Picture credit: http://www.goanews.com/uploads/news/big_family_nuclear.jpg
It is commonly heard in sociology that the very first institution we are born into is family. The nuclear family is just one of the many institutions that we have little choice over but this institution is slightly more unique in nature due to how it is tied to our biography from the very beginning to the very end of our lives. It is the one institution that you can try your very best to walk out on but will never stop being reminded of its presence and its impact on your life. Such is the power and influence of this institution responsible for governing your formative years and socialising you into other institutions.
Perhaps it is this very nature of how the family is tied to our biography that makes it so significant in our lives. Countless theorists have deliberated over the impact of family on our individual identities. Bourdieu for one suggested how class can be embodied in our very taste, passed on from generations to generations through families, to the extent of denying true mobility due to this taste being embodied in our habitus through our formative years.
Personally, it doesn’t bother me that I subscribe to this notion that some part of me could resemble my parents in terms of embodied cultural capital. I am proud of my working class parents not for their ‘merits’ in this meritocratic system (not that they lack any merits), but for bringing me up so devotedly and shaping me to be who I am today. While some people thrive to be as original a person as they possibly can, I am proud to be a product of the influence of all the people who have made an impact on my life. I may not be original, but I am the core that has embodied the bits and pieces of capital I have deemed in line with my ontology over the years.
While case examples of people who share my positive sentiments about their families are aplenty, there are contrasting cases of broken families where individuals long to escape but can never do. As much as I thrive as a product of the habitus of my family, those who experience trauma and abuse in their formative years will constantly be reminded of the pain and hurt embodied to their very bones. Distance will not matter to these individuals, escape is often temporary. It is unfortunately difficult to completely break free from what society deems you to be grateful to simply for the reason that you are grown up and family is the institution to thank first and foremost.
This brings us to the rules and norms regarding the family. In our “conservative society” (I use inverted commas because I believe this notion is state constructed but it is beyond my scope today), filial piety is a notion that is closely tied to the institution of family. For one, the Singapore state’s consistent play on “conservative Asian values” means that Singaporeans are “naturally” expected to be responsible for their parents just like their parents were responsible for them. (I feel I have to stress at this point that I am absolutely for this notion of filial piety but I have to discuss the implications of such a cultural notion.) Hence, as a society, we have internalised the importance of being filial to our parents and we bear this lens down on others, policing one another to uphold this notion of filial piety.
One of the repercussions of such a phenomenon is found again on individuals who had not been subjected to the assumed love and upbringing of the nuclear family internalised by society. I discussed earlier how the very embodiment of the pain felt in their formative years would already cast them in shadows. Further, the judging eyes of society deny these individuals a chance for empathy, apart from the few who knew of their life trajectory possibly through years of friendship.
Imagine an acquaintance talking about his/her family in a negative light – the first instinct would possibly be to “empathetically” console the individual that things are not as bad as he/she imagines. The more negative one talks about one’s parents, the more that individual would be deemed unfilial by society. (I put “empathetically” in inverted commas because these are situations when we believe that we are displaying empathy when in reality, our enculturated minds are casting judgments by downplaying the plight of those we cannot really comprehend unless we had physically experienced the same trauma over time)
I am one of those who come from what I deem to be a wholesome family. I believe that sociology has taught me the necessary frameworks to be empathetic towards others but retrospectively, I believe that this confidence of empathy has at times backfired and translated into ignorance in the face of those who truly needed empathy. What we have to do as a society is to understand how we have been trained to think and react instinctively, and reflexively raise our own awareness in our daily interactions with others. Sometimes, listening and refraining from judgment can be the ultimate gesture of empathy.
This article is concurrently published on www.kentridgecommon.com
