Do We Have Inalienable Responsibilities to One Another?
I have a confession to make. I am an avid reader of personal advice columns. When I read those published generations ago, I feel that they provide a great insight what life was really like in those days--and what the prevailing norms were regarding what was considered right and wrong. Contemporary advice, by the likes of Carolyn Hax and Jeanne Phillips ("Dear Abby"), provide similar sociological fodder. In addition, they allow me to play a little game. I first read the question and ask myself what I would counsel, and only then read the advice the columnist gives. I am often stymied. The advice columnists "solve" most difficult problems by sending the reader to see a shrink.
Anyhow, I was reading the Carolyn Hax column the other day. A woman wrote that she was asked by her sister to serve as the guardian for her sister's kids in the event of her and her husband's death. The woman refused on the grounds that she and her husband did not want any children of their own, but she was troubled by the rift her refusal caused in her relationship with her sister.
Carolyn Hax took my breath away when she pronounced that responsibility for children lies with the parents, and that extended family are under no obligation to accept this responsibility for themselves. (She did, however, note that this is not the case in many cultures, but asked if, even in these cultures, it would be in a child's best interest for a guardian to accept the responsibility only because of societal pressure.)
She added that the sister who refused to be the guardian had her reasons for making the choice, even if they were reasons others may deem selfish, and the sister with the children should accept that choice. She also rejects the notion that only option is that family takes responsibility or the children go to foster care, as guardians do not have to be family.
As I see it, family bonds do lay obligations on the members for the good of one another. We are not--to our siblings, parents, children--like causal acquaintances, and even friends have some obligations to their friends. Indeed, the very essence of the family is that its members do things for one another they feel they ought to do, even if they do not enjoy them. True, agreeing to take in someone's children is a very big commitment, but it typically merely entails providing a peace of mind for the parent. If death does strike, it does call for heroic measures, for the sake of the children.
In my view, even if the refusing sister is so hostile to children that she truly cannot take care of them, she still should accept the guardianship, with the understanding that she will make other arrangements for the children and ensure that these work better for the kids than her home. Family is more than chicken soup. I would love to hear what others think, would do, or have done.
**I will respond to the comments of those persons who are willing to identify themselves, because I hold this essential for a civilized dialogue.
Amitai Etzioni is a professor of sociology at The George Washington University. For more discussion, see Security First (Yale 2007). For more, go here: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst.html. He can be reached at icps@gwu.edu
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Family is obligation. By refusing that obligation, the sister was the one that created the rift. Her sister had to realize she would do better trusting a stranger than to trust her own sister. That's not family.
A girl I knew in college told me a story about a night when there had been a huge fire at a convention center and her parents were feared dead. Her aunts and uncles had divided up the siblings between them by the time her parents got home. They were absolutely livid that the children had been split up after having presumably just lost their parents. The aunts and uncles had torn away what little stability the kids were going to have left.
As to the question: "Do We Have Inalienable Responsibilities to One Another?" Yes, people that don't feel that (not think that mind you), are called sociopaths.
I don't want children. Not at all. Neither does my husband. We are not selfish, self-centered, or going to change our minds. We are just completely uninterested.
If my brother had children, I would be thrilled for him because he was happily honoring his life choices. I would expect the same respect from him in regards to my life choices and would never expect him to ask me to do this.
That being said, if there was literally NO ONE who could take his children, I would take them before EVER putting them in foster care. But...I would expect him to ask every single other appropriate person before me.
Finally, suggesting as the author does, that you should accept the children and then fined other arrangements for them is appalling. I would not lie to my brother about where his children will be after he is gone and substitute my judgement for his.
Family represents a level of intimacy unique to each of us; physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. If that intimacy is lacking in any of these areas, then the familial connection begins to lose its uniqueness. If the intimacy is sufficiently strong in all these areas, then it's a question of everyone's inalienable rights (to life and to freedom to act, both without violating anyone else's selfsame rights). If these rights have been preserved between all members of the family (who share the above mentioned intimacies), then I would say yes, family members under these specific circumstances (which I would consider to be "normal") have responsibilities to each other that are inescapable, or as you put it, inalienable.
Now, if a family member feels unable, in good faith, to live up to those responsibilities (toward communication, security, guidance, companionship, etc.--that familial intimacy without violation of anyone's rights), that family member should either seek help or guidance to be able to do so, or accept that he/she is not really a member of that family anymore. As long as the two conditions, of intimacy and inalienable rights, are met, the responsibility remains inalienable from the family member.
What interests me the most is that the woman writing to you is troubled by the rift her refusal caused in her relationship with her sister. I will not judge her turning down the guardianship, that is between her and her conscious, however she has to be mature enough to understand that her sister whom she turned down is going to have big feelings about this. The sister with the children has a right to feel whatever she feels: betrayal, anger, etc. and the letter writer needs to respect this and not try to change her sister's feelings.
Yes, I believe that love requires responsibility, and there can be no real love without that responsibility, otherwise it's only a word.
Consequently, people take responsibility according to the depth of their love. On one end we have Buddha, Gandi, Jesus, Mahavira, and on the other... well I'm sure you have many examples of your own.
We don't know what prompted the woman to decline--she may believe that her husband would become abusive, she may fear that she would become abusive, she may have other worries or difficulties of which we know nothing. Her refusal may well have been an act of both courage and love.
Those of us that are happily childfree are not covering up for severe problems in our marriages. We just don't want kids. They don't look like any fun at all. Please stop "helping" us by making up these excuses!
Family is a bit more complicated than chicken soup. I am the youngest of six children and the only one with children. We were raised in a home where the web of abuse and addiction was pervasive. I am the only one who has sought out counseling, one of two who has sought recovery through 12 step programs, and I now speak a very different language than my parents and siblings.
If something happened to me or my husband, we would not want my family to be primary caretakers for them. As it is, we limit the interactions we have with them. That, of course, makes me the "unhealthy" one in my families eyes.
Sometimes, when the blood that is thicker than water is actually blood that can choke you, water becomes a very good substitute. We have friends named as guardians to our children in our will, and I am confident that would provide my children the best support for a good outcome if something were to happen to their parents.
Angela
I love etiquette colums which I think often show a great style and ethical balance for today's world.
Yes, of course family is more than chicken soup. But I assume that wasn't really the question you were raising.
In my opinion, the point is that a more fundamental principle trumps family ties here, by all accounts: a child should never (ever) be given to someone who explicitly has made up his or her mind that children do not fit into their lives or time-schedules. And it doesn't matter at all what we think of such a mindset. It is entirely irrelevant whether we find it sad or discouraging that someone makes such decisions about their happiness.
The point is that you cannot force people into wanting to raise children. As simple as that.
And just to top it off - at the risk of alienating some of those who responded here:
of course such children would be much better off if they were raised by a gay or lesbian couple seeking children to adopt. In particular since these would be children who could be asked before a decision is made, since they already have a reasonable age.
Very obviously, an even more fundamental principle is that children should never be forced against their will into a particular foster family. But that's clear.
Personally, I agree with GidiE, I feel it is chilling that someone would refuse to care for a sibling's offspring. It smacks of the self-centeredness that causes so many ills in our society. Should one of my siblings ask me to be their children's guardian, I would accept the responsibility regardless if my house was too small, my full-time job put in jeapardy, or my personal decisions related to child bearing compromised. These are children who, without my, would have only strangers to turn to, people who know nothing of their histories or parental wishes. The commenter who said the children are better off in foster care has a definite right to his/her opinion, however I would recommend looking into statistics of abuse and neglect with foster families before passing off what is a family responsibility to a stranger. The rush to move away from religion and morality in our society so that we can all do what feels good has pulled our families and their importance apart. You see the government struggling to care for the most needy portions of our society when it is not government's responsibility to care for the needy, rather it is the responsibility of that person's family and community to rally together to do the right thing, even if it is hard or comes with disadvantages. My grandfather used to say that if the work is hard, you're probably doing the right thing.
Yes we ARE our Brother's/
When will we see that we're all in this together, and what injures one, injures the rest of us?
Family comes first, hard work is it's own reward and doing the right thing is not a choice but our duty. This women's decision to not want any part of taking responsibility for the children is a little poignant. People need to accept the fact that life will be full of adversity. There is honour with doing the right things in life to the benefit of others. There is no greater satisfaction. Some people need a change of heart and need to realize that life isn't all about them. This women should be willing to at least find some solution for the children. Throwing your hands up and saying I give up or no is unacceptable. Loving and caring for those who need it is the most rational thing anybody can do in this world. The rest is a mere illusion, trinkets designed to distact us from the fact that we are wasting our lives away.
If something were to happen to my sister or my sisters-in-law or my cousins or my friends and I was the one asked to take the children, not only would I immediately consent, I would be highly honored. Trusting someone else to raise your children is not an easy thing to do, so being asked implies that the person asking considers you to be a strong role model and one who will raise children with that person's memory and wishes in mind; one who will do right by her kids.
Our families (parents, siblings, friends) give us love and support as we grow up and through adulthood. Don't their children deserve the same?
Yes it may take a huge rearrangement of our lives, schedules, and finances, but the benefits stretch down through generations.
Sometimes it is simply impossible. I read that column, and I was grateful to Carolyn Hax for understanding that. Suppose it were my sister who asked me to be guardian of her children should she and her husband both die. I'd have to say the exact same thing: no, I cannot. I never wanted children in the first place, but beyond that, I cannot afford to stop working full-time. No one is home during the day to care for the children. I have no spouse, supportive or otherwise. I do own a house, yes, but it is so small that with children, it would look like the stateroom scene in a Marx Brothers movie. And I certainly cannot afford to hire a staff. For me to take in children, even if they are family, would be a terrible mistake.
The bottom line would be that those children would be better off in foster care.
Hmm, foster care? Where children are sexually and emotionally abused and grow up to be dispassionate about caring for anyone? The only way to prevent this kind of cultural genocide is to step up to the plate, stop being selfish and do what must be done. In other cultures it is common for extended families to live near each other and care for each other. They don't shuttle their aged to nursing homes or their relative's children off to the orphanage. No wonder our nation is going the way of Rome when it fell!
I find the woman's decision and especially the Carolyn Hax response chilling. This story shows an absence of what I find basic family solidarity and mutual responsibility - and indeed a simple lack of compassion.
It has of course always been the case that there are many persons who are not prepared to assume any burden not directly and obviously beneficial to them.
However, what makes this case especially chilling Ms Hax publicly backing up the woman's choice. Apparently Ms Hax thinks this is an acceptable norm... How alienated can our society get?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
