If ‘Academics’, as a word, is focused towards a subject, it covers a lot of topics around it. It’s expected to cover a subject neutrally/clinically—not getting biased towards only what is buzzing at this time or ‘back in the days’. If looked with a bit more attention, it is incomplete, like it’s a fact that is yet to be taught/interpreted. Where a good academics is the one that is the most near to the feel of life teaching it to us; but it’s never congruent to the lessons life teaches us, or at least till now, it hasn't reached to that.
And as a keen student (on the subjects I am interested in), I sometimes feel that learning outside of the classroom—maybe as a whole classroom walking beside our professor where he/she stops us, shows us, and shares the topics of his/her subject—would be so meaningful. A sense of limitation by how these big institutions of education evaluate student’s “academic writing” still seems to have a high error percentage as a tool for evaluation. Because education isn’t something made to learn from institutions, but life; and the work of institutions is to just facilitate that. This is what brings me to the integrity that every student needs to have.
So, I learned in school today how families are of two types: patriarchal & matriarchal. Although this isn’t a new thing, what's new is my realization that ‘Academics’, maybe for the sake of being unbiased, is being too superficial—at least to an Art student like me. We restated what family is and its types without seeing what a family actually is. For me, family is so much more than an ‘academic’ definition that we study, because ‘academic’ definition didn’t even value what the topic’s emotion or its meaning is.
The Primal Disagreement came on the types of families as: Patriarchal or Matriarchal. Where my biggest questions are:
Why is there even a hierarchical structure of a family?
Why is ‘THE HEAD’ needed?
Family is home. I see the family that my present/future life-partner will start not as a hierarchy, but something that is naturally even. My argument is that structure in our world is needed when we can get biased to something that’s wrong—like how after getting a bike, the sense to speed it is natural, and that’s why rules are needed for safety. The feeling of love and a family which doesn’t have a power edge, like a circle, is natural; or maybe you aren’t actually ready to start a family?
For an actual family, it doesn’t need a head; it just needs love and understanding. If my wife isn’t feeling well, I am ready to do everything that she used to / would have taken care of. My children can question my decisions and all the other democratic practices because whatever things will be raised, it’s raised due to love, and it will be solved with love.
The whole type of family as a ‘patriarchal/matriarchal’ just provokes me on how we don’t value meaning, but a functionalist perspective on just getting the thing going superficially, if needed. Where I would rather prefer rightful revolutions than live in these structures for something like family for maintaining that pseudo peace/harmony in the society.
And that’s what I conclude on:
“Family with a HEAD is just like carving a statue of Buddha and putting a gold crown on his head.”
