The psycho-analytic study of the family

by J. C. Flugel

In religion the agreement is also very considerable, though in religion perhaps less thoroughgoing; there are perhaps many who would still retain the notion of a quasi-anthropomorphic Father-God as an extra-mental reality, even though the purely mental origin of such a God has become apparent.

It is in politics however that such discrepancy as there in politics exists is perhaps most apparent. Although the primitive political father—the autocrat—would seem to be rapidly disappearing, it is fairly clear that there exists a tendency to resurrect some of the parental attributes and give them a political application by bestowing them upon the State. The world-war has taught us the necessity of implicit obedience to the State and its representatives—military and civil; the right of independent thought, action and criticism being to a large extent suspended and the minute details of our lives being subject to order and inspection in much the same way as in our childhood they were subject to the supervision of our parents. Again, modern socialistic thought—especially in its cruder aspects—has produced a state of mind, as a result of which the individual becomes to a large extent absolved from the responsibility for his own education, progress and maintenance, or for those of his children. The adult individual is thus led to transfer on to the State that attitude of dependence which he originally adopted in relation to his parents, failing to this extent to attain that full degree of self-reliance and independence which we have had in view in considering the gradual emancipation of children from their parents. In these respects it would seem that the conclusions arrived at in the course of our study of the family would point to a rather larger measure of Individualism than is contemplated by the great body of contemporary political thought. If our conclusions are correct, there is a danger in too wide a ramification of state provision and state control, inasmuch as it is liable to prevent that full development of individual power, initiative and self-reliance which can only be obtained by a high degree of emancipation from the primitive attitude of dependence on the parents. If, on the other hand, it is considered that the advantages of a far-reaching and complex state organization override those attending the full development of individuality, it is obvious that our ethical conclusions with regard to the family may have to be correspondingly revised.

There remains but one more set of ethical considerations The individual's relations to his family in later life to review before we finally take leave of the reader. Supposing that the relations of the individual to his family environment have successfully passed through the stages we have outlined and that the individual has at maturity attained the desirable degree of emancipation from, and independence of, the influences emanating from his family, there remains the problem of defining more precisely the nature of his relations to his family after he has reached maturity. It is evident enough from our previous considerations that these relations will be loose and far from binding. It is also fairly clear that they must be such as to be capable of being broken altogether without causing any very considerable They must be capable of being broken altogether amount of distress or inconvenience to any of the parties concerned. Sooner or later these relations are necessarily broken by the great divider Death, and even before this final and inevitable separation, distance, diversity of occupation or other considerations may place the members of a once closely knit family entirely out of touch with one another. According to our principles it is obviously desirable that these unavoidable though it is natural that some relationship should be maintained separations should involve no element of bitter regret or paralysing sorrow.

Supposing however that circumstances are such as to make possible relations of some degree of intimacy between the members of a family, all of whom have reached maturity, what will be the desirable extent and nature of this relationship? Presupposing always a satisfactory previous history on the lines we have considered, there would seem reason to think that some kind of relationship will, and should be, usually maintained. The common interests, affections and associations formed during a lengthy and highly important period of life will, in the absence of reasons to the contrary, usually constitute sufficient ground for the continuance throughout life of the intimacies that have been formed between those who lived so long together and have so long been subject in varying degree to each other's influence.

We must remember, however, that there very often are except where (as often happens) there are definite reasons to the contrary reasons to the contrary. In many cases, for instance, the love or dependence fixations in an individual's mind are such that continued intimacy with the parents will seriously detract from that individual's capacity to make the best of life. Frequent meeting with the parents may sap his energy or deprive him of initiative and self-reliance in the manner we have studied: or again, it may cause serious interference with his love life, as where the constant arousal of the not wholly outgrown love impulses to father or mother may appreciably diminish the affection available for husband or wife respectively, thus producing an unhappy marriage. For similar reasons frequent meetings between brothers and sisters may often be disadvantageous. Still more clearly is it undesirable to continue family intimacies where not love but hatred is the predominant tendency aroused and fostered by these intimacies. In such cases it is evident hypocrisy for the parties concerned to meet more often than is absolutely necessary: the frequent stirring up of conscious or unconscious hatred can only cause unhappiness, unprofitable and dangerous mental conflict or deterioration of character; and the more that relatives who are unable to "get on" with one another keep apart, the better it will be for all concerned.

With these wide and sweeping reservations however, it would probably seem to accord best with psychological and sociological considerations if at any rate some moderate degree of connection be maintained between relatives, whom circumstances have not definitely set apart. Given freedom from all undesirable fixations (whether of hatred or of love), brothers and sisters have at least as good reasons for being permanently helpful and agreeable to one another as have friends who have been intimate with one another in the course of school, college, social or professional life. Still closer perhaps in some ways are the bonds that may permanently unite parents and children. The long period through which they have been bound to one another by ties that are biologically justifiable and necessary would seem to produce a psychological effect that inevitably tends to persist in some degree throughout the remainder of life. The relations of child to parent and of parent to child are so fundamental to all human existence and human intercourse, that most, if not all, of our mental life, in so far as it has reference to our fellow creatures, is to some extent reminiscent of them, or affected by them. We can never root out from our mind the tendencies connected with this most intimate and essential of human connections; and this being so, it would only be in accordance with the most fundamental promptings of our nature to permit a certain proportion of the energy involved in these tendencies to continue to flow in its original direction.

This is not to say however that the manifestations of this But the relations between parents and children must undergo profound modification as time passes energy will not undergo considerable alteration as time passes. As children grow up and parents grow older, the former increase, the latter decrease in natural strength and ability of mind and body. In course of time therefore the attitude which parents and children naturally and reasonably adopt towards each other must gradually change to suit the varying conditions. At first children are dependent on the guidance and protection of their parents, who must make the necessary efforts to help and rear their offspring. Later on this differentiated relationship should give place to one in which parents and children are on equal terms. Finally, the original relationships may become to some extent reversed and, if parents and children are still within reach of one another, the former may come to look to the latter for some return of that help and protection that they themselves had previously afforded.

In this last situation, we see a form of the relationship, The care of the aged by their children which appears to be peculiar to human society. Throughout the animal world and even in many primitive human communities there is no thought or care or tenderness devoted to old age. The increasing moralisation of human character (in which the relationship between parent and child has probably played a is culturally very desirable leading part) has brought it about that at least some degree of attention is given in all civilised societies to the needs—material and mental—of those who are no longer able fully to support themselves or to carry on their life without assistance. In any society in which the family is a permanent and firmly organised social unit, the duty of caring for the aged will naturally fall to some extent upon their children. This care of elderly, lonely or infirm parents by their children may perhaps legitimately be considered one of the most beautiful and touching expressions of specifically human morality—a point in which Man has definitely risen superior to the conditions of a brutal struggle for existence. As such it both deserves, and stands in need of, every encouragement and support which a developed and enlightened system of practical Ethics can afford.

It is not however free from certain ethical difficulties of its own. Thus, it might seem at first as though the care and though it has of necessity its limitations attention that a person of mature age may bestow upon his parents is but a just and reasonable return for the benefits which he himself received from these parents in his infancy and youth. Biologically however the cases are not similar. The care of parents for their young is necessary for the perpetuation of the race. The care bestowed upon the aged and infirm who are no longer able to provide adequately for themselves is of no direct value in the struggle for existence; it may even be a disadvantage in this struggle, a luxury that can only be afforded when the struggle is relaxed or when all competing individuals or races have adopted the practice. Further, from the point of view of the race, the real equivalent that is given in return for the benefits received from parents in early life lies in the corresponding benefits bestowed upon the next generation in its turn, and the double burden of maintaining and caring for both the young and the old may be definitely beyond the powers of many.

Fortunately, it but rarely happens, even at the extreme end of a long life, that the old are entirely dependent upon the care and efforts of others. In a civilised society they usually remain permanently able to provide for a considerable Satisfactory family conditions conduce to happiness in old age part of their immediate needs, and the sounder and more stable is their own and the general economic condition, the more is this the case. On the whole it is perhaps rather on the psychological than on the strictly economic side that they will be in need of assistance, and here it is that the principles that have emerged from the study of the facts and tendencies with which we have been concerned in this book may prove of use. In so far as family life is able to proceed and develop on the lines which a true morality based on sound psychological principles and an adequate psychological knowledge would seem to indicate as most desirable, it should be possible for the older members of the family to participate freely in the joys and satisfactions which they may still find within the family circle and to escape the danger of being excluded from these satisfactions, by the disappointments and misunderstandings, or by the unhappiness and bitterness that the faulty development of the family so frequently, and so disastrously, brings in its train. The old tend always to live to some extent vicariously: they find a great part of their interests and their pleasures in the contemplation of the doings of others who are younger than themselves: their own lives are projected into those of their children and their grandchildren, and by means of this projection they enjoy the most natural compensation for the decline of their own personal interests and capacities. If they have found this compensation, it may well be said that life's concluding chapter has shaped itself for them in a form as satisfactory as any which it is granted to human nature to enjoy.