I spent some time yesterday with a friend who came from an abusive childhood home. A decade later, she shared some of the quiet struggles she still has in recognizing and separating the negative influence of her mother from her own mental and emotional identity. Now in the process of raising her own children, my friend is often faced with this dilemma: With all the dysfunction during her formative years, how can she clearly separate what was good from what was psycho?
One of the difficulties with being raised in a dysfunctional household is that it shapes children's understanding of the world, and it serves as the benchmark for what behavior is considered normal and good. Unchecked, this behavior benchmark can perpetuate cycles of abuse as each successive generation of children unwittingly recreate the patterns, structures, roles and interactions from their dysfunctional past.
This is difficult even for people like my friend who recognize the problems in their past and want to change them. Being the product of a dysfunctional home makes it difficult to assess exactly where the crazy began and ended: in showing love, setting limits, spending money, developing romantic relationships, spending time together, the type and amount of entertainment pursued, the role of school and education, communication, diet, religious beliefs, safety measures, responsibility and chores... poor parenting may be reflected in some or all aspects of family life. Maybe my friend's mom put her to bed at a reasonable time, and monitored her entertainment appropriately, but she also pressured her into sexual activities early in life and sometimes used a butcher knife or scissors as her tools of discipline.. How could she possibly know which of these behaviors were "reasonable" and "appropriate" and which were abnormal and abusive?
To use a metaphor, growing up with abusive parents is like being served a daily lunch of sandwiches, apple slices, and monkey brains. As an adult, it may not be clear which part of the meal was the problem when she's kneeling over the toilet later, and experiencing the psychological effects of her experiences. How can she know what part of lunch was the problem, and how on earth is she going to decide what to serve her children?
This may seem like an obvious question to people raised in healthy homes - we may assume that people naturally know what is right and wrong. Most kids learn that hurting people is bad, and making people feel bad is bad - but we can all think of circumstances when it is acceptable for parents to do precisely the opposite: children are hurt when they get shots, or when they are spanked; children are given guilt trips; sometimes parents get angry and take away things that their kids want. These are all behaviors you see in high-functioning, loving households. How can children, with no other basis for comparison, expect to know when it goes too far? To continue the metaphor - to my friend's perspective, it could have been moldy bread or monkey brains, or maybe she just ate too much.
Fortunately, in my friend's case, her predicament has been helped by a wonderful husband, a competent therapist, and a degree in elementary education and early childhood development. She has used many professionals, other family members and friends as reference points to compare her mother's behavior and make adjustments in her own life. As a mother, she sets good limits, shows love, has reasonable expectations, and serves her kids PB&J sandwiches with apple slices and carrot sticks. When she is unsure about whether forcing her children to take piano lessons would be a good idea, she consults other healthy families and reads books in addition to referencing her own judgment. Her kids are beautiful, happy, healthy, and well-functioning members of their schools and community.
So, why the title of this article? The story of my friend and her dilemma actually parallels a larger problem that affects all of us together: Like an abused child, our society does not know what a good family looks like. Our national myths and even current debates swirl around mental pictures of the ideal we were raised with: farm families, 50's families, and sitcom families that are outdated, unrealistic, and unhealthy. Because of our flawed images, we also struggle to know what aspects of our childhood image of families are good and normal, and which are unhealthy and abnormal. These cultural images, and our common reactions to them, hinder our efforts to make and keep healthy marriages and families.
We have spent the last several decades desperately trying to fashion a functional, realistic, healthy, politically acceptable image of what the family should look like. We recognize the importance of families as the basic unit of society, and the impact of families on individual and societal outcomes has been demonstrated conclusively, affirmatively, and repeatedly. But what are we aiming for, exactly? What counts as a family? Who should work? Who should raise children? How many children should be had and when? How long should women breast feed? How involved should families be with extended family members? What kind of discipline is appropriate? How much should children watch TV? How prominent should religious education be? How often is it okay to leave your kids with other people? How much time should husbands and wives demand for hobbies and friends? How often should they have sex? Should boys and girls be treated or educated differently in any way? Should parents be okay with their teenagers/college students experimenting with sex or drugs? How soon? How can we balance the demands of equality with the different family roles? More importantly, how can we know that our individual answers to these questions are correct, or complete?
For Mormons, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" gives the Lord's opinion on some of these matters. There are general instructions on the role of family, the role of gender, the sanctity of sex, the rights of children, and the Lord's expectations of parents and spouses. These are enormously helpful guideposts for those of us who believe that they were revealed by a living prophet.
However, for Mormons and everyone else, we have all come from a society where our mental images of "the perfect family" are badly skewed. Even saying "the perfect family" may bring a picture to mind - maybe a family from the 1950's - and you may immediately start scoffing and poking holes in it. Sure, you may say, they're charming and healthy and stay together, but who can survive on one income these days? And why does the mom always have to wear a dress and do all the cooking? And who said it was ever a good idea to get married at 18?
Maybe your mental picture of "the perfect family" comes from another cultural nostalgic icon: the family farm. Many children's songs and books reinforce this idyllic setting - People working hard together, working with animals, being frugal and prepared and grateful and healthy - isn't that inspiring? But everything is so different now! With TV, Internet, Facebook, globalization, population growth, medical advances, political changes, education, industrialization - how can that farm possibly serve as the ideal for the modern American family?
Maybe your "perfect family" is one of the modern depictions of families from sitcoms. These tend to be reactionary in nature to the first two - women are empowered and working outside the home, belts are for wearing and not for discipline, families are more racially diverse - but these families fail in other ways. Women are burnt out, men are slobs, people divorce and cheat, kids experiment with sex and drugs... No, the perfect family is not the Beavers, but clearly it is not the Simpsons or the Osbournes either.
Because these concepts of family are so riddled with holes and obvious flaws (and our attempts to reach perfection inevitably fail), as a society we have come to a conclusion: there is no perfect family, we should stop trying to reach it. This bitterness is reflected in our resignation to politician and athlete infidelities, our love-hate relationship with happy endings and Disney Princesses, and increasing cultural emphasis on independence and individuality. Unfortunately, the result of that decision is that modern individuals and families have even fewer role models to help them in their efforts to form strong, healthy family relationships. To return to the metaphor - we are so sick of being fed monkey brains, we've decided we're never going to eat lunch again.
What's wrong with believing in and striving for an ideal family? Most arguments continue to dwell on the word "ideal" as referring to these false and unhealthy images we've created, and how the "ideal" family doesn't seem to let in biracial couples, or adoption, or remarriages. Easy solution: those images are clearly not ideal. So let's change what ideal actually looks like!
The other argument against the ideal family dwells on the personal guilt and shame that people face when they don't have an ideal family. Without diminishing the difficulty of their experience, I would argue that family ideals ultimately benefit everyone, especially those in bad family situations, and those who are teaching their children to make better choices. Ideals give us something to reach for, even if none of us ever fully reach it. Christians are used to this: Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect", even though He knew we couldn't do it. This is not a competition - we win prizes for every step we take in the right direction, regardless of how far we get or who gets there first. Lowering expectations does not encourage us or improve our families one bit.
In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Mormon writes about the importance of cleaving unto that which is good, and rejecting that which is evil. In doing so, he creates a standard by which we can judge the aspects of our family life:
Essentially, we must look through ALL our experiences and keep the good while rejecting the bad. Finding good elements in bad experiences can be a distasteful exercise. Do we really want to emulate the disciplined record-keeping of the Nazis? Do we want to uphold the judicial process that throws out critical evidence which is obtained illegally? Should we keep the delicious enchilada recipe from our racist grandmother? The answer should be a resounding YES. By splitting and analyzing our past experiences (both as individuals, and as a society) we can separate our overall experience with "lunch" into "apple slices" and "monkey brains", and use the Light of Christ to help us decipher which is good and which should be thrown out. We avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater - and in this case, the baby represents the good things from families in the past and present that we must keep and instill in families in the future.
We need to stop re-creating the mistakes of the past, stop living in complete reaction to them, and stop our bitter national diatribe against perfection so that we can actually see what our ideals look like and start aiming in the right direction.
Many individuals are lucky enough to have parents worthy of emulation. Many others are earnestly trying to build strong families by studying, praying, observing, discussing, and adapting. For all of us, the principles in the Family Proclamation and Moroni chapter 7 provide critical guidelines. The challenge remains, however, for society to re-create the image of the ideal family, combining ALL good things from the past and present in a form that is powerful enough to stick in the national mindset. Once we have identified and adopted the good things from the Brady Bunch, the Raymonds, and Little House On the Prairie, we can update these images with depictions of strong, healthy, yet realistic modern families for ourselves and our children to emulate. We will only strive for these types of families if we believe they're possible, and we'll only believe they're possible if we can see actual examples of them.
One of the difficulties with being raised in a dysfunctional household is that it shapes children's understanding of the world, and it serves as the benchmark for what behavior is considered normal and good. Unchecked, this behavior benchmark can perpetuate cycles of abuse as each successive generation of children unwittingly recreate the patterns, structures, roles and interactions from their dysfunctional past.
This is difficult even for people like my friend who recognize the problems in their past and want to change them. Being the product of a dysfunctional home makes it difficult to assess exactly where the crazy began and ended: in showing love, setting limits, spending money, developing romantic relationships, spending time together, the type and amount of entertainment pursued, the role of school and education, communication, diet, religious beliefs, safety measures, responsibility and chores... poor parenting may be reflected in some or all aspects of family life. Maybe my friend's mom put her to bed at a reasonable time, and monitored her entertainment appropriately, but she also pressured her into sexual activities early in life and sometimes used a butcher knife or scissors as her tools of discipline.. How could she possibly know which of these behaviors were "reasonable" and "appropriate" and which were abnormal and abusive?
To use a metaphor, growing up with abusive parents is like being served a daily lunch of sandwiches, apple slices, and monkey brains. As an adult, it may not be clear which part of the meal was the problem when she's kneeling over the toilet later, and experiencing the psychological effects of her experiences. How can she know what part of lunch was the problem, and how on earth is she going to decide what to serve her children?
This may seem like an obvious question to people raised in healthy homes - we may assume that people naturally know what is right and wrong. Most kids learn that hurting people is bad, and making people feel bad is bad - but we can all think of circumstances when it is acceptable for parents to do precisely the opposite: children are hurt when they get shots, or when they are spanked; children are given guilt trips; sometimes parents get angry and take away things that their kids want. These are all behaviors you see in high-functioning, loving households. How can children, with no other basis for comparison, expect to know when it goes too far? To continue the metaphor - to my friend's perspective, it could have been moldy bread or monkey brains, or maybe she just ate too much.
Fortunately, in my friend's case, her predicament has been helped by a wonderful husband, a competent therapist, and a degree in elementary education and early childhood development. She has used many professionals, other family members and friends as reference points to compare her mother's behavior and make adjustments in her own life. As a mother, she sets good limits, shows love, has reasonable expectations, and serves her kids PB&J sandwiches with apple slices and carrot sticks. When she is unsure about whether forcing her children to take piano lessons would be a good idea, she consults other healthy families and reads books in addition to referencing her own judgment. Her kids are beautiful, happy, healthy, and well-functioning members of their schools and community.
So, why the title of this article? The story of my friend and her dilemma actually parallels a larger problem that affects all of us together: Like an abused child, our society does not know what a good family looks like. Our national myths and even current debates swirl around mental pictures of the ideal we were raised with: farm families, 50's families, and sitcom families that are outdated, unrealistic, and unhealthy. Because of our flawed images, we also struggle to know what aspects of our childhood image of families are good and normal, and which are unhealthy and abnormal. These cultural images, and our common reactions to them, hinder our efforts to make and keep healthy marriages and families.
We have spent the last several decades desperately trying to fashion a functional, realistic, healthy, politically acceptable image of what the family should look like. We recognize the importance of families as the basic unit of society, and the impact of families on individual and societal outcomes has been demonstrated conclusively, affirmatively, and repeatedly. But what are we aiming for, exactly? What counts as a family? Who should work? Who should raise children? How many children should be had and when? How long should women breast feed? How involved should families be with extended family members? What kind of discipline is appropriate? How much should children watch TV? How prominent should religious education be? How often is it okay to leave your kids with other people? How much time should husbands and wives demand for hobbies and friends? How often should they have sex? Should boys and girls be treated or educated differently in any way? Should parents be okay with their teenagers/college students experimenting with sex or drugs? How soon? How can we balance the demands of equality with the different family roles? More importantly, how can we know that our individual answers to these questions are correct, or complete?
For Mormons, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" gives the Lord's opinion on some of these matters. There are general instructions on the role of family, the role of gender, the sanctity of sex, the rights of children, and the Lord's expectations of parents and spouses. These are enormously helpful guideposts for those of us who believe that they were revealed by a living prophet.
However, for Mormons and everyone else, we have all come from a society where our mental images of "the perfect family" are badly skewed. Even saying "the perfect family" may bring a picture to mind - maybe a family from the 1950's - and you may immediately start scoffing and poking holes in it. Sure, you may say, they're charming and healthy and stay together, but who can survive on one income these days? And why does the mom always have to wear a dress and do all the cooking? And who said it was ever a good idea to get married at 18?
Maybe your mental picture of "the perfect family" comes from another cultural nostalgic icon: the family farm. Many children's songs and books reinforce this idyllic setting - People working hard together, working with animals, being frugal and prepared and grateful and healthy - isn't that inspiring? But everything is so different now! With TV, Internet, Facebook, globalization, population growth, medical advances, political changes, education, industrialization - how can that farm possibly serve as the ideal for the modern American family?
Maybe your "perfect family" is one of the modern depictions of families from sitcoms. These tend to be reactionary in nature to the first two - women are empowered and working outside the home, belts are for wearing and not for discipline, families are more racially diverse - but these families fail in other ways. Women are burnt out, men are slobs, people divorce and cheat, kids experiment with sex and drugs... No, the perfect family is not the Beavers, but clearly it is not the Simpsons or the Osbournes either.
Because these concepts of family are so riddled with holes and obvious flaws (and our attempts to reach perfection inevitably fail), as a society we have come to a conclusion: there is no perfect family, we should stop trying to reach it. This bitterness is reflected in our resignation to politician and athlete infidelities, our love-hate relationship with happy endings and Disney Princesses, and increasing cultural emphasis on independence and individuality. Unfortunately, the result of that decision is that modern individuals and families have even fewer role models to help them in their efforts to form strong, healthy family relationships. To return to the metaphor - we are so sick of being fed monkey brains, we've decided we're never going to eat lunch again.
What's wrong with believing in and striving for an ideal family? Most arguments continue to dwell on the word "ideal" as referring to these false and unhealthy images we've created, and how the "ideal" family doesn't seem to let in biracial couples, or adoption, or remarriages. Easy solution: those images are clearly not ideal. So let's change what ideal actually looks like!
The other argument against the ideal family dwells on the personal guilt and shame that people face when they don't have an ideal family. Without diminishing the difficulty of their experience, I would argue that family ideals ultimately benefit everyone, especially those in bad family situations, and those who are teaching their children to make better choices. Ideals give us something to reach for, even if none of us ever fully reach it. Christians are used to this: Jesus said "Be ye therefore perfect", even though He knew we couldn't do it. This is not a competition - we win prizes for every step we take in the right direction, regardless of how far we get or who gets there first. Lowering expectations does not encourage us or improve our families one bit.
In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Mormon writes about the importance of cleaving unto that which is good, and rejecting that which is evil. In doing so, he creates a standard by which we can judge the aspects of our family life:
For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work...Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ [emphasis added] (Moroni 7:15-19).
Essentially, we must look through ALL our experiences and keep the good while rejecting the bad. Finding good elements in bad experiences can be a distasteful exercise. Do we really want to emulate the disciplined record-keeping of the Nazis? Do we want to uphold the judicial process that throws out critical evidence which is obtained illegally? Should we keep the delicious enchilada recipe from our racist grandmother? The answer should be a resounding YES. By splitting and analyzing our past experiences (both as individuals, and as a society) we can separate our overall experience with "lunch" into "apple slices" and "monkey brains", and use the Light of Christ to help us decipher which is good and which should be thrown out. We avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater - and in this case, the baby represents the good things from families in the past and present that we must keep and instill in families in the future.
We need to stop re-creating the mistakes of the past, stop living in complete reaction to them, and stop our bitter national diatribe against perfection so that we can actually see what our ideals look like and start aiming in the right direction.
Many individuals are lucky enough to have parents worthy of emulation. Many others are earnestly trying to build strong families by studying, praying, observing, discussing, and adapting. For all of us, the principles in the Family Proclamation and Moroni chapter 7 provide critical guidelines. The challenge remains, however, for society to re-create the image of the ideal family, combining ALL good things from the past and present in a form that is powerful enough to stick in the national mindset. Once we have identified and adopted the good things from the Brady Bunch, the Raymonds, and Little House On the Prairie, we can update these images with depictions of strong, healthy, yet realistic modern families for ourselves and our children to emulate. We will only strive for these types of families if we believe they're possible, and we'll only believe they're possible if we can see actual examples of them.
