The Nuclear family is a break down of the extended family - occurring largely from the post war period which saw increasing migration within the country based around work. Nuclear family consists of two primary adults, and children, usually distanced from their extended family, reducing the effectiveness of an extended family.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (11 Oct 2017 11.54am)

Problem is that most people don't really understand ethics, and can be more inclined towards being pragmatic, especially where its successful. Criminal behaviour can fit into this, often successful criminals tend to see crime in the way that other people see work, a means to an end - and it can be their only real option for financial success when faced with an alternative of poor wages.

Whilst ethically this is wrong, from the point of reality of the individual, when they need to provide for others and improve their life, criminality may well be the best option of securing a better life for themselves and their family.

People involved in say drug trafficking on the high end scale, aren't typically drug users. They're in it for the money, like most people working - and often for them, it represented the best option for securing a living (i.e. its something they were good at or had a talent for, with a reasonable return). Most organised crime above the street level, is increasingly more like having a job admittedly with the risk of imprisonment, rather than redundancy of skills.

There is a very good example, who's author I forget, posits that in effect organised crime is essentially capitalism without the social rules, and that it follows very similar economic models, but just as the ultimate extreme of capitalism (market expansion, branding, market positioning, globalisation, takeovers etc are all played out, but with real life consequences, rather than financial ones)

But I'm digressing here. Essentially, if corporations were run by 'borderline sociopaths', they'd be crime cartels.

Hasn't worked for you. You come across as an intolerant nasty piece of work.

I read somewhere that humans are designed as a social tribal animal that tends to live in groups of between fifty to eighty.....the larger the group the greater the tendency for fracture and splitting into different tribes.

Humans have, in most cases, a core attachment to tribal behaviour.....something we see on here and mostly partake in to differing degrees.

It's not a negative or a particular positive, it's just an expression of human nature. That said the further we move away from objectivity the further away from reality we also go.

Obviously with tribalism the further into it we go the more the potential for negative results just as the lack of any tribalistic behaviour results in isolation and ineffectiveness.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Oct 2017 12.05pm)

Kind, although most people make assumptions about what tribal is, that aren't based in anthropology - Tribal behaviour is far more complex than people tend to assume (tribes don't tend to be isolationist - as its in their best interests to have interactions and relationships with other tribes). Tribes do come into conflict, but usually this is over resource scarcity - Its not uncommon for tribes to ally and intermarry (as it expands their genetic stock and tribal interests - the same behaviour is seen even in chimps).

Different tribes will usually only come into conflict over resources.

Terms like tribalism tend to be 'pop culture' references to behaviour than anthropological sound, used to justify certain behaviours, in truth tribal societies are usually quite far more open to outsiders who don't come tooled up for a fight.

Its also important to remember that most tribes in areas are probably off shoots of the existing tribe anyhow.

Like you said, at a certain size, it makes more sense for a tribe to split off, and become two tribes - they extend their reach, resources and influence, and increase their survival prospects.

The increasing hostility seen by westerners towards outsiders is probably more from the way colonialists interacted with tribes and took over land and treated the inhabitants, rather than the idea that tribal societies are openly hostile to outsiders. Most of the cases of Western explorers turning up result in them being welcomed initially (which makes sense, because small tribal societies need to trade with other tribes to function). Which isn't to say conflicts don't occur, they do, but they're not as common place as we tend to believe.

Yes, but think how much more 'intolerant' and nasty I would be if it hadn't been for my mother.