At a glance, placing the words family and globalisation in the same sentence seems a bit of a paradox. The family conjures the past, while globalisation is in the present and seems inevitable for the future. The family seems out of place in today's zeitgeist.

However, globalisation, which diminishes the role of the state, enhances the role of the family institution. Previously socialism and subsequently the welfare state strengthened the hand of national governments; but the state has been increasingly weakened with the advent of neo-liberalism and globalisation.

The backlash against this phenomenon has been multi-faceted: we see regionalism and separatist forces reinvigorated; along with economic inequality, ultra-nationalism and extremist violence. At the centre of this is the loss of stature of the nation state, first established by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

What is being ignored in the midst of all of this is the family. The Industrial Revolution and the subsequent process of urbanisation and economic growth have weakened the family institution throughout the world. The network of support and dependence of the extended family has been undermined, leaving only the nuclear family.

To a certain extent, we can see that this situation is more prevalent in the West where its generous welfare state has helped relieve the family institution of this responsibility.

This is in contrast to Asian governments which intervene less socially, and leave the family as the major provider of financial and economic assistance.

Autocratic Asian leaders have also emphasised the family as being of primary importance to Asian values. This is seen as part and parcel of the idea that the community should be more important than the individual.

Conservatives argue for the family to discredit the ability of the state to regulate the affairs of the individual.

Family values should not be monopolised by the right. Indeed, at a time when the state has been weakened, the family is the most immediate institution that can provide spiritual, moral and welfare support to citizens (which seems similar to the argument of the right).

Globalisation has both weakened the state's ability to provide what it claims to be a moral bulwark against negative influences; and also its ability to intervene in the economy.

The emerging consensus is that the state should rather focus its resources into the health and education sectors. There is an impending realisation that alas, the state cannot do everything.

Ethical framework

This is not to say that the family is unscathed by the tide of globalisation. MTV and McDonalds has changed the dynamics of the family institution in this day and age. There is also greater inequality as a by-product of the global economy.
The culture of consumerism; and increasing education and training of women (desirable as it is) means that increasingly, both parents work to provide an optimal standard of living for the family.

In many countries throughout Asia: foreign maids, consumer goods and shopping malls have become surrogates to the traditional family - along with drugs and crime. It's not the state alone that has lost control over the individual; the family too cannot control the individual in the same way as it could in the past.

Yet compared to the impersonal state, the family can be more effective in providing a positive ethical framework; strengthening economic independence from the state and creating a sense of identity and belonging.

Many who claim to be progressive think that it is out of place to argue that the family can inculcate moral and positive values. Those on the left have focused on poverty and economic inequality as the major causes of crime; removing moral and ethics from the equation altogether.

Those one the right have frequently laid the blame on the media and negative popular culture. We must realise that crime does not arise from a single factor only; a strong and positive family institution in a more equal economic environment can be a strong bulwark against crime.

In this new scenario, the state cannot do everything, but it can do something - it should encourage a vibrant and independent family institution. While in certain countries there is a need to encourage family planning to keep population growth manageable; many developed countries have realised that they now need to encourage families to have children to sustain the economy.

There is still room for the state to play its role: firstly, it can provide more opportunities for poorer families by providing allowances based on their income and number of children; secondly, it can nurture a flexible environment for working parents to bring up children; and thirdly encourage more facilities that are family-oriented.

Efficient education and health sectors can play an important supporting role to the family institution. This is where I differ from the assertions of the traditional right. Even with globalisation, the government can continue to play the role in creating opportunities, even if not in the conventional one size-fits-all statist approach.

This is not to say that a positive family background will automatically create positive individuals. But what seems certain is that a stable family will go a long way in helping the individual to be successful national and, in view of the spirit of the times, global citizens.

In these uncertain times, the family can provide an element of certainty.

NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD is a Malaysian residing in the UK and comments on current issues. He has written for Aliran, Asia Times, Channel News Asia and the BBC World Service, among others.