Are Families Dangerous - Literature review Example

?Your Full Your 6 March The Assumed Dangers of Kinship In her article “Are Families Dangerous?” BarbaraEhrenreich critically observes the apparently ideal unit: the family. She lists some of the ‘qualities’ associated with families and having a family and then provides reasons for doubting them. She describes the American society’s fascination with and love for family at the same time listing incidents that provide evidence pointing at a much darker side of family. According to Ehrenreich, recently, the media is abuzz with stories of domestic violence and gruesome crime, where all incidents are taking place within close family units. Cases of child abuse, assault and even murder have been reported between close relations: fathers, mothers, children and siblings are said to be involved. She means to say that perhaps the family as we know it has let us down; it is a failed institution. Despite the article being chilling to read and despite the incidents along with the evidence lending a shade of authenticity and truth to the point, I fail to relate to or adopt her point of view. In my opinion, just because a dysfunctional family’s meanderings catch the attention of the media does not necessarily mean that there is an automatic disintegration of family units everywhere. Simply put, not all families are dysfunctional. Not every single family is a “nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence” (Ehrenreich 37) as she writes in the opening paragraphs of the article. In the following paragraph, she attributes a family to be a “safe haven in a heartless world” (Ehrenreich 37) appearing to change her stance by saying that the family “nurtures warm, loving feelings, uncontaminated by greed or power hunger” (Ehrenreich 37). That she does not agree with the statements is given away by the fact that she makes use of the words “theoretically and sometimes actually” before stating them. She also gives examples of the Tonya Harding and O. J. Simpson cases to once again stress that families are not little havens of sunshine as people would like onlookers to believe. There is, she asserts, a darker side to families as well; and with assault, battery and murder being the worst outcomes and bruised egos and broken personalities being the least, she does present a very strong case against a unit that everyone from celebrities, to politicians, to the common man are in favor of. She does however miss the fundamental point that one cannot generalize or stereotype on the bases of individual incidents. What happens in one family does not reflect badly on another. One bad deed by one person (or in this case, some bad deeds committed by some people) does not condemn the whole human race. Just like it is wrong for a person to assert that all humanity is bent upon murdering, by pointing out to the killings and murders that are a part of our societal lives, similarly, her logic in this regard is flawed. Ehrenreich states that for a woman, home “is, statistically speaking, the most dangerous place to be” (Ehrenreich 37) and that an individual is in more danger with relatives than with strangers. She once again uses child abuse as a supporting point in her argument. Once again, she misses to see the point that for every individual who has been exposed to such torment, there are hundreds out there who have not and are safe and loved in their homes. Yes, according to her, we do “learn nasty things like hate and rage and shame” (Ehrenreich 37) from family. But also, in her own preceding words in the same paragraph, the “family teaches the finest things human beings can learn from one another – generosity and love” (Ehrenreich 37). And this is the side of the argument I would rather stick to. We do, indeed learn a lot of good things from our family and are often indebted to them for instilling in us the moral compass that we carry around, figuratively, with us. Ehrenreich then goes on to deal with the apparently hypocritical nature of the American society. She states that Americans place a great deal of stress on the value of family and the importance of family life. Yet, she says, there is a very large number of people who undergo therapy regularly to help with psychological inflicted at an early age by family members. She says that it is often said that we are all in recovery; from our families, she stresses. But people who live alone also have these problems. Individuals living outside of family units also need therapy for various psychological ailments. If family can give you these ailments, being part of a loving family can also keep you from contracting others. The sense of belonging can do wonders for the human psyche, boosting confidence and instilling a sense of responsibility in a human being. It would not be right to lay the blame at the door of the institution of family. Ehrenreich uses the words of Edmund Leach, a British anthropologist to add weight to her argument by stating that contrary to popular belief, the family is not a basis of a good and healthy society. Rather, it is the source of everything bad happening in the world, she adds. I do not see why everything good out there, all the generosity, compassion and love cannot be attributed to family values in the same way. In the author’s own, albeit reluctant, words, the world can thank the institution of family for teaching humanity its finest lessons, thereby she makes an admission, grudgingly, that the family institution has brought about goodness to the world, and that is what I believe in. For instance, the fact that I do not steal can be attributed to the fact that my family, specifically my parents, taught me the virtue of honesty. Ehrenreich concludes by saying that the world has seen the ‘truth’ behind families but needs to be more vocal in its concerns. Instead of treating or addressing the subject as taboo, societies, particularly the American society, need to be more outspoken when it comes to talking about what goes on in reality. I think that the author is misguided here: the media is full of such issues and incidents related to them. Stories such as the ones the author has used throughout her article are not classified information but are common knowledge. The reason why people do not get up and start asking to abolish the family system is because like me, they understand that individual incidents cannot be used to stereotype anything. When the acts of individuals or individual groups are used to prescribe treatments to entire ideas or ideologies, we end up suspecting everyone and giving rise to yet more discontent. In my opinion, this article could also have been written the other way round: how families are not dangerous. How families teach us to love and care and be responsible and generous. At the risk of sounding repetitive, not all families are dysfunctional and breeding grounds of hatred and malice. Great deeds have been done in the world for the love of kin and family. Love for family teaches us love for country and nation. Respect for the older members of our families teaches us to respect people in general and be good citizens of society. Despite being well planned out and well-written, the article in my opinion debates a flawed concept. Works Cited Ehrenreich, Barbara. “Are Families Dangerous?” Title of Your Book. Ed. Name of the Editor(s). Place of Publication given in the copyright section: Publisher’s Name, Year of Publication. 37-39. Print. Read More