In fact, the attack on the family has been part of a wider aim to subvert the fundamental institutions of society because they were regarded as bourgeois, patriarchal or exclusive. At first, this was to prepare the ground for a Marxist-type political revolution. When this did not come about, the social revolution became an end in itself, the purpose of which was to free individuals from cumbersome ties so they could better fulfil themselves. Relationships should be entered into freely without social coercion, it is held, and should last only as long as they nurture individuals' self-fulfilment. Criticism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and others of those who regard heterosexual marriage as "absolute, exclusive and ideal" is based on such views of "pure relationships", which are about mutual desire and its fulfilment. If and when such desire ceases, it is both wicked and useless to seek a continuation of the relationship that is generated by the persons themselves, as Anthony Giddens has taught, and is not about satisfying a formal socio-religious criterion.

It is not a surprise that with these views, a plethora of relationships, where there is due consent and which do not exploit the young or vulnerable, will increasingly be seen as valid expressions of being family. Such social constructivism will either treat with amused contempt or actively oppose any attempt to uphold a normative view of the family which values permanence, stability, responsibility towards one another and towards any children or, indeed, which regards the family as a basic unit of society and thus fulfilling a vital social function.

The abolition of the family is certainly one of the causes of social dysfunction and of fragmentation in our society but it is not the only one. An all-pervasive historical amnesia is another. People are simply not told about the foundations on which their society is built or about the "perfectly virtuous pages" of their history. No wonder then that when they have to grapple with cultural and religious difference, they have no vantage point from which to tackle the issues arising in a plural society. Let it be understood straightaway that diversity is to be celebrated and respected and can enrich any society. A Christian view of society would have emphasised hospitality for those coming to live in this country as well as being the means of welcoming their contribution to the development of social and political discourse. At the same time, it would have continued to uphold the common good which would necessarily have included a concern for the most disenfranchised of those who were here already and also for the social and economic fabric of the nation in relation to a changing demography. What we got was a multiculturalism built on amnesia. On the grounds of tolerance, it consigned newer arrivals to ghettoes where, it was imagined, they would be happier with their own kind. The housing, education and social policies of the elite, who were themselves largely unaffected by them, reinforced the separation, fostering, as we have seen, 

ignorance rather than engagement, fear rather than neighbourliness and resentment rather than generosity. It has led to extremism, of different kinds, flourishing because of the lack of a vision of a just, compassionate and neighbourly society based on a meta-narrative which provided the grounding for adequate social capital.