I just read a really remarkable essay, "Red Family, Blue Family:
Making sense of the values issue", by Doug Muder, February 2005. He
argues that Lakoff's "family framing" analysis (of why US
conservatives and liberals don't understand each other, from Lakoff's
_Moral Politics_) is basically correct, but lacks a larger context,
which he goes on to provide. The essay is very insightful, and I
recommend reading the whole thing, although it's almost 6500 words, so
it may take 20 minutes or more to read:
http://www.gurus.com/dougdeb/politics/209.html
Reading this essay, I feel I suddenly have a better understanding of
many things that made no sense before to me: conflicts inside my own
families, conflicts inside myself, conflicts among my friends,
relationships between other people I know, why Gandhi's clan forbade
him to travel to England, wedding vows, and many other things --- many
personal things that are painful to remember. And, of course, the
current divisive politics of the United States.
His essay is based on insights he drew from reading James Ault's 2004
book, _Spirit and Flesh: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church_,
based on the research he had done for his PBS documentary, _Born
Again_.
Muder argues that the conservative idea of "family" is organized
around inherited obligations, while the liberal idea of "family" is
organized around negotiated commitments. From his essay:
The key distinction in Ault's account is not strictness
vs. nurturance, but the Given vs. the Chosen. What, in other
words, is the source of your responsibilities to other people? Are
you born with obligations? Or do you choose to make commitments?
As with strictness and nurturance, every actual person experiences
some combination of obligation and commitment. But emphasizing one
or the other makes a striking difference.
The Inherited Obligation Family
Live is defined by roles and relationships that are given, not
chosen. One has parents, grandparents, siblings, cousins, and
eventually a spouse, children, and grandchildren of one's own.
Each of those relationships defines a set of mutual obligations.
Your well-being depends on the faithfulness of others in meeting
their obligations to you, and your character is judged by how you
meet your obligations to them. _Choice_ and _freedom_ are fine in
the economic sphere, but in family life they undermine obligation
and put everyone at risk. Fulfilling your obligations is not
always pleasant and may even at times be thankless, but in the
long run such faithfulness leads to a sense of deep satisfaction.
In difficult times, you depend on those who are obliged to help
you: First, on your extended family, and on the larger community
only if necessary.
Continuing and extending the family by having children is a duty,
not an option. This entails men taking on the roles of husband
and father, and women taking on the roles of wife and mother.
These roles are timeless and not up for negotiation. Although the
obligations of these roles become primary, prior obligations to
other family members do not go away, nor do theirs to you.
Parents and children remain linked for life in a special
relationship. Grandparents, if they are able, have a major role
in the child-raising project. And when they become feeble, the
grown child is obliged to care for them.
The Negotiated Commitment Family
Your responsibilities come from the commitments you have chosen to
make, and not from congenital obligations. Voluntary commitments
form the substance of life; a life without them is superficial and
empty.
Adult relationships are negotiated to be mutually acceptable.
Although traditional forms of relationship have stood the test of
time and contain much folk wisdom, people are free to amend them
as needed.
Because young children are incapable of meaningful consent, you
can't attach strings to your nurturance of them --- it is a gift,
which they may or may not reciprocate when they are grown. Only
those who feel that they have the psychological and material
resources to fulfill that commitment should take it on. As long
as children's basic needs are being met, the members of a
household are free to distribute child-raising responsibilities in
whatever way seems best to them.
You depend on a social safety net to catch you if you are unable
to support yourself: Social Security when you are old, disability
and unemployment insurance if you are unable to work. While you
may maintain relationships with your parents and other family
members, you are not obliged to do so if they do not treat you
well. If they are unable to support themselves, they rely on the
social safety net just as you do.
I'd like to ask other people here on the list, especially those whose
politics are very different from mine: how well do either of these
represent your way of relating to "family"?
The second one fairly well represents my own thinking, except that I
also believe that each of us has some responsibility for the whole
human race by virtue of being alive, rather than by virtue of any
voluntary commitment.
