rest of us.
Spare me the sermon, bro.
— Rob in Hawai`i, PhD ? (@rvaughan_hawaii) February 10, 2020
Feminism destroyed the nuclear family.
— Annette G. H. ? (@AnnetteGH86) February 10, 2020
Believe it or not, Brooks actually mentions that in passing.
Man who is definitely not an expert on families has thoughts about families
— Curious Audio (@CuriousAudioUS) February 10, 2020
Geez, it's not like the media, hollywood, our education system etc. hasn't been relentlessly mocking the "detached nuclear family" for decades. Mission accomplished, huh David?
— Annieone3 (@annieone3) February 11, 2020
Satan's final battle will be against the family.
— Niki2018 (@Niki20181) February 11, 2020
It worked beautifully until the Left began systematically undermining it in order to take its place at the center of our lives. Now it’s a hollowed out shell and we’ve discovered that politics doesn’t come close to filling the void.
— Today in Danistan (@RealDanLee) February 11, 2020
Wrong. The nuclear family is a stabilizing force for the working class and poor who would otherwise spiral into despair and the endless cycle of addiction, joblessness, homelessness, and dependence on government assistance.
— Danny (@RisenPhoenixD) February 11, 2020
As a child of divorced parents, wrong. I wish my family had been intact. I wouldn't have lived in apartments while all my friends lived in houses. I wouldn't have had to make dinner for my mom, who worked one job during the week and another on the weekend. Stuff it.
— Jules of Denial (@Coolish_Breeze) February 11, 2020
It is a "disaster" only for people who don't have the commitment to follow through on caring for their progeny. Sure, at times events out of our control will limit our resources, but someone with drive will always find a way to persevere.
— Squatch XXL (@Squatch_XXL) February 11, 2020
Yeah, a disaster since when? Since welfare kicked dads out by giving more if there was no father at home? All societies and wellbeing have been based on the family! There is no other structure, even with our brokenness as humans, that will work. This is deception and nonsense.
— NancyM (@firedupinpa) February 11, 2020
Everyone knows what works best: intact families with a mom and a dad. Those who work hard and follow the rules shouldn’t be forced to subsidize those who choose otherwise.
— Woodstock Dave (@woodstockdave) February 11, 2020
Almost 27 years ago, @TheAtlantic ran this article: https://t.co/bCsl8sm4XS
— Shane Wikfors (@ShaneWikfors) February 11, 2020
David, just stop talking.
— George Smith (@P1B_WMichigan) February 11, 2020
This is amazingly dumb. pic.twitter.com/8ZlTlrboDP
— Charlie Oscar Lima (@BaconOutlaw) February 11, 2020
This article is trash. An attack on the family is an attack on society.
— The Illinoisan ??? (@il_american) February 11, 2020
For such strong opinions, you offered no “better ways”.
— Dr Strangelove (@DoctorStrangel3) February 11, 2020
This feels like Henry the 8th telling you why having one wife is simply not a workable option.
— Blue Jester (@jesterofroanoke) February 10, 2020
Insane communist drivel.
— Gregory M (@NotGregoryM) February 11, 2020
We are onto you.
— Handsome Duck (@wutaperfectduck) February 11, 2020
Attacking the nuclear family is the marxist's go-to club.
Here is some Marxist housing. Go live there. pic.twitter.com/R8P8iKjTJc
— Malcolm M Scott (@Malcolm_Scott1) February 11, 2020
There's nothing the nuclear family unit can give you that you couldn't get from the loving embrace of government administration.#Bernie2020
— Culpability Jones (@ShineboxHukster) February 10, 2020
This is just malarkey. Families have always emigrated away from each other in ones or twos, making “family” of a sort elsewhere. The problem isn’t our lack of blood bonds. If there is a problem, it’s a lack of skill to make close friend bonds to replace family when we move away.
— Now what (@sandyhfishy) February 10, 2020
That was some intense, long winded boomer propaganda.
— ?Millennial Voter ? (@milkvamp) February 11, 2020
Interesting. When I was taught to write they stressed brevity. Guess that changed too.
— Brennan Huff (@herz1) February 11, 2020
If the point of this overly long lecture is that having lots of “family” around for support helps hold families together, I concour. But you could have used a lot fewer words.
— swingandamiss (@holeinmybat) February 11, 2020
I never thought your writing would decline as much as it has. I mean, it’s always been trash, but you’ve really nosedived to the bottom.
— CNF (@ClemondNFlinch) February 11, 2020
Maybe a vacation is in order. You’ve become increasingly despondent and your analysis is not especially robust. It’s worrisome.
— Deal (@CaseyCat) February 10, 2020
Related:
David Brooks posts an imagined conversation with a Trump supporter he calls ‘Flyover Man’ https://t.co/2FRTjpyxs5
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) October 5, 2019
