The family and the clan, and later on the state, nation or church, assume the same function which the individual mother had originally for the child. -- Erich Fromm, page 39
Fromm's interest in the powerful psychological effects of individual psychology were really highlighted for me in Aeneas' story throughout The Aeneid. Aeneas' drive to visit his father in the Underworld and desire to embrace him showed his deep need for familial rootedness. In my opinion there was also a certain tension between this desire and his responsibility to establish a community in a new land. Ultimately he trudges ahead with his responsibility and creates rootedness at the community level, therefore looking beyond his personal desires and taking his people or society's future into account.
I appreciated the pairing of readings this week because they reminded me of the important linkages between personal identity as defined by familial history and political identity as defined by shared customs, values, and laws. In The Aeneid, the authority of the state depends heavily on Aeneas' family's energy and resources. He is an appropriate and good leader because of his heritage (e.g., his father's reputation) as well as his own valor and choices.
As we have seen throughout this semester's readings, we often define ourselves through our families -- in essence family ties are used as a language from which we learn values and customs. In this light it is only natural for us to look more deeply at the way we talk about our individual identities and our families in the past and present communications in order to understand our own human development.
I wonder about this connection personally--have we moved beyond these kinds of familial connections? I'll agree that it used to be that individuals were identified publicly with their families--so many people are explicitly named throughout history are identified by their families and specifically through their fathers.
ReplyDeleteI spent a lot of time this week, however, thinking about how I would feel if I was always identified in relation to my family. I'm not ashamed of them--far from it, I love and cherish both of my parents, my sisters, and my extended family--but at this point, I would much rather be able to define myself as an individual (and one supported by my family), but not defined by them. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether this allegiance to family is as strong publicly and culturally today--and whether that's a good thing or not?
Kate, I agree with your question and would go on to say that this allegiance to family (or desire for rootedness as we discussed in class) comes at a psychological level rather than a conscious one.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that our personal identities are heavily shaped by our family or those that surround us and instill in us an understanding of the world (although there's obviously more to us than that). At the same time I believe that the historical discourse of culture and values is heavily tied to the concept of "family" and I think it would be an interesting approach to assess discourse throughout the ages through this lens.
P.S. Full disclaimer: I edited my post after class to reflect a more complete set of ideas that I was struggling with when I published the original post earlier this afternoon. Sorry for the confusion!
It seems to me that Fromm's chapter is motivated in part by his recognition that modern individuals do not define themselves as much by family or clan as they once did, hence the urge to find that rootedness in other institutions. That seems to be the essence of the quote with which you began your post. If we are particularly susceptible to institutions and messages that provide what we once got from family - a sense of brotherhood and belonging, for example - then we are quite vulnerable to messages that tap into that need. This really made me start to notice how often familial rhetoric creeps into marketing and political speech.
ReplyDelete