Home › Blogs › Sarah's blog

Strict Father & Nurturant Parent Models

Tue, 12/06/2005 - 2:21pm — Sarah

Do these models work for OlyBlog participants? Are they relevant for our wider Olympia and world discussions?

In American culture there are two opposed and idealized models of the family, the Nurturant Parent model and the Strict Father model. The metaphor of the Nation as a Family maps the values and relationships from those family models onto our politics, creating "liberal" and "conservative" political positions that we understand through our models of family structure.

The progressive worldview represents, metaphorically, the Nurturant Parent family model, and the conservative worldview represents the Strict Father model. The two models come with distinct moral systems that are founded on different assumptions about the world, interpret shared values such as responsibility or fairness differently, and center around different moral priorities.

Comments

Tue, 12/06/2005 - 6:13pm — Robert Whitlock

Perhaps neither model can be

Perhaps neither model can be said to the correct one. This may be a matter of personal need and taste.

But then again, maybe not. What is most likely in my opinion, is that a mix of both styles should be used to raise children optimally. Too much nurture results in spoilage and easily damaged goods. Too much strict results in reactive, possibly violent characters.

—




Tue, 12/06/2005 - 6:15pm — The Fire Inside

I disagree with the notion th

I disagree with the notion that the Strict Father places the female in the background.

Many strong women, such as Margaret Thatcher, have proven quite capable of leading.

I have zero problem with a woman being in charge.

EDIT: As far as raising a child, I agree with Rob W. You can't have this imbalance of being too heavy on one side or the other.

Tue, 12/06/2005 - 6:46pm — Rob Richards

I agree with Fire and Rob, ba

I agree with Fire and Rob, balance is the key.

I also think this is an oversimplification of what's going on in politics right now. The way I see it "Democrat" vs. "Republican" or "liberal" vs. "conservative" leaves a lot of people out and miscategorizes others. At the very least, there are five categories of ideals that people have right now (politically at least).


1.) neo-conservatives - we all know who they are, and what they believe.
2.) conservatives - they are truly conservative and don't believe that we should be spending the way the 'neo-cons' do.
3.) centrists - they tow the line between liberal and conservative or are fiscally conservative and socially liberal or vice versa.
4.)liberal - liberals are not as concerned with the US having foriegn power and prefer diplomacy. They also champion social causes.
5.)neo-liberals - These guys are just as radical as neo-conservatives just in the opposite direction.

Out of all of these I consider myself to be a centrist.
The situation we have right now is neo-cons in power, though not for long most likely (they seem to be getting themselves indicted right out of power). To combat the fundamental radicalism of the neo-cons many Democrats became what is known as neo-liberal. This means that they are trying to make as much noise in order to win votes as the neo-cons have. If they get power, we are NO better off than we are now. Meanwhile, liberals and conservatives are stuck trying to decide which way to go. Many have chosen to go out, as opposed to in. There is a strong centrist base in America right now, the problem that I see is that we never appear to care as much as the wingers. If a centrist group held a rally it would look like a bunch of people taking to the streets shouting "BE REASONABLE!"

Tue, 12/06/2005 - 10:47pm — Robert Whitlock

Not to argue with your classi

Not to argue with your classification of the various categories we fall into politically, but; I have a feeling that on a certain level, all these labels break down and are essentially meaningless.

I am saying that we are all human, first and foremost. We all have a set of common needs and abilities. We all seek security/stability, most of us are curious, we all want to be loved and appreciated, we all need (or want) respect. Certainly, we all have the capacity to feel fear.

The trick is to step out of ourselves as individuals, and understand that we aren't so different, in the all and all, in the whole - from each other!

This, I am not convinced, is possible for us all - at least not at this stage of evolution.

—




Wed, 12/07/2005 - 12:50am — Rob Richards

You are right, and well spoke

You are right, and well spoken. I think that a way for people to start to see how we aren't so different, is for people to stop generalizing each other and start understanding who we are individually. If we explore our differences for the sake of discovery not for the sake of division, then I think it's ok to to examine these labels. We, I mean you and me and all the people we know, did not invent these classifications, we were given them. If we look at them, and dissect them, they will become meaningless. They will cease to have power over us.