Dictionaries point to the broader meaning of an extended notion
of family-all living in a household-with the root of the word
extending to all the servants, as well as to blood relations and
descendants of the same progenitor. What is probably missing
from such a definition is the understanding of
interconnectedness, more specifically, awareness of the role
played by agents of connection, among which language, in
general, and literacy, in particular, become relevant.
Much has been written concerning the change from animal-like
sexual drive to the formation of family; much, too, about the
many specific forms of practical experiences through which
families were established and maintained. The history of the
human family captures the nature of the relations between man and
woman, parents and offspring, near and distant kin, and between
generations. Natural aspects of production and reproduction, and
cultural, social, political, and ethnic elements are also
expressed through the family. Its reality extends even to the
area of interdependencies between the language of individuals
constituting families as viable survival units, and the language
of the community within which family is acknowledged. Whether
female- or male-dominated, as the pragmatic context afforded,
the family ascertains a sense of permanency against the
background of need and flux. It is another constitutive practical
experience involving the projection of individual biological
characteristics in the context of life and work, an experience
that progressively extended beyond biology into its own domain
of expectations and values, and finally into its own
effectiveness.
In search of a family nucleus, we arrive at female, male,
offspring. The biological structure is maintained by some bond,
probably a combination of factors pertaining to survival (the
economy of family), emotions, sexual attraction (which includes
psychological aspects), and ways of interacting with the extended
family and with other families (social aspects). But beyond
this, little else can be stated without causing controversy.
Within each family, there is a maternal and a paternal line. In
some family types, mother and father together feed the children,
introduce them to survival tactics, and train their family
instincts. In other cases, only one parent assumes these
functions. The implicit linearity of family relations unfolds
through new family associations.
Anthropological research reports in detail how families are
established. The pragmatic aspect is decisive. In Melanesia, the
goal is to acquire brothers-in-law who will join the woman's
family in hunting, farming, and other activities. Margaret Mead
described the rule of not marrying those one fights. Expressed in
language, this rule has a normative quality. Nevertheless, in
some tribes in Kenya, enemies marry to ensure that they become
friends. The language expressing this strategy is more
suggestive than imperative. Research also documents variations
from the nuclear model. The Nayar, a population in India,
consecrates a family in which children belong to the maternal
line; fathers visit. The woman can have as many lovers as she
desires. The semiosis of naming children reflects this
condition. Rules established over time in some countries are
indicative of peculiar pragmatic requirements: polygamy in
societies where marriage is the only form of protection and
fulfillment for women; polyandry in societies with a high man to
woman ratio; uxorilocation (the new couple resides in the
wife's home territory), and virilocation (the new couple resides
in the husband's home territory).
The scale at which family self-constitution takes place affects
its effectiveness. When this scale reaches a certain threshold
or critical size, structural changes take place. The family, in
its various embodiments, and within each specific pragmatic
framework, reflected these major changes in the human scale of
mankind at many levels. From the first images documenting
families over 25,000 years ago, in the Paleolithic Age, to the
paintings at Sefar (Tassili des Ajjer, 4th century BCE), and to
many other subsequent forms of testimony, we have indicators of
change in family size, the nature of family hierarchy,
inheritance mechanisms, restrictions and prohibitions (incest
foremost), and above all, change in the family condition when the
pragmatic context changes. The testimony extends to cemeteries:
It matters who is buried with whom or close to whom; to the
evolution of words: What Beneviste called glottochronology; to
contracts. Marriage contracts, such as the cuneiform tablet of
Kish, dated 1820 BCE, or contracts documenting the sale of land,
in which the family tree of the sellers is reproduced as
testimony that the entire family accepts the transaction, shed
light on the evolution of family. When Aristotle stated "Each
city is made up of families," he acknowledged that a stage of
stabilized family relations had been reached, well adapted to
the stabilizing pragmatic framework facilitated by the new
practical experience of writing.
By Aristotle's time, togetherness was designated through a name.
The expectation at this scale of human relations was: without a
name there is no social existence. Characteristics of sign
processes pertinent to self-constitution as members of various
family types become characteristic of the family. That is, the
structure of family-based semiotic processes and the structure
of the family are similar. Rudimentary signs, incipient
language, oral communication, notation, and writing are stages
in the semiosis of means of expression and communication. The
sign processes of family develop in tandem.