The issue with relatives
The issue is expressed as follows:
PARENT: Don't be so cold, x, they are your relatives after all.
CHILD: Relatives so what?
Any child who says that is asking a valid question and, I would say, is displaying a critical attitude far more astute than his or her parent can possibly appreciate. For the parent is implying that friendliness should be predicated on family relations; but this is analogous to saying that privileges should be give on the basis of who is born into what family and in what order. We disagree quite strongly with the latter - we believe, for example, that political power should be parcelled out based on competency, not birth; and I doubt anyone would accept that the son of a school principal be given the queue priority at the canteen. Similarly, it seems to me that friendly relationships should always be determined by feelings of chemistry, not be brute force of fact that the other party shares some blood relation with you.
We will resent it when we are compelled to be friendly to a stranger we do not get along well with; that we sometimes eventually do out of necessity or some other reason does not diminish this fact. This is exactly what the child feels when told to be friendly to relatives. His question, 'Relatives so what?' is akin to asking, 'Why should the son of the school principal be allowed to cut our queue?' I am not making a case against favoritism; rather, I am saying that favoritism in the broadest sense should be predicated on relevant factors, not irrelevant ones. To what extent we are receptive to relatives is a matter of chemistry, not of birth.
This position leads me to more extreme thoughts that I, for the record, am prepared to accept. If I have a child and he doesn't like meeting relatives for meaningless activities such as celebrating chinese new year, I wouldn't force him to. Actually, that is a non-issue because given a choice, I wouldn't even be meeting relatives for meaningless activities, much less my child.
But the same will be said even for meeting relatives for meaningful activities, of which I can think of none at the present. I wouldn't prod him to engage in small talk or say hello if he or she doesn't like it. In fact, i would wholeheartedly endorse it if he shuts himself in a room. We wouldn't force our children to talk to strangers they don't like - same case here.
Consistently, I wouldn't force my child to be friendly even to myself. The child didn't choose to be born into my family, or this world for that matter. It's not his or her fault we don't have chemistry, and I wouldn't force him or her to be open to myself; that children sometimes do so is a bonus, not a given. That is, it is a bonus if you get a child or a nephew that can get along well with you; otherwise, just do your part as a parent in clothing and feeding him and hope the child returns the obligation when you're old.
What is important to bear in mind here is that no child owes their parents friendliness because they are clothed and fed by them. I simply do not see any relation in that at all. At most we can say the child owes gratitude and an obligation to return the favor. Even that can be argued against, but I'm not committed to defending that extension of argument. Granting that, however, I fail to see how a material debt translates to an obligation on the child's part to be friendly and open to his or her relatives, unless the parent threatens, implicitly or otherwise, to cut off support to the child because the child is not friendy to him/her. In such a case we will say that any friendliness the child produces is not genuine.
The other important thing to bear in mind is that friendliness is different from basic conduct. The latter is what people commonly refer to as respect, courtesy, etc, but I personally wouldn't term it as such because there are subtle distinctions I won't cover here. Thus, while I will endorse children giving the cold shoulder to relatives, I do not endorse children pushing relatives down the staircase. While I endorse children putting on headphones during a family gathering, which I think should be done especially when family chatter is unpleasant on the ears, as often they are, I do not endorse playing the PSP when a relative is talking to the child.
The command, 'stop playing the PSP, your uncle is talking to you' is, however, invalid insofar as it is a statement that is trying to imply that we should talk to relatives when we're being addressed. What is more appropriate to say is, ' don't play the PSP when someone is talking to you'. It doesn't matter if it's an uncle, auntie, or the school principal. It applies to all persons; there is no additional leverage relatives have in this respect.
The most important message here is more than adequately captured by a statement that is on children's minds, if not their tongues, all over the world. And that is: 'Relatives so what?' Indeed. There is nothing inherently compelling in a blood relation that genuinely motivates one to be cordial. On the other hand, it's hard to resist that temptation to be cordial towards a person with whom you have some degree of chemistry with.
PARENT: Don't be so cold, x, they are your relatives after all.
CHILD: Relatives so what?
Any child who says that is asking a valid question and, I would say, is displaying a critical attitude far more astute than his or her parent can possibly appreciate. For the parent is implying that friendliness should be predicated on family relations; but this is analogous to saying that privileges should be give on the basis of who is born into what family and in what order. We disagree quite strongly with the latter - we believe, for example, that political power should be parcelled out based on competency, not birth; and I doubt anyone would accept that the son of a school principal be given the queue priority at the canteen. Similarly, it seems to me that friendly relationships should always be determined by feelings of chemistry, not be brute force of fact that the other party shares some blood relation with you.
We will resent it when we are compelled to be friendly to a stranger we do not get along well with; that we sometimes eventually do out of necessity or some other reason does not diminish this fact. This is exactly what the child feels when told to be friendly to relatives. His question, 'Relatives so what?' is akin to asking, 'Why should the son of the school principal be allowed to cut our queue?' I am not making a case against favoritism; rather, I am saying that favoritism in the broadest sense should be predicated on relevant factors, not irrelevant ones. To what extent we are receptive to relatives is a matter of chemistry, not of birth.
This position leads me to more extreme thoughts that I, for the record, am prepared to accept. If I have a child and he doesn't like meeting relatives for meaningless activities such as celebrating chinese new year, I wouldn't force him to. Actually, that is a non-issue because given a choice, I wouldn't even be meeting relatives for meaningless activities, much less my child.
But the same will be said even for meeting relatives for meaningful activities, of which I can think of none at the present. I wouldn't prod him to engage in small talk or say hello if he or she doesn't like it. In fact, i would wholeheartedly endorse it if he shuts himself in a room. We wouldn't force our children to talk to strangers they don't like - same case here.
Consistently, I wouldn't force my child to be friendly even to myself. The child didn't choose to be born into my family, or this world for that matter. It's not his or her fault we don't have chemistry, and I wouldn't force him or her to be open to myself; that children sometimes do so is a bonus, not a given. That is, it is a bonus if you get a child or a nephew that can get along well with you; otherwise, just do your part as a parent in clothing and feeding him and hope the child returns the obligation when you're old.
What is important to bear in mind here is that no child owes their parents friendliness because they are clothed and fed by them. I simply do not see any relation in that at all. At most we can say the child owes gratitude and an obligation to return the favor. Even that can be argued against, but I'm not committed to defending that extension of argument. Granting that, however, I fail to see how a material debt translates to an obligation on the child's part to be friendly and open to his or her relatives, unless the parent threatens, implicitly or otherwise, to cut off support to the child because the child is not friendy to him/her. In such a case we will say that any friendliness the child produces is not genuine.
The other important thing to bear in mind is that friendliness is different from basic conduct. The latter is what people commonly refer to as respect, courtesy, etc, but I personally wouldn't term it as such because there are subtle distinctions I won't cover here. Thus, while I will endorse children giving the cold shoulder to relatives, I do not endorse children pushing relatives down the staircase. While I endorse children putting on headphones during a family gathering, which I think should be done especially when family chatter is unpleasant on the ears, as often they are, I do not endorse playing the PSP when a relative is talking to the child.
The command, 'stop playing the PSP, your uncle is talking to you' is, however, invalid insofar as it is a statement that is trying to imply that we should talk to relatives when we're being addressed. What is more appropriate to say is, ' don't play the PSP when someone is talking to you'. It doesn't matter if it's an uncle, auntie, or the school principal. It applies to all persons; there is no additional leverage relatives have in this respect.
The most important message here is more than adequately captured by a statement that is on children's minds, if not their tongues, all over the world. And that is: 'Relatives so what?' Indeed. There is nothing inherently compelling in a blood relation that genuinely motivates one to be cordial. On the other hand, it's hard to resist that temptation to be cordial towards a person with whom you have some degree of chemistry with.
5 Comments:
Hm...personally my parents haven't told me to be nice to my relatives or anything. I just treat my relatives as I would treat anyone else.
I think the reason why parents would want their children to treat relatives 'nicer' is probably because the parents know the relatives themselves. So it might not need to be relatives as such, but it can be a friend of the parents (which in fact, in Singapore, we conveniently call Uncle or Auntie). Either way, probably the parents want to their children to replicate the friendly relationship that they have with the relatives.
I believe for some relatives who are 'enemies', the parents won't ask their children to be nice to them. So in this sense, I'm suggesting that its not blood relation per say, but rather personal relation that is driving the parents to ask the child to 'behave'.
As for Chinese New Year celebrations and such, I think currently at our age we see it, at best, as a custom that should just be followed. But I think at our parents' perspective, its more of an annual reunion. So its sort of, imagine that you are married, and your sibling/s are married, and everyone has moved out to have their separate lives. Once a year there's an 'institutionalised' (not to mention convenient) reunion to meet up, and you might attend if you miss your siblings. And in the process, you might pull your children along as tradition, but along the way the children probably won't see the point of the get-together, since they've no close siblings to meet.
So overall I think its less about blood ties than inter-personal ties that are driving these social customs and etc.
Aquila
nither u can choose ur parents nor ur relatives.....all depend on ur atitude towards them....all in ur mind.....normally ppl wont treasure the relationships till tragic happens as we always take for granted - it was given not by choice.......i lost my mum last year then i knew how i missed her -cooking, nagging.....treasure watever u hv now.....good or bad, like or dislike....all in ur mind...
SirWhale, I find myself gladly subscribing to your views.
Is blood thicker than water?
From a molecular standpoint, I am inclined to agree. If however, this statement is not to be taken literally and is instead used to describe human relations,I think then, this adage should by no means be taken seriously. One might be wholly better off discarding this distasteful maxim.
I reckon, in the arena of human relations, 'people wish to be liked and not be endured with patient resignation - Bertrand Russell'.
Cordial relationships, if it is to be genuine and intimate should ultimately be managed by feelings of affection and congeniality. Without which, I am afraid relationships predicated merely through conduct subjugated by authority can only barely manage an iota of the consanguinity attained through human effort.
Right, that's a decent way of putting it.
This is great. Yes. And as you've heard from me, I think the parent has to bear the moral, existential and financial responsibility of forcing the child into the world. The parent cannot always expect that the child will eventually be financially independent. Don't mistake me as being mercenary. In some cases, it is very clear that the grown-up child is unlikely to be financially independent - in cases of several physical and mental retardation for example. It is up to the parent to somehow raise the child/ discipline (in a Foucauldian sense) him in such a way that the child's desires largely coincide with that of the parent(s) - i.e. the child is willing or at least chooses to be a responsible adult and share some of the responsibility too.
Post a Comment
<< Home