Families are important, interesting entities, aren’t they? Sometimes wonderful, sometimes difficult! Thinking recently about them stimulated me to this view: any family that makes a kid feel inferior is not a good one. Naturally I’m speaking of parents here, though I guess certain siblings (envious, competitive, and so forth) might also be thrown into the mix.
But then I thought of the putatively more beneficial obverse, and there again, denoted potential downsides, too. I.e., that any family which makes a kid feel superior and above reproach is not a good one, either. Is that true? Part-true? Needs more consideration, I suppose.
But from there I then concluded, at least in a hasty manner: a normal family (normal parents, siblings, grandparents) is best, right? But even THERE, some downsides? For instance, if you want to become an against-the-grain artiste, a Beethoven, Kafka, or even a Shaq, don’t start out with a “normal” family!
Bringing us to Tolstoy’s old view, to the effect that all happy families are alike, all unhappy ones different in their misery. I do think the celebrated author of “Anna Karenina” had something there.
Besides perhaps breeding artistes, purveyors of the blues, etc., unhappy families, or at least ones that are hard to “navigate” during childhood, may also paradoxically engender enhanced empathy. Yes, in those who as kids, repetitively suffered the slings and arrows of unfairness, a great teacher of sorts.
All this, however, does feel a bit simplistic to the present scribe. But it makes a valid point: i.e., that whatever you experience growing up can later be put to good use via filleting out what’s worthwhile for formation of your adult character; and dumping what isn’t. In some cases this will also corroborate Nietzsche’s old saw (as well-known as Tolstoy’s): i.e., that that which doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.
Growing up in the 19th century, Nietzsche himself was an over-coddled boy, who unfortunately lost his dad when he was very young. In adulthood he didn’t put together anything like a “normal” life, but his books had great power and influence, both on Leftists or existentialists like Sartre and de Beauvoir; and more disastrously, on fascists like Adolf Hitler.
Speaking of Sartre, he’s often bracketed with Camus, both arguing that life may stink, but you alone must make your existence work without seeking help. Preaching such self-reliance, however, must have stemmed partly from the fact that both lost fathers very early, Sartre’s when he was barely two, Camus’ (in WW I), when his son was almost one!
Neither philosopher therefore felt at all trammeled by paternal advice, strictures, etc. Easy for THEM to push the ideal of individual agency in a hurtful world!
In sum: family structure and orientation do play key roles in how a child develops into adulthood. But families can also be like cannibals, said the great Swing musician, Artie Shaw. I know that sounds exaggerated, but there’s maybe something to it. Think, for instance, of today’s cellphone-addicted and other kinds of “using” parents.
Where then am I going here? Hard to say. Perhaps most useful are a number of thoughts (some given above) that might at least stimulate others to think in different ways themselves about families. An old tune asks: What is this thing called love? How about: what is this thing called family?
In fact, it’s many things, with nothing like one size fits all in that realm. Paradox, paradox, paradox? So it feels.
Some, for instance, grew up in wealthy homes, where as kids they seemed to have it all; but things never worked well for them in adulthood. Others like the great ballplayer Willie Horton came from a poor family of 21, where he was the baby; and yet, what a career and life he put together in a period when Blacks weren’t yet too welcome in baseball’s majors.
Some had close parents all the way; others like W. Somerset Maugham lost both by age 10, and yet in Maugham’s particular case, he became a fine, popular writer of plays, novels, and short stories. Even worse: certain Holocaust survivors got to Britain or the U.S. minus the rest of their (doomed) family; and yet, they did well, too.
What’s supposed to add up often doesn’t? What isn’t does? These paradoxical results do seem common when it comes to this strange thing called … family!