Parenting - A Responsibility or a Right?

Recently a lot of my work has been with a family system, so not just an individual or a married couple, but other dyad's and triads in the family . I do enjoy working with families it brings about a difference in my work and change in the family system that takes longer to do in individual work. 

Family therapy implies where the entire primary family is looked at instead of an individual. The premise is that the family is a system made up of parts of a problem with one of the parts (members), implying change and/or difficulties that impact one member of the family system will impact the others.

Ivan Boszormeyi-Nagy was a Hungarian-American psychologist, he hypothesised that problems in a family arose from the imbalance due to a lack of fairness. Fairness is based on a genuine understating of the others perspective and taking ownership for ones behaviour.  For example, If one family believes that their daughter should live in the same city as they do but their daughter's husband wants to move away, there will be a conflict in the marriage. The daughter might believe if she moves away from her parents she would be in debt to them or disloyal to the family. Her guilt at leaving could cause her to believe she has to do extra things for her parents in order to repay the debt. According to Nagy, she would need to understand why she thought she had a debt to repay, and would need permission or support in accepting rules and obligations that she wanted to keep and to let go of the rest. Of course this is true for son's too. 

This premise I feel is crucial in our cultural context, parenting is often based on a reciprocal debt from the children towards the parents. I wonder if this comes form parenting being less of a choice that people make and more out of marriage being a social construct for procreation and the biological limitations of the longevity of a woman's eggs. 

I have conversations with so many eager to be mothers and fathers who are excited about being parents and somewhere the idea of parenting is linked into the the kind of person they would want their unfertilised egg to be. Now I am not saying having an idea is incorrect but its based on the parents idea and not on really who this child is, what their strengths are, or what they are inclined towards. I wonder if it's also this belief that contributes to the debt system that Nagy refers to. The other day I had a conversation with a friend who insisted she was going to have her children before 35 with or without a partner, again to me this underlines the immaturity of parenting that seems to be rampant, its about the parents need to be a parent not the child. I am not discrediting single mothers or fathers, but ask them if they would prefer a partner to do this with and in some shape or form I am sure they would. 

When a family with young children comes to therapy there is so much anger and resentment towards this child/teenager for not fitting into the idea of who they hoped the child to be. "She/he is so ungrateful for everything we have done" or "He/she doesn't understand this doesn't happen in our family" is something one gets to hear often. Over time I have learnt to hear this as a plea for help to understand their child who feels like a stranger. Parents have invested their energies and hopes into this child and low and behold this child actually has a mind of their own, to the credit of these parents, but still a mind of their own.

From infancy there are subtle messages the child gets about forwarding the sense of self of the family, dressing up in a particular way, religious beliefs, family rituals. Not that any of these aren't important they are crucial in setting up a secure base for a child. Somehow in this process though the debt factor as Nagy describes it starts to kick in. Somewhere the messages of "have a child its good for you to stay busy" "who will take care of you when you're older" start creeping in. Parenting which is meant to be about raising secure, independent and thinking individuals becomes about raising the best representative of the parent or the a way for the parent to feel secure. Parents start to determine the kind of friends their children should have based on who the parents think they can be friends with or not, or who fits into their social class or not. Sure a parent is meant to influence a child's choice, but isn't it meant to be about helping them make choices, allowing them to make mistakes and figuring out what's the best for the child, irrespective how the parent feels about it? Ya sure lets not be radical am not saying allow your child to be an unproductive part of society, but am questioning shouldn't their productivity be about them?   

A child experimenting with drugs, alcohol, with romantic/sexual relationships, all of these are worrying for parents as they should be but its an expected trajectory for teenagers. I am not sure I fully comprehend why parents feel a testing of these boundaries is a let down of some cloud of trust and sensibility they have created with their child. Adolescents are at their risk taking best. Challenging a system helps a system grow and not be stuck. Its almost expected that if a parent has given everything to this child in terms of being a provider the child must return this favour by being the perfect child. There is also a sense of if a parent has 'given' so much to their child somehow parenting can begin when the child is almost pre-pubescent, where as parenting on boundaries and rules needs to start from the get go. Parents cant choose to be parents when it suits them, its 24 x 7 from the get go till the child is a secure adult.

I am not sure how many parents recognise at the time of deciding to become parents (because hindsight is 20 20) that parenting's biggest challenge is being nurturing while allowing the child to develop a sense of themselves. Children do not ask to be born, parents choose to have them and then somehow make children feel guilty about all they have done for them if the child has not followed their pre-destined pathway. 

In the UK legally children have rights and parents have responsibilities. A parents responsibility is to provide a home, protect and maintain the child. This allows children to grow up to be productive, healthy adults who contribute to society. It talks about 'general' guidance as opposed to determining the course of your child. 

Also as parents its only natural to want to be around your children, especially as they become adults whom you can relate to more, however the belief that children should in their adult life make parents their priority doesn't really allow the younger generation to make themselves a priority. Do parents really want a relationship maligned with obligation? We get so lost in the 'have to' rather than the 'want'. Don't we see this play out when a married son wants to move out of his parental home? or when a young adult of a business family wants to be an artist? Or when a young adult decides to dress emo? (or are we back to saying goth? Who can keep up these days)  What makes parents who otherwise seem like perfectly open minded people become so tunnel visioned about their children?

There is a lot of value in the Indian family cultural system but I feel we all really need to examine the idea of the debt of parenting that I feel underpins our family system.  

A Gendered Conversation

In the work that I do I see a lot of couples. Over the last year and a half that I have been working with couples in the Indian cultural context I am becoming more and more aware of family structure and dynamics in our context. Yes of course we all know that our culture promotes family harmony, respect for elders, 'bonding' and lasting relationships but I am beginning to wonder at what cost? I have found myself having outrages thoughts when thinking about couple client, one of these outrages thoughts is that Indian families are codependent and the dynamics of a family are geared towards keeping the next generation from developing their own unit.

Yes I am generalizing here and aware that most relationships around me aren't codependent but I continue to believe that those are not the majority and I am of course talking about heterosexual couples, as I don't think culturally we acknowledge intact homosexual relationships to make generalized statements about the family dynamics in that system. 

Many family therapists and psychodynamic therapists have talked about the need to differentiate from one's family of origin. A mistake one can make is interpret differentiation as being cut off. Murray Bowen theory on family systems suggests that differentiation is described as the capacity of individuals to function autonomously by making self directed choices, while remaining emotionally connected to members of the family of origin. He also talks about emotional fusion in family systems which can be described as a sense of intense responsibility for another's reaction or by emotional cut off from the tension in a relationship. He also suggests that the greater a family's tendency to fuse the less flexibility it will have to adapt to stress. 

So if we look at what stress means in the context of the work I do I guess it means when the couple decide either to separate, or seek outside support to help them navigate their rules and roles, or when one couple member gets described as being 'unwell' or 'not coping' or 'not adjusting'. 

I have to say this word 'adjustment' absolutely infuriates me. Marriages are about acceptance and change, yes I can see that, adjustment to me implies not questioning the rules of a system, and often in our culture is imposed on the woman as not adjusting enough. Mostly women are raised to know they will not be living with their families forever that they will have to live with and adapt to rules of another family. Isn't it paradoxical that we raise our girls to become individuals or differentiate from the family of origin only to fuse with another family? I think this message is contradictory. Most men in our culture are raised to be leaders of their family system, but leaders that must follow the rules set by their family of origin. Again that is just confusing to me, leaders who aren't allowed to be seen as challenging or changing a system.

We often hear you marry a persons family when you marry them. If you examine this what does this mean really. Do we actually marry the members of a family or do we marry a person who is informed by their family's belief system and hopefully has been able to adapt them to what works for him or her. Do we even have a choice if we are marrying the people or the belief system? In our culture most couples aren't encouraged to form their independent, differentiated way of working, part of that maybe because most married couples do live with or depend on their family of origin. 

A comment I often hear from couples is "this is not how we do it in my family" or "this is the way my family does it", I think by not differentiating we are encouraging couples to draw their family of origin into a battle of defining themselves which really should be negotiating their own dynamics. Men who do move out of the their family of origin home often feel this is the biggest and only change they need to make in a marriage, what they maybe missing is how moving out is merely a physical distance however emotionally they remain fused and entangled, sometimes the fusing increases as a reaction to the pull for differentiation. 

I am starting to feel/think that as families we can do more harm than good by not encouraging differentiation, we confuse love with respect. Love is fusion, as a baby you belong to your parents you are an extension of them. Respect is you are your own person, free to make your own choices and live by rules that you find fit for you. 

No I am not encouraging an anti-establishment, detached way of being, but a choice in how we want to think and how we want to be. There needs to be some ownership and encouragement given to men and women in our culture to define what a family means to them, what kind of relationship they would want for themselves with their family or origin and their family of marriage, they aren't one and the same and they aren't mutually exclusive. 

"The freeing of an individual, as he grows up, from the authority of his parents is one of the most necessary though one of the most painful results brought about by the course of his development. It is quite essential that that liberation should occur and it may be presumed that it has been to some extent achieved by everyone who has reached a normal state. Indeed, the whole progress of society rests upon the opposition between successive generations. On the other hand, there is a class of neurotics whose condition is recognizably determined by their having failed in this task.” - Sigmund Freud

Relationships and Me

People define personalities in different ways. Some psychologists/psychotherapists have defined it as something innate or as we define them by traits. Pioneered by Freud the analysts defined personality as an interplay between the conscious and unconscious. Bowlby and others defined personality as being formed in the early years of ones development linked to ones consistency, security, safety (attachment) with caregivers. Behaviorists define personality by observable behaviours.

So true to systemic thinking I would consider all factors when considering personality and believe looking at personality through one lens is almost impossible if not a shame. However I guess I am most drawn to John Byng-Hall's theories of Family Scripts when thinking of relationship dynamics and hence personality. Scripts imply a plot or a meaning given to interaction. This meaning maybe layered by trans-genertational issues or roles as defined by family interactions and needs. This also implies that everyone plays a role or has a scene to act depending on the relationship. If you stretch this idea it means that our personalities change from relationship to relationship or interaction to interaction. Plainly we are different with different people.

Over time I have realised that its not just that I am different with different people but different personalities evoke different responses in me, family therapists call this self-reflexivity and also relational reflexivity. The ability to reflect about the self and process in the context of dynamics. I think an occupational hazard is that now when anything about someone's interactions with me irks me I feel myself drawn into a reflexive position. I know this must sound tiring but its become so automatic to me that I sometimes don't know I am doing this. What it has helped me to do is see the situation from a third perspective and try to see why this relationship is evoking a certain response in me.

In my previous blog I talked about being a people pleaser. Often when I feel irked, as I say, in my relationships its because of this very deep set belief that gets triggered off. So I guess at times I am able to deal with this feeling and other times I am not. Returning to India I am finding more of the latter. I think this is because in many ways being away people were able to get to know me without my history of relationships. Get to know me for who I have become rather than assume based on what has been. I know I am making it out to be that I don't have supportive relationships or had a disastrous past but it isn't like that all, I am just figuring out a new dynamic for myself and those around me without imbalancing my internal and external system.

What is familiar is safe that is true for how I am viewed and how I view others. I find some people around me or I should say my relationship with some people around me, completely different from how I remember them to be and that 'irks' me. So I guess that is what prompted this writing.

I also have to remind myself that while most of the relationships I refer to are in the same age range as me age is only a commonality biologically not chronologically. So we aren't all at the same stage when it comes to lifecycle experiences and I am not just referring to parenting. Our experiences past and present both define us and our journey for the future.

I look forward to what else 'irks' me in this journey and how this defines my script or dynamic in my relationships.

Transitions

I have just moved back from Dubai and it was our decision to move back. My husband's and mine. So when I say that I mean the recession hit Dubai and loads of people were laid off, fortunately neither of us were laid off in fact we were both at great places in our careers if success is to be measured by earning capacity and peer respect. We spent 4 years in Dubai before which I spent just over 2 years in London, doing my Masters in Family Therapy. My husband worked in Dubai for 9 years in retail electronics and has moved to Delhi with the same company. My husband, Vijit, was also in the US for 3 years before that. 


The above factual boring stuff was important to give the reader a sense of how long we have been away and thus removed from the nuances of Delhi life. Being away had the usual disadvantages  of missing our friends, family, milestones in their lives, milestones in our lives etc. The advantage was the kind of time Vijit and I got to ourselves and what thats done for how we know each other and appreciate each other. 


Our moving back was much more difficult than I anticipated. The people I met in Dubai pleasantly surprised me and I believe I have formed some relationships that will last a life time. I dont know if this thought will remain a reality down the years but I really would want it to. I also think this is what makes me defend my experience in Dubai when people call it shallow or superficial. Don't get me wrong, I have not just seen but experienced the superficial, racist and prejudicial side of Dubai, but I cant help but looking back at the 4 years I spent there and feel fortunate for the experiences I have had!  The other day a friend of mine in Delhi said you seem to be a in such a good place in your life and I am and I feel I owe that so much to my experience in Dubai. 


So having been here a month now life seems to have gotten into some sort of routine. Work has kicked off and people and us have gotten used to us being rooted here again and not just visitors. We have been very lucky to have a set of family and friends willing to welcome us back and actively include us in their lives. I am grateful for all these old relationships which I have to say I definitely don't take for granted ( I am also sure if I do I would be told off fairly quickly). 


People have asked "So is the traffic getting to you?" "Are you regretting it?" and honestly I can say none of this is getting to me. I am truly happy to be back in my life in Delhi. In Delhi again I am fortunate not to have friends too affected by the recent economic boom experienced by India. 


The one thing I am struggling to get used to again are the social nuances of Delhi. The biggest disadvantage or advantage (I guess which way you look at it) about having lived away for so long is that I have or we have decided our own rules as long as it fits within the larger sociological norms of the culture(Dubai) and sub culture(Expat life) we were in. 
I am not convinced that even within my caring and real relationships here Delhi is any less superficial and judgmental than Dubai, albeit about different things but are they comparable?


There are layers of power dynamics within relationships here that sometimes its hard to just be you, or define your relationships exactly the way you want them to be. (My sister would disagree, but she has been fortunate to live by her own rules that govern social dynamics)  Its been really hard because my friends who know me to conform to all sorts of norms think that I am being 'weird' ( I had a weird phase in my life) and I am taking my cue from them because I am getting reacquainted with "what people expect". So some relationships here seem a bit forged, because there are so many "have to's" so many "cannot's". I think Delhi can trigger of insecurities so easily because it can make you questions who really loves you for you and who is complying with social norms. 


Unfortunately for me my relationships are defined by people I can talk to and people who can talk to me, over the last 7 years( and actually always) I haven't had relationships which don't contribute to me as an individual. The personal time I have had with my friends and family I cherish so much but the 'real' conversations are so far and in between because there is always some over riding social dynamic that we all are trying to cope with. 


I still have no regrets about moving back, all the above is just a reflection of my own personal journey from a person who has been desperate to please to someone very content with who I am, I wonder what being back will do to this very comfortable sense of self I have developed. Or maybe as one of my friends keeps telling me I will "Stop over thinking this"