The double bind of happy families

The most common illusion is that we all come from "happy families". This is a clever creation, as it considerably lessens the chances that the shortcomings that exist in each family will be voiced. Obviously, the extent of light and darkness is on a continuum from low to very high and varies from one family to another. Breaking the silence on the reality that family life is a mixed bag of joyful and neglectful experiences is not easy. The dangers are: aggressive or silent reactions; accusations of betrayal; outright rejection; violence; breaking off contact; labelling you as mad, bad or sad; and a concerted effort by others in the family to maintain the illusion.

There is no doubt that everyone wants to belong to a family, to a partner, to a group and to the workplace. However, individuals are frequently disappointed and traumatised because of an "over-belonging" or an "under-belonging" or total neglect. The over-belonging family is where little separateness is allowed and the parent(s) lives his or her life through the children. It is very difficult to escape the stranglehold of overcaring, as you can appear ungrateful. The refrain "after all I've done for you" haunts your bid for freedom. It would appear safer to develop the illusion that "my parent is so wonderfully giving of herself and I'm so grateful to have her as a parent". However, not breaking the silence on the parent's neglect of her own personal development and unhealthy enmeshment with her children, is where real betrayal lies, as both parent and children remain imprisoned in this family's conditional world. Both the parent and children deserve the opportunity to be separate from each other, to realise their own individuality, difference and giftedness and to respond to need for unconditional love.

The under-belonging family has the parent architect who subconsciously projects that the children and partner are there for him (or her) and that therefore they must live life according to his ways, values, wishes and expectations.

This is the dominant parent who overpowers through a torrent of shoulds, should nots, have to's and ought to's. Here, children dare not assert themselves differently. As for over-belonging, the relationship is conditional and demands conformity to the dominant will of the parents. The consequences are a darkening of the unique presence of each child, a disrespect for individuality, difference and the right to discover one's own unique way of experiencing life. Children who acquiesce hide their true selves, while those who rebel attempt to counter-control, but do not achieve separateness and independence. The illusion that "my parent has my best interests at heart" needs to be broken, as much for the oppressed children as for the parent who behaves narcissistically. It is an act of love to confront this untenable situation and an act of neglect to stay silent. In a family where total neglect exists, neither the person nor behaviour of children merit any love or recognition. This is the darkest place to be. The defensive image these children present to the world may be of apathy, depression, alcohol or drug addiction, violence, delinquency and total irresponsibility. They have had no models for loving self and others and they remain invisible to self and others until some patient hand is extended to help them come into their special presence. Remaining silent about such gross neglect weighs heavily on the culture of our society up to and including the 1980s, but, thankfully, the voices of those neglected are being heard and listened to more and more.

Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Travelled, advises that "children need to be given over to life and not to parents". There is wisdom in this, but parents themselves require a strong possession of their own interior life before they have the solid ground from which to love and support their children's expression of their unique presence. When parents bring the emotional baggage of not belonging to themselves into their relationship with each other and their children, they are not ready for the provision of unconditional love and the recognition of their children's uniqueness. Parents cannot give children what they have not got themselves. Indeed, parents can only bring their children to the same level of realisation of self and others they have reached themselves. For that reason parents, who are the architects of the family culture, have a duty to examine their own internal architecture and ensure that its foundations are solid and its building expansive, creative and inspiring. Social agencies have the responsibility to create the opportunities for potential parents and those who are already parents to learn to parent themselves before they take on or continue the parenting of children.

Dr Tony Humphreys is a consultant clinical psychologist and author of The Family: Love It And Leave It