GREGORY--WILSON

An earlier response asked: how useful is the term “universal concept” to us in understanding family and the household? As Gregory defines it, a universal concept is “transcultural and transhistorical [belonging] to the realm of human nature rather than historically specific forms of human society” (139). Though one can argue that no impression, thought or theory should be taken from the context whence it came, we need the model of a “universal” concept, of a set of criteria that somehow circumnavigate the bounds of a single philosophy or culture, to acknowledge that there could exist some commonalities between certain traditions, even if there exists no definitive “human nature” (at least one upon which we could agree!). Our dialogue must include “universal concept”—the term itself, but more importantly the ability to approach an entity and appreciate that it does not exist in isolation. The household could serve as a tool of this broad model, one finding that the household is the site of many of the most basic transactions that show how humans behave: self-interest, equality, different instincts or motivations that appear in other settings or all settings, and that we could use in observing and thinking about future interactions (150).