Rethinking ‘family’: A call for conceptual amelioration

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13333
Ryan Xia-Hui Lam
{"title":"Rethinking ‘family’: A call for conceptual amelioration","authors":"Ryan Xia-Hui Lam","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The modern concept of ‘family’ in the United States recognizes many types of social groups as families, a conceptual shift which was largely helped along by advancements in assisted reproductive technologies enabling those formerly unable to biologically reproduce to have children, as well as by social movements aimed at garnering recognition for these emergent nonbiologically related social groups spearheaded by LGBTQ+ and adoption activists. That these social groups are now recognized as types of families is unquestionably an improvement to the concept, though there are still defects in the concept that preclude these nonnuclear families from achieving the same social–ontological status as nuclear families. Drawing from the nascent philosophical field of conceptual engineering, I analyze our current conception of ‘family’ and argue that it is tacitly exclusionary of nonnuclear families, which can be attributed to a combination of widespread genetic essentialism and linguistic practices that unduly cast the nuclear family as a more desirable type of family by emphasizing genetic relatedness as a valuable quality. I then offer proposals to ameliorate these defects, such as educational interventions to reduce genetic essentialism and the introduction of new terminology that does not connote one type of family as being superior to another. In doing so, my hope is to reveal and begin to resolve an overlooked defect in the concept of ‘family’ in order to bolster the movement to view all families as equal.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"38 7","pages":"650-658"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.13333","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The modern concept of ‘family’ in the United States recognizes many types of social groups as families, a conceptual shift which was largely helped along by advancements in assisted reproductive technologies enabling those formerly unable to biologically reproduce to have children, as well as by social movements aimed at garnering recognition for these emergent nonbiologically related social groups spearheaded by LGBTQ+ and adoption activists. That these social groups are now recognized as types of families is unquestionably an improvement to the concept, though there are still defects in the concept that preclude these nonnuclear families from achieving the same social–ontological status as nuclear families. Drawing from the nascent philosophical field of conceptual engineering, I analyze our current conception of ‘family’ and argue that it is tacitly exclusionary of nonnuclear families, which can be attributed to a combination of widespread genetic essentialism and linguistic practices that unduly cast the nuclear family as a more desirable type of family by emphasizing genetic relatedness as a valuable quality. I then offer proposals to ameliorate these defects, such as educational interventions to reduce genetic essentialism and the introduction of new terminology that does not connote one type of family as being superior to another. In doing so, my hope is to reveal and begin to resolve an overlooked defect in the concept of ‘family’ in order to bolster the movement to view all families as equal.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考 "家庭":呼吁改善概念。
美国的现代 "家庭 "概念承认多种类型的社会群体为家庭,这一概念的转变在很大程度上得益于辅助生殖技术的进步,使那些过去无法进行生物繁殖的人也能生育子女,同时也得益于由 LGBTQ+ 和领养活动家发起的旨在为这些新兴的非生物相关社会群体争取认可的社会运动。这些社会群体现在被承认为家庭类型,无疑是对这一概念的改进,尽管这一概念仍存在缺陷,使这些非核心家庭无法获得与核心家庭相同的社会本体地位。我从概念工程这一新生的哲学领域出发,分析了我们目前对 "家庭 "的概念,并认为这一概念默认了对非核心家庭的排斥,这可归因于普遍存在的遗传本质论和语言实践,后者通过强调遗传亲缘关系是一种有价值的品质,不恰当地将核心家庭塑造成一种更理想的家庭类型。随后,我提出了改善这些缺陷的建议,如采取教育干预措施来减少遗传本质论,以及引入新的术语,不将一种类型的家庭视为优于另一种类型的家庭。这样做,我希望能揭示并开始解决 "家庭 "概念中被忽视的缺陷,以支持将所有家庭视为平等的运动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
期刊最新文献
Embryo selection, gene editing, and the person-affecting principle. Missing references and citations at Google Scholar. Ectogenesis and gender inequality: Two pathways converge. Confucian reflections on the new reproductive model of ROPA. Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1