When is a family like a cult?
What’s the difference between a family and a cult? Sometimes not much. If the definition of “family” includes chosen (non-blood-related) families, the main difference is that some families allow members to be out of compliance with the family code, while cults (and some families) don’t allow straying.
OK, I’m being provocative on purpose. But think about some common examples. What does the family do if a teenager doesn’t want to go on family outings? Do they force the kid to go? Cancel the outing and stay home? What about when a family member comes out, but the family’s faith says gay sex is sinful? Is that person rejected? How about when a family member holds political views opposed to the rest—does the family draw back, cut ties, ignore the difference? Or what if someone refuses to do their family chores? Does the family punish? Pick up the slack? Cases like these raise variations on the question, “To what extent should the family accommodate the individual, and to what extent should the individual accommodate the family?”
That abstract question won’t give clear guidance on what to do in any real-life situation, because addressing real-life dilemmas requires getting at the particulars: Is the teen who refuses outings depressed? Does the family have the skills to navigate clashing ideals on sexuality or politics? How about the will to do so? Is the person slacking on chores taking others’ labor for granted, or is the family too demanding? Families can’t resolve real-life dilemmas without digging into details like these. On the other hand, getting a broader perspective—especially by seeing what any given difficulty has in common with others—might help in taking some emotion or interpersonal friction out of working toward resolution.
Communities vs individuals
One perspective, then, is to observe that the individual-vs-family question also show up in political philosophy, in the form “To what extent should the community accommodate the individual, and to what extent should the individual accommodate the community?” Overall, “liberals” (liberal in the technical sense, which includes liberals-in-the-everyday-sense, libertarians, and traditional conservatives) are more likely to accommodate the individual. For example, in the US, our individual right to free speech has, usually (!), been considered more important than agreement with the prevailing political party or predominant religion. Non-liberal (in the technical sense) ideologies of various sorts (communitarianism, various religions) are more likely to accommodate their chosen community (town, country, congregation, etc.) than the individual. If the individual disagrees with, or has trouble living up to, the ideology or practices of the group, they need to reform, leave, or put up with being shunned.
I’ll call the two basic orientations “individualist” and “communal” (way oversimplifies, but in 1,000 words, what can you do?). A family with individualist orientations prioritizes individual choice over family tradition. On the extreme end, this orientation presents as a “go your own way” vibe, leaving little to hold the family together. Families with a communal bent prioritize family itself (the family being the community unit) and/or a community in which the family participates, like a worship community, family business, or small town. On the extreme end, someone who doesn’t follow the community rules is ostracized.
No sociology was done for this post, but I’m guessing most families are somewhere in the middle, with individualist and communal aspects, in various flavors and degrees. So, kind of like taking a personality test to get some insight into your own reactions, taking stock of which way your family leans can provide insight into interpersonal reactions. As a start, you might consider how your family would handle the situations in the examples. Your answers can give you a sense of whether your family tends to accommodate individuals or tends to require individuals to accommodate family.
For those of us in families with individualist and communal aspects, the answers may be complicated. Maybe your family is devoted to “keeping up appearances”—some set of communal expectations relevant to your circle and your ambitions. Yet if a child or grandchild opts out, you find it refreshing. Maybe your family focuses on individual achievement, but what you long for is gather-round-the-table family traditions. Because we’re not at the extremes, the freedom of individuality and the structure of community are in tension: The child who needs to assert his own will and to have boundaries. The family that welcomes difference and wants norms for guidance. The family that recognizes the pull toward distant opportunities or perspectives and desires cohesiveness.
Navigating the tensions
With all the complications, why do so many of us straddle the line? Short answer: there are risks and benefits on each side. On the individual side, we get the freedom to explore, cultivate our own interests, and move past parochial aspects of our communities of origin. But striking out on your own can be lonely, even rootless. On the community side, we get support, belonging, a sense of identity, and an ongoing sense that the community can be there for our descendants. But communities can be hidebound, mistaken, or broken, and they can restrict individuals in ways that break a person down rather than build them up.
Some grandparents have an individualist bent—maybe even at the “go your own way” extreme. Younger family members craving a more communal family experience may have to create the family community themselves, and invite the older generation in as makes sense for their situations.
Other grandparents (and I’m guessing most of my readers) are at least somewhat communal, representing and upholding family norms and tradition, and so may confront individual-vs-communal tensions in their own families. For example, maybe the extended family always vacations together, but this year a teen member wants to be with a friend instead. The cult-like reaction is to simply insist that the teen come along, enforced by some emotional or economic punishment for noncompliance. But cult-like reactions can be avoided by attending to the teen’s individual needs—perhaps it’s developmentally or emotionally important for her right now to claim some independence. At the same time, given the individual-vs-communal tension, individuals (and their support systems, like parents in the case of children) need to work out whether their actions and attitudes harm the family. Perhaps the family vacation is especially poignant this year due to an illness or death, so it would be worthwhile to convince the teen to grit her teeth and come along. With such reflection and willingness to adapt on both sides—admittedly tricky, because who/what changes when?—family members can reap both individual and communal benefits, and skip the cultish downsides.