Familyism

-- By JeffreySchatz - 15 Apr 2010

A pair of conversations

Interview with a white supremacist

Interviewer (I): So you don’t deny you’re a racist?

White Supremacist (WS): No, not at all. I’m proud of it.

I: What does it mean for you to be a racist?

WS: It means I think whites are better than blacks.

I: In what way?

WS: In every way. . . we’re smarter, kinder, more creative, you name it.

I: But do you really think that every white person is smarter and nicer than every black person?

WS: It’s true on average, but there are exceptions to every rule.

I: So you acknowledge that there are at least a few black people who are just as smart and nice as white people.

WS: Sure, there are always exceptions. There are also some dumb, no good white people. But, on average, whites are better in these ways.

I: So you don’t have a problem with these black people?

WS: Which black people?

I: The ones who you think are just as smart and nice as whites.

WS: Of course I still have a problem with them! They’re black.

I: But they’re just as good as whites in all the ways you mentioned: intelligence, creativity--

WS: But that doesn’t matter.

I: But just before you were saying that these were the reasons whites are better than blacks.

WS: No, there are other reasons too.

I: Like what?

WS: Whites are just better than blacks.

I: Better at what?

WS: Just better. Like God is better than the devil or good is better than evil. They’re just better.

Conversation between a parent and child about buying a bike for a neighbor

Child (C): But why not?

Parent (M): I’m not just going to go and buy her a bike.

C: But you bought me a bike.

P: Yes, because you’re my child.

C: So? She needs one too.

P: But you’re my child and she’s not. Parents don’t buy bikes for other peoples’ children.

C: But her parents can’t afford to. I told you this already.

P: It’s just not the same. She’s not part of our family.

C: So she’s worse because she’s not part of our family?

P: Not worse. There’s just a different relationship. When someone is part of your family you do things for them that you wouldn’t do for other people.

C: But I still don’t get why. She’s smarter than me, she runs faster. A lot of people even think she’s nicer.

P: None of that’s true.

C: If it was, and I could prove it, would you buy her a bike?

P: No, it’s not about that. You just have to treat family members in a different way than you treat others. It’s just the way things work. I can’t explain it. You’ll understand when you have children.

Is there any context or background to these conversations. It may be helpful, at the least for the white supremest to try to derive it from a source or something similar, giving it more weight. And for the family, it would be difficult to have a source for that, but if you have something from your own personal experience that is similar, it can give it more meaning as well as make a stronger connection to the reader.

Value Groups

The above conversations are not exactly the same, but they do share a key feature. Both situations involve an individual who places different values on people based on whether or not they are members of the individual’s group. The white supremacist tries to give other reasons for the different value he places on whites and blacks, but in the end has to admit it is simply about blackness and whiteness.

"blackness and whiteness" is awkward sounding and loses impact

The parent readily admits that she values her child more than the neighbor for the simple reason that the child is a family member. Both the parent and the white supremacist have constructed what I will call a value group, a group whose members the individual values more highly than those outside the group.

Is Familyism any better than racism?

Is there any real difference between a value group based on kinship and one based on race? The answer varies depending on whether we are referring to the effects of the value grouping, or the philosophical principles behind it.

In its effects?

When it comes to comparing the effects of racism with the effects of “familyism”, there appears to be a significant difference. Racism has a long history of causing violence and genocide. This is not true for familyism. Furthermore, one can safely assume that a nation divided into just a couple of race-based value groups is more inherently unstable than one which divides itself into a hundred million kinship-based ones. There have been some family feuds with tragic consequences, but none of them compare to the Civil War.

This seems rather obvious. Ignoring family feuds, which has been relegated to history and certain stereotypes, no one would argue that familyism would lead to the same results as racism. One problem to me that needs to be resolved is that attitude towards those outside the value group are radically different. While one may have a strong, natural preference for those belonging to one's family, they do not in general have hatred to the outsider. This is very different from racism, so it seems somewhat like comparing apples and oranges. In addition, what should we imply from this. Is there a range of divisions that is good for a nation. If we agree that a nation divided by a couple of racial groups tends to result in conflict, then is it better for nations to be more homogeneous (a solitary racial identity) or should we encourage greater heterogeneity? Is this what you want your topic to imply?

Furthermore, the creation of the kinship-based value group provides the world with a great deal of “good” things.

Probably a better way to rephrase.

It would be tougher for children to survive to adulthood if their parents did not show them any special preference.

Others could argue differently. Maybe many problems result from abiding to the traditional family structure, and that society would be better if we had a more communal family structure, as exposed by certain Marxist philosophies (possibly seen in the old kibbutz system of Israel) and Plato's "The Republic."

Additionally, familial love and support is something that often makes people happier. Indeed, for many, spending time with family members brings them unparalleled joy. There is no evidence that racism either saves lives or significantly increases human happiness.

This is a blanket statement. There are arguments that forms of racism can save lives. This is demonstrated by the present debate concerning racial profiling, which does contain inherent characteristics of racism. Think South Park episode where Cartman's racism ends up saving the town from a nuclear bomb.

But, the effects of familyism may not be all good. The family likely serves as an obstacle to social justice. As in the conversation above, familyism leads parents to spend money on their own child rather than on one who may be in greater need. That being said, it is at least an arguable assertion that benefits of familyism (the joy of familial love and increased chances of infant survival) outweigh its costs (inequality). The same is not true for racism.

How do you reach this conclusion. Do families really spend all their money on their own. In reality, families seem to be a strong source of donations through religion, schools, and charities. And shouldn't we expect families to devote most of their resources to their own. Also, the ideal behind the progressive income tax system does contain some of the redistributive elements you believe are lacking.

In its principles?

However, as a society, we do not abhor racism solely because of its negative consequences. Rather, we view any value judgments based on race to be a "bad" within and of themselves.

Do we necessarily? What about value judgments we make and implement for the supposed benefit of certain racial groups. The biggest example would be affirmative action.

When Dr. King hoped that his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” he was asserting that an American principle of equality meant that people should not be valued based on the groups they are in, but as individuals. That people should be valued as individuals is a principle that profoundly influences both our social and legal philosophies. Familyism violates it just as much as racism does.

One thing that needs to be addressed is what is the main thing you want to drive at and how does your comparison get you there. The reader will presume that you are comparing two things that can't really be compared. So one thing that has to be done is to add strength to your justification of why you are doing the comparison. What may help is including what you want the reader to see through the comparison. Should we try to change the traditional family structure? Should we make racial identity more like kinship (refer back to my comments in the effects section)? You may not necessarily need to lead the reader to a particular conclusion, but would possibly need to expand on your comparisons a bit so that the reader can create his own informed conclusions through your paper. I will attempt to do my edit, but it would be helpful if you could respond to these comments so that my edit can better maintain your intentions and ideas. Thanks.