Nexus State Theory

I have said that the family metaphor works as well for friend groups and churches. But churches fulfill an additional role: centralized networks of voluntary associations can support the state, perhaps via wefare systems. Here, I will propose that for families or churches to support the state, they can be networked or centralized so as to support policies, and/or they can teach civic values. Teaching civic values can support the family, too, because we can find connections between civic values and family values.

For supporting policies, centralization is very important, as it creates a national-scale network of informed voters and activists. Societies with centralized governments (such as France) and societies with centralized, national or Catholic churches (such as Italy, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Poland), or both, tended to end up with centralized welfare systems. Societies with neither (the United States) did not.

Sociologist Robert Putnam is concerned about voluntary associations primarily because he wants them to support the state. He rates political polarization and income inequality when America’s social capital was higher or lower. I would argue that if we consider the whole range of social capital, it was especially centralized churches and other centralized organizations that contributed to this state support, because these churches had members in the North and South, in the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as members who were white and Black.

I personally believe that social capital declined because:

1. The mutual aid function became redundant, due to the welfare state, around the 1930s. The voluntary associations continued on via a kind of momentum or inertia – before finally starting to decline in the 1960s.
2. The state failed to then support voluntary associations, unlike in European welfare states. I would argue that the state failed to support them because of the high fraction of decentralized associations in the United States. These decentralized associations were perceived as competitors with the state rather than collaborators with it. This decentralization goes back to the time of the revolution, when people fleeing persecution in England wanted to avoid anything that felt like the Anglican church.

All of this is important, but it is not my primary concern in these essays. I am concerned with the value of families to the members themselves as well as their ability to cultivate civic skills. It is good if families can teach civic skills, but I am not going to focus on any kind of national-scale network of families. (While acknowledging that such networks are crucial!)

What do families do to support their members? They promote:

1. Information. Families can trust each other to provide information.
2. Play. People can practice social behaviors and social skills in a safe environment – including civic skills.
3. Mutual aesthetic enjoyment. People can share aesthetic appreciation.
4. Emotional support. People can talk to each other when they have something on their mind.
5. Material support, especially in a marriage. Two salaries provide more stability than one.
6. Household care, including chores.
7. Child-rearing. Families can raise children together.

The first four can be taken as definitive of families in the broader sense while the next two are characteristics of families in the more traditional sense – families that live together. The last is a trait of child-rearing families in particular.

These joint activities together form a shared project for families to engage in.