Super interesting analysis here, Jim! I look forward to sitting with it further. Just wanted to chime in with another detail I heard in a homily somewhere/somewhen--that the younger son asking for his share of the inheritance was, in a sense, not only asking the father to forfeit part of the land and the profit that could have been earned from it in the future (that would have helped to support the family/community), but also more or less telling the father, "I wish you were dead." Perhaps an extreme reading, in terms of attributing motive to the son, but the idea that he would rather have his father's money than his father's presence and guidance is telling, especially in the overall context you've laid out here.
Really fascinating point. Makes me think we need a way to talk about or quantify the value of a person's presence and companionship (I know a few people who seem to be sort of like the younger son here, waiting for family members to die and turn over their money(
I like the fun turn this post took, in terms of your overall project here. And these are both fascinating comments -- wanting his share of the father's inheritance was a way of showing how diminished a value he placed on his father's and community's physical presence, thereby not caring if he was dead. Man, I gotta think about this, because we are currently going through some intense decisions about possible moves (to be close to family and/or previous community). Physical presence matters a lot, and having kids has magnified this.
I'll be very interested in anything you end up sharing about the move decision. We made the choice to move, and while it has generally worked out for us, I often wonder about what might have been if we had made a different set of choice. It's also been interesting try to create a village type relationship with family members who want stronger relationships but... didn't necessarily choose the kind of intense village vibe we're aiming for lol. Anyway, I'm just fascinated by how this might play out for different folks.
A couple of exegetical notes. 1) In the society of Jesus’ parable, the older son would have inherited a double portion, i.e. 2/3. 2) The younger son’s asking for the inheritance early was a real insult to his father: “I wish you were dead!“
Modern mobility has led to children going into many “far countries,“ and it’s hard to see how your vision of the group/village can be achieved across the board.
I think in practice most people won't choose a group/village life even if they had the choice because the individualist worldview is so deeply engrained at this point. And there's obviously a financial component here, where you move to survive. But I'm also reminded of this article on local gentry, or in other words people whose livelihoods are tied to a place:
Which is to say, I'm assuming my kids are going to travel to far countries UNLESS I can create a professional network that's enticing enough for them to stay near me. I may fail at that goal or greener pastures may still be too alluring (and I'll love my kids either way), but at least the objective is to create a compelling reason for them to consider remaining members of the village. Not everyone can succeed at this, but I don't see why it couldn't be a more widespread objective.
Alternatively, there are families that maintain their coherence as tribes even across distances. The Kennedys come to mind. Obviously having fabulous wealth helps, but in those cases the far country would be metaphorical.
Definitely a worthwhile objective. For instance, both my husband and I either went to college or left for jobs out of state, with no real vision from a village as to reasons to think locally from the outset. If my family had a robust network and family culture I wouldn't have gone so far for school and the resulting moves after that. My husband might have made different decisions about his specific education if he had known the rabbit trail he'd have to go on (with his wife and kids), but that guidance, vision-casting from the family/village, and desire to plan accordingly needs to be offered to kids and young adults. At some point in adulthood, decisions have been made and the ship has sailed in many ways. This stuff needs to be talked about and cultivated in kids and young people entering adulthood!
Jim, fantastic article! I pulled out my (Catholic) study Bible for this one, and it suggests that this parable also narrated the exile and homecoming of one of the tribes of Israel. After the reign of Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms (like two brothers). The northern tribes of Israel, however, were eventually carried off by Assyrians into a far country, where they rejected God. The book of Jeremiah tells the story of Ephraim from Northern Israel, who repents after a period of exile and disgrace.
I’ve been thinking lately about the importance of both quantity and quality time lately. With kids, we hear a lot about how quality time can make up for a lack of “quantity” time. I’m dubious. And obviously, to have “quantity time,” you need to be in close physical proximity. That, combined with how a lot of people seem to feel family relationships are disposable, especially if they’re not “serving them,” is a recipe for alienation.
Wow so many fascinating layers to these stories, thanks for sharing that!
I'm reminded of the work of evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar, who has written about friendships. He says that a key to friendships is simply time spent together, regardless of what you're doing. His work is about friendships, but I think the same is probably true of family relationships — meaning quantity does indeed matter.
Really great reading. Though not entirely on the same train of thought, I am considering the ever increasing role of mothers in the workplace and how this feeds a maternal deprivation for their children. This is a very deceptive thing that society is promoting as good, when it is just an ultimate family abandonment which has real consequences - note the father has a role to play in making the alternative possible. Do you have any thoughts on this?
My feeling is that the dual income family, while a practical necessity for plenty of families, is a terrible ideal to strive for. I truly don't know why anyone thinks that's something we should aim for — especially since plenty of people don't seem to particularly like their jobs! I think the ideal ought to be single income households, and we should look for ways — political polices, cultural shifts, etc. — to make that a more realistic option for more families. An example would be childcare policy; a lot of what gets debated is focused on enabling both parents to work. But there might also be options that make it easier for one parent to stay home. Those policies are also worth considering in my opinion.
I think all of this is going to be very hard to pull off when families are subject to a wage labor economy. There will always be a strong incentive for everyone to go out and get jobs that pull them in different directions.
But there are families who still do the old "corporate family" concept where everyone is pulling together on a mutual enterprise. The classic example of this is a family farm. Dad plows, mom manages the household, the kids learn the ropes, etc etc. But a family today that, say, owns a fast food franchise — dad manages, mom does the books, the teens work the cash register, etc — would effectively be the same thing. I think on an individual family level, this corporate family concept deserves more attention.
Super interesting analysis here, Jim! I look forward to sitting with it further. Just wanted to chime in with another detail I heard in a homily somewhere/somewhen--that the younger son asking for his share of the inheritance was, in a sense, not only asking the father to forfeit part of the land and the profit that could have been earned from it in the future (that would have helped to support the family/community), but also more or less telling the father, "I wish you were dead." Perhaps an extreme reading, in terms of attributing motive to the son, but the idea that he would rather have his father's money than his father's presence and guidance is telling, especially in the overall context you've laid out here.
Really fascinating point. Makes me think we need a way to talk about or quantify the value of a person's presence and companionship (I know a few people who seem to be sort of like the younger son here, waiting for family members to die and turn over their money(
I like the fun turn this post took, in terms of your overall project here. And these are both fascinating comments -- wanting his share of the father's inheritance was a way of showing how diminished a value he placed on his father's and community's physical presence, thereby not caring if he was dead. Man, I gotta think about this, because we are currently going through some intense decisions about possible moves (to be close to family and/or previous community). Physical presence matters a lot, and having kids has magnified this.
I'll be very interested in anything you end up sharing about the move decision. We made the choice to move, and while it has generally worked out for us, I often wonder about what might have been if we had made a different set of choice. It's also been interesting try to create a village type relationship with family members who want stronger relationships but... didn't necessarily choose the kind of intense village vibe we're aiming for lol. Anyway, I'm just fascinated by how this might play out for different folks.
A couple of exegetical notes. 1) In the society of Jesus’ parable, the older son would have inherited a double portion, i.e. 2/3. 2) The younger son’s asking for the inheritance early was a real insult to his father: “I wish you were dead!“
Modern mobility has led to children going into many “far countries,“ and it’s hard to see how your vision of the group/village can be achieved across the board.
Super fascinating details.
I think in practice most people won't choose a group/village life even if they had the choice because the individualist worldview is so deeply engrained at this point. And there's obviously a financial component here, where you move to survive. But I'm also reminded of this article on local gentry, or in other words people whose livelihoods are tied to a place:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/
Which is to say, I'm assuming my kids are going to travel to far countries UNLESS I can create a professional network that's enticing enough for them to stay near me. I may fail at that goal or greener pastures may still be too alluring (and I'll love my kids either way), but at least the objective is to create a compelling reason for them to consider remaining members of the village. Not everyone can succeed at this, but I don't see why it couldn't be a more widespread objective.
Alternatively, there are families that maintain their coherence as tribes even across distances. The Kennedys come to mind. Obviously having fabulous wealth helps, but in those cases the far country would be metaphorical.
Thoughts?
Definitely a worthwhile objective. For instance, both my husband and I either went to college or left for jobs out of state, with no real vision from a village as to reasons to think locally from the outset. If my family had a robust network and family culture I wouldn't have gone so far for school and the resulting moves after that. My husband might have made different decisions about his specific education if he had known the rabbit trail he'd have to go on (with his wife and kids), but that guidance, vision-casting from the family/village, and desire to plan accordingly needs to be offered to kids and young adults. At some point in adulthood, decisions have been made and the ship has sailed in many ways. This stuff needs to be talked about and cultivated in kids and young people entering adulthood!
Jim, fantastic article! I pulled out my (Catholic) study Bible for this one, and it suggests that this parable also narrated the exile and homecoming of one of the tribes of Israel. After the reign of Solomon, Israel split into two kingdoms (like two brothers). The northern tribes of Israel, however, were eventually carried off by Assyrians into a far country, where they rejected God. The book of Jeremiah tells the story of Ephraim from Northern Israel, who repents after a period of exile and disgrace.
I’ve been thinking lately about the importance of both quantity and quality time lately. With kids, we hear a lot about how quality time can make up for a lack of “quantity” time. I’m dubious. And obviously, to have “quantity time,” you need to be in close physical proximity. That, combined with how a lot of people seem to feel family relationships are disposable, especially if they’re not “serving them,” is a recipe for alienation.
Wow so many fascinating layers to these stories, thanks for sharing that!
I'm reminded of the work of evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar, who has written about friendships. He says that a key to friendships is simply time spent together, regardless of what you're doing. His work is about friendships, but I think the same is probably true of family relationships — meaning quantity does indeed matter.
Really great reading. Though not entirely on the same train of thought, I am considering the ever increasing role of mothers in the workplace and how this feeds a maternal deprivation for their children. This is a very deceptive thing that society is promoting as good, when it is just an ultimate family abandonment which has real consequences - note the father has a role to play in making the alternative possible. Do you have any thoughts on this?
My feeling is that the dual income family, while a practical necessity for plenty of families, is a terrible ideal to strive for. I truly don't know why anyone thinks that's something we should aim for — especially since plenty of people don't seem to particularly like their jobs! I think the ideal ought to be single income households, and we should look for ways — political polices, cultural shifts, etc. — to make that a more realistic option for more families. An example would be childcare policy; a lot of what gets debated is focused on enabling both parents to work. But there might also be options that make it easier for one parent to stay home. Those policies are also worth considering in my opinion.
I think all of this is going to be very hard to pull off when families are subject to a wage labor economy. There will always be a strong incentive for everyone to go out and get jobs that pull them in different directions.
But there are families who still do the old "corporate family" concept where everyone is pulling together on a mutual enterprise. The classic example of this is a family farm. Dad plows, mom manages the household, the kids learn the ropes, etc etc. But a family today that, say, owns a fast food franchise — dad manages, mom does the books, the teens work the cash register, etc — would effectively be the same thing. I think on an individual family level, this corporate family concept deserves more attention.