 |
| Still image from "American Pastoral"(2016), directed by Ewan McGregor and starring McGregor and Dakota Fanning; adapted from Philip Roth’s 1997 novel. Image: Richard Foreman/Lionsgate. |
Frankie's father says some things to her that she finds difficult to stomach: "Your pride should come from caring for your husband and child . . . You're upsetting me with this jabble, Frankie. You're my daughter. You had no business going to war and I told you so at the time" (359).
Putting aside your views on whether you sympathize more with Frankie or with her father on this particular issue of whether women should serve in the military in war time, what should someone do when one of their family members holds an opinion on a contentious issue that is diametrically opposed to their own?
Is it ever acceptable to sever the relationship with a close family member entirely, either because it is too emotionally upsetting or because you find the opposing viewpoint abhorrent?
Or should you always try to keep the conversation alive in hopes that you might persuade them to change their mind?
Or should you just do everything in your power to avoid the contentious issue?
I don't think it's wrong to sever a connection with family if it is emotionally upsetting. Personally it depends on why the connection is emotionally upsetting. There are lots of things that could lead a person to sever a relationship. I couldn't judge a lot of them. When it comes to severing a relationship over differing opinions, I would say that most of the time relationships are worth more than a difference of opinion. We can look past those, so long as they don't become personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteI think we can always engage in conversation, but know that the result won't always be a change of heart. It can also be detrimental to our relationships to always harp on those things too. You may end up turning them away from the very thing you want to turn them towards.
Within a household, many issues can become the topic of an argument, especially between parent and child. As the child was being raised by that parent throughout their youth, the child believed in and agreed with nearly all that the parent told them. This is especially true for topics that extend beyond the household, such as organized religion. For example, a catholic couple raised their child as a catholic and sent them to catholic school, yet at the age of 18 the child reveals that they are no longer catholic, but rather an agnostic atheist. This means the parents and the child are now shown to believe different metaphysics and eschatologies. The fundamental origins and state of their realities are differing. Should they sit down and discuss their differing views in a healthy dialogue between three equals, they may come to understand each other better and better preserve their relationships with one another. But this must be rooted in all of them wishing to preserve the relationship and in a place of tolerance and open-mindedness; unconditional love would help as well. Unfortunately, not all of these prerequisites are met a lot of the time in real situations similar to this.
ReplyDeleteCan one keep up that lie that they are all in agreement and just avoid the topic altogether? This simultaneously seems like the easiest and hardest solution; easiest in that there is no conflict, hardest in that the one person has to keep this weight and guilt on their shoulders for an unknown amount of time, potentially drifting away from the others to avoid even the chance at conversation. Confrontation can be healthy when done right, lying to the ones you love is much harder to call “healthy.”
There is a podcast called “The Necessary Conversation” in which a son, daughter, and their two parents speak their minds on current political topics. The son and daughter, both adults, are liberals, while the two parents are both very conservative. The podcast was created by the son because the family could no longer have a family gathering without the topic of politics coming up and distancing them from each other, so now they set aside an hour each week to talk politics and do not discuss it with each other at any other times. This method reminds me of therapy: dedicating a specific date and time in regular intervals to relieve oneself of pent-up emotions, partly to let these emotions have less of a hold on them in the times between sessions. I believe this method of a controlled dialogue could be beneficial if done correctly.
Severing the relationship is rarely something that anyone involved wants to happen. But why is that? What does burning a bridge between oneself and a single other person matter when there are 11 billion other people to build bridges with, and an amount of those people surely agree with your stance where this single person does not, so why keep the connection? When it is a parent, there is often the presence of unconditional love going both ways. A connection in which a promise, spoken or not, says, “I’ll love you no matter what.” This love perseveres through any and all arguments. This is not something you get with just anyone. It is a good idea to avoid severing connections with people who feel this way about you, in my opinion at least. It can be hard to try not to persuade people on some topics, such as topics where if one party believes this and the other party believes else, then the first party believes the second party will suffer eternally, persuading the second party seems like it is for their own sake to the first party. But I think persuasion should be avoided in situations like these, or at least taken very gently, as pushing one’s ideas onto someone with opposing beliefs can easily end in a worsened relationship, as one may see their opinions and beliefs as disregarded by the other. A level-headed, open-minded dialogue is the best solution I can come up with, but for this to happen, all parties involved must fit the bill and must want to retain the relationship.
Is it ever acceptable to sever the relationship with a close family member entirely, either because it is too emotionally upsetting or because you find the opposing viewpoint abhorrent?
ReplyDeleteWhile many people can make a close relationship work through opposing viewpoints, some relationships cannot handle it for a lot of reasons, and that is acceptable too. Just like in the book, Frankie tried hard to be who her parents wanted her to be, and at one point, it turned into her being shamed by her parents for going to Vietnam. This led to a lot of conflict and hard feelings between Frankie and her parents, especially her dad, so she chose to distance herself. While their relationship was not severed, it shows how it could lead to severed relationships in other cases, and in my opinion, if a relationship is broken, ending it could be what is best for some people in those cases.
I think this question is more depending on the situation. For instance, if the situation sparks for whatever reason some sort of hatred on either side, it would be best to discontinue the conversation or maybe sever the relationship altogether depending on the severity. A conversation of opinions shouldn’t ever spark a feeling like that. Another factor could be a conversation that would be able to be talked through. Such as could you hold a civilized conversation with an ending and a resolution without fundamentally altering a relationship for the worse. I think that everyone has their own way of dealing with issues like that, and in the end there might not be one best way to deal with it. I think that opinions shouldn’t separate people but if it would make other things worse then maybe it would be best if the parties separated. However, I don’t think that goes best for every situation. My final answer to the question is really an I don’t know, maybe?
ReplyDeleteThe issue is incredibly complicated, and there is no easy choice to make. Family does not always agree or get along with each other. In a family it is almost completely expected that everyone has almost identical ideals. It can be upsetting for family members to hear that someone else has a different idea for what belief or opinion that family member holds. Breaking that expectation can tear a family apart.
ReplyDeleteI do think some choices are better than others. I do not think, in general, it is advisable to constantly avoid the issue. I think it keeps a tenseness to the issue that can make it worse. The reason I say this is not advisable in general is because some exceptions to this exist. For example, someone who is at risk of getting disowned by their family might want to avoid talking about the issue or lie about their beliefs in order to stay in the family.
I do think talking is a good idea to do beforehand. You lose a chance to convince or clarify your belief without properly talking about the issue. Perhaps a family member does not understand the importance their belief has on another family member, or maybe they need to be educated about their belief. It is important to at least try to reason with people as important as your family before making any other hard decisions. Unfortunately, talking does not always help. Oftentimes people are stubborn about their beliefs and will not reason.
I believe that it is entirely acceptable to sever the connection between a close family member. It is a difficult but sometimes necessary choice. Sometimes, a family does not have that specific family members’ beliefs. Sometimes that belief can be so important that the family member cannot have the same relationship with that family member anymore. There is not much to be done. If someone is actively being hurt, whether emotionally or physically, it might be worth it to abandon the connection.