They say "friends are the family you choose for yourself." And by "they" I mean a cheesy birthday card from Hallmark that I once sent to someone. Despite the crimes they have perpetrated against the holiday calendar (since when is Halloween an occasion to exchange greeting cards?) and their sinister designs against time itself (who in their right mind sells Christmas ornaments in July?), it would seem that the people at Hallmark hit the nail on the head with that one.
After all, "family" is a vague and confusing term at best. Scientifically speaking, we all belong to the same family, Hominoidea, along with Neanderthals and some other extinct relatives. This concept would make for a very confusing (not to mention messy) family reunion. In a more common, practical sense, your family includes anyone to whom you are related by blood or law. Even this is becoming a stretch these days, which is why most people equate the term "family" with the nuclear family-parents and children. I think that most of us grew up without ever challenging this model of the American family unit, but upon closer examination we can see a number of problems with this cultural structure, and why it would be beneficial to redefine what we mean by "family."
The 2000 Census found that the average number of people per household in America has dropped to 2.59-an all-time low. The same report also shows that 26% of Americans reported living by themselves, up from just 8% in 1990. This is not good news. With fewer people in each household, and a steadily rising population, it is clear to see that the number of households must also increase. Each household will then have to purchase various appliances and other equipment: refrigerators, televisions, hot-water heaters, furniture, and washing machines. This creates a trend of unhealthy consumerism, especially during a time of economic recession when it would be financially beneficial for people to live together and share the cost and use of these items. While the average household size is 2.59, the average family size is 3.14. Think how much money single families waste by being needlessly spread out over multiple households! (I admit that there a variety of exceptions to this rule, but I do not believe this to be the norm.)
A better arrangement is seen in many non-western cultures, where single households often contain family members of three or more generations, as well as extended family members such as aunts, uncles and cousins.
This situation has many advantages besides the financial. Grandparents, who are often retired, help to raise their grandchildren, and the younger members of the family have multiple role models and receive more attention. There are more hands to prepare meals, which will only have to be made slightly larger to accommodate the greater number of people. Although dwellings will have to be somewhat larger, there would be more people to clean and maintain it, and the entire family would make use of the same appliances. It would be kind of like The Real World, only you're related to the people you live with.
This system would be a great improvement to our society, but it could go even further. Our culture no longer acknowledges anything like clan-based systems (with the possible exceptions of the Hatfields and the McCoys), which continue to be used in other cultures today. These systems can encompass several family units, or may not be based on family units at all in cases where the individual is assigned a clan membership or chooses one. The concept would have to be adapted to our society, but it is not completely far-fetched, and shares several traits with the Greek system that is so popular at colleges and universities across the country. While not all the members of the same clan could live together in one house, multiple families could share a few houses in the same area. Furthermore, we could all have incredibly nifty coats-of-arms and other fun family-based icons. And think how much paper we would save when printing the yellow pages!
The real issue at stake here is the nature of interpersonal relationships. I think it is safe to assume that most people consider close friends to be something like an extension of their family. So why not live together? Well, after spending 20 hours in a car over winter break with some of my best friends, I can attest to the fact that being around even the most accommodating of people twenty-four hours a day tends to put your friendship to the test, and these are the people you choose to spend time with. It's not so hard to put up with your actual family members, even with their personal eccentricities. Once we stop distinguishing between "friend" and "relative," this difference will also be erased. This kind of relationship does exist today, in some ways. I have several aunts and uncles who are not related to my parents by blood, but are actually their college roommates, fraternity brothers, old friends and co-workers (I refer to these people as "frelatives"). C'mon people, it'll be like several large, continuous slumber parties!
And voila! Adam has made the world a better place once again! I entertain no illusions about the idealistic nature of this concept. This has simply been an exercise in challenging the conventions of our society. After all, societal conventions leading sedentary lifestyles are at increased risk for a variety of diseases.
In memory of Bill Hartman, and to the rest of my "real" family.
