I am not convinced as well that today family is the source of law as we know it.
The ‘classical’ vision I was mentioning was someway ‘defeated’ by the individualistic vision of modern nature law theories, whose well known product was a formalistic, state-centered and relation-careless vision of law. As you know, I argue that a rethinking of the way law is envisioned is urgent and much needed.

I am not sure, instead, that I fully understood your second point about ‘family’ as “host for nostalgic and anti-progressive values and beliefs”: do you mean that ‘family’ might be a sort of ‘commonplace’ for traditionalistic visions of society?
(Maybe I am strongly underlining family as a value since in Europe we can witness how the post-’68 ‘attack’ against the idea of family as social institution has actually increased the individualistic and hedonistic attitude of our societies..)

No need to say that I totally agree with you about the role that schools and religious communities can play in helping the development of dialogical and respectful relationships among persons.
(Sadly, nevertheless, there is often no plain correspondance between ‘religious communities’ and ‘teaching respect’. The question turns to be a rather problematic point, since it might imply that we stop being politically correct and automatically presume that each religion/religious movement equally promotes human brotherhood and mutual respect.. (isn’t it here that a deeper inter-religious and inter-confessional dialogue should begin?)

I certainly agree with your last point about building bridges between “justpeace” and wider moral and legal philosophy. I also agree that our families are where we often first learn about relationships, positively and negatively, though I’m not convinced that family is the source of law as we know it.

I am concerned, however, that we be open to changing definitions of family and that “family” not be used as a code word for a host of often nostalgic and anti-progressive values and beliefs. (George Lakoff has argued that how we envision “family” shapes how we think about a host of other social and political issues, at least in the U.S. – See, for example, his book “Don’t Think of an Elephant.”)

For me, justice is about living in right relationship. A functioning family unit is the place where this ideally begins, but other venues such as schools and religious communities could be doing much more to teach this as well.

Very interesting that those authors suggest to think of marriage and family as a vital example of the search for peaceful and just relationships through daily experience.
According to the view of ‘classical’ philosophy (From Cicero to the very peculiar approach of G. B. Vico to the theme of natural law) ‘family’ is the ‘cell’ of society and the first place where sociality and regularity are experienced. Therefore – he argues – families are the ‘place’ where law and justice are born and first experienced (see Vico, Universal Right, 1721).
Family shows, in facts, the vital role of mutual and caring relationships, requires an experienced attitude to the common good, the daily composition of partially differring interests. Family daily experiences the continuous ‘dialectic’ between the value and the specific role of individuals and the unifying and self-standing value of the small community that a family is.

If this is true, then there is much to do in our contemporary societies, in which the ‘cell’ of marriage and family is continuosly under the attack of disgregating factors.
Most of all – and this, as you know, is one of my biggest concerns – there is the need of ‘building bridges’ between ‘justpeace’ issues and a wider reflection on moral and legal philosophy.

Do you agree with me?

Oh, and Howard…you forgot to mention that you wrote the forward for this book! 🙂

FYI, for others reading this blog who want to read some parts of Elaine and Ched’s book, amazon.com lets you “look inside” the book and read excerpts. It looks like there are a lot of inspiring stories in there.