CHAPTER XVIII
ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS—LOVE AND HATE ASPECTS
Having now completed our theoretical survey, it may be Practical conclusions well to undertake, as a final instalment of our task, some brief consideration of the main practical conclusions that emerge from our psychological study of the family relationships. The general nature of these practical conclusions has indeed already emerged with some degree of clearness at various points in our review; but a recapitulation or reconsideration of the chief points as regards which the psychological processes and principles with which we have been concerned would seem to admit of, and to demand, practical application, may perhaps prove of some value, now that we have reached the end of the descriptive and theoretical portions of our task.
It is probable that the chief practical gain that may result They have to a large extent already emerged from the study of the psychology of the family will ensue more or less directly from the mere increase in understanding of the nature of, and interactions between, the mental processes that are involved in the family relationships. As in most matters in which the Unconscious plays a leading part, knowledge is here perhaps more than usually akin to virtue. A fuller grasp of the essential character of the unconscious tendencies that are aroused within the family circle makes possible, and naturally leads up to, an important and far-reaching readjustment of our views and our behaviour, and a readjustment of such a kind as could scarcely be brought about by any other means. When we have brought to consciousness the hidden motives that lurk in the buried strata of our mind, our practical judgment and our reason have a grasp of the psychic situation of such a kind as was before impossible; and very often the true course to be steered appears with unmistakable clearness before our vision as the as usual in psycho-analytic investigations result of our increased self-knowledge. This is only an instance of what so frequently—one might say generally—occurs as the result of psycho-analysis; not only in the case of psycho-analytic research into the processes of the individual mind, but also to some extent in the case of the general treatment of a problem or a situation upon psycho-analytic lines. That too is the reason why, in the present case, the practical conclusions to be drawn from our considerations have to a very large extent emerged of themselves in the course of these considerations and have in the main become evident to us without any further procedure being necessary to elicit them.
Thus it will by now have become amply clear, what, in The two chief processes demanding ethical consideration the main, are the pitfalls to avoid in the course of family life, and what are the chief ends which it is desirable to seek. The weaning of the child from the incestuous love which binds it to the family (together with the secondary hatred which this love may entail) and the gradual loosening of the psychological, moral and economic dependence of the individual on the family have revealed themselves as the two chief aspects of the task with which the ethical treatment of our subject has to deal. The considerations brought forward in the last three chapters have shown that human beings are subject to two opposing tendencies in these respects—one of these tendencies uniting the individual closely to the family, the other separating him sharply from it; both tendencies being conditioned by psychological and biological factors of fundamental significance. It is the duty of a sane and reasonable ethics of the family to indicate the most satisfactory solution of the conflict which these opposing tendencies engender, giving such scope to either tendency as may be necessary for it to fulfil its essential function in the life of the individual and the race.
Our treatment of the subject during the greater part of The tendencies towards the family more primitive than those away from the family this book, following as it does the actual findings of those who have been brought face to face with these tendencies in the course of their endeavours to understand and cure the disorders of mental growth and personality, has no doubt conveyed to some extent the impression that it is the first mentioned tendency—that which draws the individual towards the family—which is most often found in excess, and has therefore most frequently to be restrained, while it is the tendency away from the family which is most often deficient in strength or in development, and which therefore most frequently requires The latter more often require artificial aid artificial stimulation and encouragement. This impression is indeed one that is inevitably conveyed by a careful study of the knowledge that we at present possess upon the subject. In whichever direction we look, Man's chief handicap, as regards those aspects of his mind which here concern us, would appear to consist in an undue strength, or at any rate an undue persistence, of an infantile attitude towards the family. This would seem to indicate that the tendency towards the family is probably both ontogenetically and phylogenetically the older and more fundamental of the two, and that the tendency away from the family is not yet sufficiently deeply rooted or assimilated in the human mental constitution to be able to assert itself with sufficient force in the manner and direction that successful biological adjustment would require.
Nevertheless, if this is so, the mere fact that the tendency But the former are biologically deeper and more essential towards the family is thus in some respects prior to, and more fundamental than, its antagonist, would indicate that it is based upon biological and psychological conditions and requirements that are correspondingly more primitive and therefore more essential. We have seen in effect that the causes which have led to the strong attachment of the individual to the family are probably connected with certain necessary conditions of human growth and development—the long period of helplessness and immaturity, the dependence upon others (and especially the parents) for the very necessaries of life, the need to learn from others, the need for an early arousal and outward direction of the love impulse, etc. The causes which underlie the tendency away from the family—such as the need of casting off the dependence on the family in order to attain a full measure of individuality, the antagonism between the family attachments and the wider social bonds, the value of sexual sublimation for the advance of culture, the possible dysgenic effects of inbreeding—these are in the main connected with less pressing and immediate conditions of existence; conditions which are no doubt of great importance for the ultimate fate of the individual and the race, but which are not essential for the immediate preservation and growth of the individual in his early life, and which frequently involve a diminution rather than an increase in immediate benefit or pleasure; representing, as they do, biological values of a higher and more complex order, which come into operation only when those of a more primitive kind have been attained.
If this is so, it would seem fairly clear that our practical The family attachments must be outgrown rather than destroyed efforts must on the whole be directed to aid the process of weaning the individual from his family attachments rather than to any attempt at preventing or destroying these attachments themselves. The tendencies that bind the individual to the family are probably too deeply rooted in Man's nature to yield to any such direct attack; and in any case, in spite of a character in some respects archaic, it is almost certain that they still perform a necessary and beneficial part in the process of psychical development—a part for which no adequate substitute could easily be found; so that it would be undesirable to eliminate the operation of these tendencies, even if such elimination were within the bounds of possibility. Thus it would seem that all schemes and attempts that have been made, from Plato onwards (and probably long before him), with a view to preventing the development of the feelings that centre in and are aroused through connection with the family, are doomed to failure:—practical failure, because these feelings are too strong, too intimate and essential a part of human nature to be successfully and permanently inhibited by any alteration of environment[265]; moral failure, because the development of certain of the most important aspects of human character are, in their origin and first appearance, bound up with these feelings and would probably fail to ripen if these feelings were abolished.
It would then be a hasty and disastrous conclusion if we were to infer from the widespread occurrence of insufficient emancipation from the family ties that it is our duty to Family love in early years is necessary for individual development and happiness endeavour to prevent the formation of these ties or to deal harshly and destructively with them as soon as they make their appearance. It would be as useless, as it would be cruel and unwise, were we to attempt to abolish the relationship of love and dependence that binds together parents and children, brothers and sisters: such a course, if it ever attained a reasonable measure of success, would almost certainly create evils greater than those which it was intended to avert. The love of the parents towards the child is assuredly one of the most essential and desirable features of a child's environment, if the child's moral and emotional development is to proceed harmoniously, spontaneously and easily. The lack of such love during the early years may give rise to a lasting sense of injury, a permanent feeling of a void or loss in some essential aspect of the emotional life, leading in its turn to an insatiable craving for the affection that was not forthcoming during that period of growth in which it was so urgently required; or again, it may cause a lifelong bitterness or hostility towards the parents (and through them towards mankind in general) for having withheld the love, appreciation and encouragement which the young child so much desires and needs; or once again, it may lead to a turning inward of the child's affections, when these meet with no response, so that the individual becomes self-centred and narcissistic, bestowing solely on himself the interest and affection which under happier circumstances would have been available for the pleasure and profit of those with whom he comes in contact; or finally it may lead to serious delinquency or be responsible for a whole career of crime.
Far therefore from attempting to inhibit or destroy the love of parent and child, it becomes necessary on the contrary to emphasise the need, and indeed the moral right, of every child to develop its affections in this manner, and to urge again the plea now being put forward by the more thoughtful class of social reformers, that every child should be born in such conditions as to make it possible and likely that he will receive such measure of care and affection as he stands in need of. The unwanted child—the child who for social, psychological or economic reasons, is not welcomed by his parents,—starts life under a disadvantage in this respect, a disadvantage that may sometimes lead to the most serious consequences both to himself and to society[266].
The same considerations make it evident that especial care should be paid to those children who, for one reason or another, are unable to enjoy the advantages of normal family life—care to ensure that they should have available suitable substitutes for the parents of whom they are deprived and that they should receive the due quantity of love which their moral and psychological development demands.