While there is evidence of nuclear families existing as far as 5 000 years ago, they were only really for wealthy/high status people. The concept of the nuclear family as it’s own autonomous unit wasn’t really financially viable until post-Industrial revolution.
There is even current academic arguments that the previously believed idea that Europe had moved to nuclear families as early as the 17th century may be flawed, as the surviving literature was once again biased towards the merchant/upper classes.
Wikipedia has a good summary, actually, even though some of the claims are conjecture.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 11 months ago
I’d say the evidence is in the fact you can find nuclear families in animal species other than humans. Birds and possums didn’t learn that from their wealthy human neighbors. It’s normal for two parents to take care of their young and create a home together. It’s been going on way longer than whatever capitalist marketing campaign you think it came from.
sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 11 months ago
I don’t think you understand what the term “nuclear family” means in a sociological manner. In humans it’s not just “two parents taking care of their offspring”, there is also a caveat that they are doing that WITHOUT the reliance of an extended social group. Then those offspring are expected to do the same once they reach adulthood. The only social support they are expected to have is their own unit.
Furthermore, comparing human behaviours to other species such as birds (who flock together in habitats for survival and for migration) and possums (who are a solitary, nocturnal species) doesn’t really mean anything.
The comparisons should be to species who share similar evolutionary patterns and social habits to humans ie. primates. And across every primate species, whether it be lemurs, gorillas, baboons, simians, etc. they are all connected to a LARGER SOCIAL GROUP irrespective of their family structure (pairs, group family, homogeneous male or female) well into adulthood.