Posted by
AJH on Friday, May 09, 2008 3:18:00 PM
In the United States, the interaction between parents and children is complex. Some are great, others not so much. Growing up girls and boys obviously need to be nurtured and encouraged, which doesn't always happen. Some are in hellish situations.
Because symbolic interactionism is a relatively recent American invention, using this method to interpret the relationships within families is useful in my opinion. It gives everyone the opportunity to gain insight into the human condition.
Of course, many of these instances will be anecdotal, but on the whole the cases should give some indication as to the state of the modern American family. Given the personal nature of the subject, objectivity will be difficult, but not necessary. Although many subjective meanings will be applied, this need not discount the information or any conclusions reached. Personally, without a background in sociology nor the time to study family dynamics, I will have to rely on what I know.
I believe there are in fact differences between the genders. This is often manifested in the games and toys boys and girls play and select. The fact that boys like guns and cowboys is evidence enough for me. My brothers and I did, from time to time, horse around with my sister's clothes, but we never had a problem with it, and I doubt my parents ever knew. At any rate, it did not have much meaning for us. We were just playing around. There were no underlying themes like sexual identity.
When a parent declares a gender-neutral stance, where boys are discouraged from playing with “weapons of war” and cross-dressing is commonplace, so much is taken away from the fun of childhood. Children, both boys and girls, are being used as pawns in some sort of social engineering, The sexes are not equal nor should they be. This is the essence of life. There are two parts to the equation, one not being better or more advanced, but definably different. I think that children (and even parents) are being used to advance a larger agenda of moral relativism.
In my own life, my relationships with my parents has often been strained. My father was a brute. Though not an alcoholic, he was physically and mentally abusive. To this day I still don't understand his anger. And I don't think there is any excuse for it.
For some reason my mother stayed by his side. I am of the opinion now that she should have divorced him and left, even if just to protect her children. Unfortunately we remained and were subjected to all sorts of abuse. My older brother bore the burnt of my father's fist for many years, which I think has affected him greatly. When he moved on and out of the house, I became the prime target of his wrath. At times it seemed as if he never wanted children and was punishing us for being a burden on him.
The entire affair is a complicated mess and I'd rather not go into all of the details. I am surprised no one was killed. I should have left and set out on my own. I don't quite know why I didn't. I guess I was a naïve kid, dependent on so many things. I was, in the interactionist view, pragmatic. I wish I had been more proactive.
The social life of our family is beyond dysfunctional, as my brother-in-law noted recently, comparing his family dynamics with ours. I am just beginning to come to terms with it.
I was always under an intense pressure to live up to an ideal standard of what it meant to be a man. I felt this even as a young boy. At points as a young man, I felt like a failure as if I had not lived up to my potential and had failed my parents. For many years I let them dominate my life and decisions, until I rebelled from their domineering control.
My father is what I call a moralist. He has certain standards that people must meet or he views them as not worthy of his respect. It's quite odd for a man who beat his children and wife, but somehow he has compartmentalized these opposing worlds. Often times this perspective ran into all sorts of problems because humans are far from perfect. It was particularly of note when it came to various pastors and churches. He held men up to standards that many could never meet, including his own sons.
I did what I could to adjust, just as a survival mechanism. In my head I would imaginatively rehearse various courses of action before doing anything. I remember during one fight that I threatened to hire a lawyer. I was all bluff though. Once I left and spent the night at a friend's house. After I explained the situation, he was gracious enough to let me sleep at his father's home. They had a large Doberman and I was fearful of most dogs, so initially I was very nervous. However, the dog seemed note to care that I was there and pretty much ignored me, which was good. I was too tired to care much at that point anyway.
Often times, the grand macro view of the social order just doesn't apply, becoming overly analytical and leaving behind the human story, to the detriment of everyone. Individuals and their stories are the keys to understanding society. Sociology should focus more on the person rather than the methodology.
I continually had to adjust my behavior to the actions of the other actors in my little play, particularly my father. My mother also was necessary to navigate because she sometimes mirrored or echoed my father to varying degrees. I don't know what I symbolized to them, perhaps the typical rebellious teenager. Before I was much of a rebel though, when I was young, this symbolism doesn't really fit. I was rather happy-go-lucky and quite submissive for a few years. In fact, this side of my personality manifests itself to this day, although more of the rebel ekes out with every day. It does get me into more trouble though.
For me there were a few stable norms and values in my life during this time. High school was a refuge and after it ended I did not know quite what to do with myself. At age 19 I was kicked out of the house and sent packing to a flat in Seattle with two roommates. Needless to say, I was unprepared. It was a rather cruel introduction to the real world. Change is inevitable and I learned a few things, though I am continually readjusting to situations.
The more time that passes, the more contempt I have for my parents. My parents really haven't done me any favors in life. I guess this might be described as bitterness, but I try to tone it down.
Because my views are tainted by my own life and experiences, I am probably not the best person to be writing on the role of parents and their children. I would like to note that kids are just great. They are mostly innocent and inquisitive. I consider myself still just a big kid. It is so important to me that children are protected from the stupidity of adults, whether criminal or not.
My sister has three boys now and I am glad she is being such a good mother. Of course, she is not perfect, but she and her husband are providing for them and loving them. My younger brother also has a son. Though his situation is less than ideal, he is a durable little fellow, and I wish him the best. No kid should have to experience the crap that so many sadly do. My four nephews are precious. Indeed, all children are. They are the future.
It's time for Americans to take a stand and confront the abuse, in so many ways, of children.
The dramaturgical view of this can be summed up by writing that all genres are well-represented in the symbolic interactionism model: tragedy, comedy, drama. Our roles may be more or less well scripted. I prefer to lend more credence to the improvisational character of life, the roles we take rather than the ones we are assigned.
Making the role I want to play is so much more freeing than merely taking the ones offered. This indicates free will and self-determination, which are very much part of my worldview. I wish that I could write more, but time and space constrain my efforts. Perhaps one of these days I will have a better understanding of all of this.