I consider people to be part of my 'family' when they follow the saying that 'they are the ones that come to you when everyone else is running away from you'. When someone gives you their love and respect, not unconditionally and as a given but because they believe in you and think that you have earned it and when it is equally the case vice versa, a bond which can only be named family is formed. Thus, in my opinion the concepts of family and friendship blend and only the ideas of love and respect create ties, which in many cases combine friendship and family.
Therefore, when, through the process involving the creation of bonds, this group of people becomes a reality the security that you have a safety net as well becomes a reality. However, unlike in cases where blood is the only uniting factor, in this situation there is no such thing as blind faith based on lineage but a conscious appreciation of what you have done for each other and how that ensures the safety net.
The question begs to be asked: is blood enough? Inevitably when a child comes out of his mother's womb and she has carried him in her for nine months (sounds familiar? refer to emotional blackmail 101) and is the product of his father's seed, there is a connection. Nevertheless, are there issues which can make all bets come off? When our convictions oppose those we supposedly love unconditionally, is blood enough?
One might argue that, because of the preconceived idea that blood creates unconditional bonds, in families where this is the modus operandi, so to speak, there is no room for the possibility of rupture, no matter the circumstances.
The fact that we exist is purely statistical, our parents have the same probability of being wise, loving parents as they do of being horribly selfish human beings. Even though it may sound cynical, I don't agree with a binding contract based on chance, meaning that since we have no way of choosing our parents, how can we promise anything to them unconditionally. This is not meant to imply that respect should be lost. However it does argue that, even though we must be thankful for our education and upbringing, safe under our parents watchful eye (hopefully), there will be moments when our own convictions will come head to head with those we love. When this is the case, if that love is based on the understanding and respect of those convictions, it is easier to follow them than it would be if the love and respect were based on obligation due to genetics rather than values. Again, this issue can't really be simplified to this extreme since we inevitably share a period of time with our family, before we are even remotely sure of what we believe in. During this period of time, however, we do get the chance to know who our family is, to examine whether or not blood implies love.
If we believe that we are our own person and grow up to completely discover it, we must make room for the possibility that this individual will not represent our parents' ideals and that there might be conflict. If we choose to think that because we are born to certain people we are in debt (common adage) and therefore unconditionally bound to them, we are attaching ourselves not only to people but ideas, hence thwarting our own individual growth and freedom. Obviously the issue at hand would have to be core to our values to imply that there could be some kind of rupture between us and those we love. The chance that such a conflict may come up is drastically reduced, in my opinion, when our bonds are made up of genuine affection and respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment