| | The institution of family is as old as humaity itself. The family unit, it all its various forms, has until Modern times been an essential survival component for peoples across the globe. For example, farming families had to have as many kids as possible in order to make sure there was enough labor to make things work (even if for this purpose they failed to produce boys, daughters could still be married off for a dowry). Aristocrats and Royals also needed to have families to preserve their system of automatic wealth and power by birthright.
Additionally, all of the above during pre-Industrial times were subjected to significant infant mortality rates and low life expectacies. Cranking out the kids one after one was essential because you knew a certain percentage were simply not going to make it.
For many, especially the poor peasant classes, the family was among the only venue in society where they could feel recognized as equal (or better) to another individual. It is thus no wonder that throughout time, some very tight bonds formed between family members, and that an expectation of unconditional love and acceptance emerged.
And let's face it, you would not be here if your parents did not choose to have you. They gave you the gift of life. They care for and provide for you during a time in your life when you're 100% incapable of doing so on your own. And assuming they did so ethically and with your best interests in mind, it is entirely normal - and right I might add - to reciprocate that feeling back to them.
Rand obviously viewed having a family and children as a hindrance to achieving her individual greatness (which is her right), and as a result she left many stones unturned on these issues, as she probably didn't feel the need to contemplate complex philosophical and moral issues with the parent child relationship. In general, I think that family and child rearing issues are an area that needs to be explored further by modern Objectivists.
|
|
