family blackmail

[johnnyleston]

i was griping to my good friend in my undergraduate department yesterday about my application woes, and she pointed out that it could be worse. she recollected a story of a student similar to myself, someone passionate about theory and a certain weird little slice of 20th century literature, who was unanimously rejected her first attempt, but was widely accepted her second round. but by that point, the student had a child with a person who owned a house, and they were not in any position to travel to take advantage of the great opportunities that the student was receiving. fortunately, UNC was so enamored with the student that they held a place for her in the next cohort, so the anecdote has a happy ending.

during this conversation, my friend in the department referred to the situation as 'family blackmail.' my friend's earlier student was not able to follow her dreams and aspirations because of the emotional ties and pressures that come with having a child and a family.

this got me to thinking. is there what's good for the family, and what's good for the various family members? is there an objective good for the group which transcends the good of each of the individuals? is there a family good which is in some way different and separate from the aggregate good of the various members of the family?

there are two sides to this, as i see it. you can look at it as a traditional existentialist, such that the individuals are radically independent. in which case, the student should have packed off to UNC come what may, because that was the culmination of her dreams and aspirations up to that point. or, you can look at this like an idealist, such that there are greater goods than the good of a single individual, and the truly moral act is one which takes that greater (essentially social) good into consideration, sometimes against the good of the individual. in that case, the student should have never followed such a idiosyncratic and unique set of interests to their culmination in graduate study, but rather should have put themselves to work doing something "useful."

i think you can see to what side my sympathies lie. but i am interested in your perspective. have you come across family blackmail? how do you reconcile these competing moral imperatives, the imperative to be yourself and the imperative to those you love?

Edited March 17, 2010 by johnnyleston

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

i was griping to my good friend in my undergraduate department yesterday about my application woes, and she pointed out that it could be worse. she recollected a story of a student similar to myself, someone passionate about theory and a certain weird little slice of 20th century literature, who was unanimously rejected her first attempt, but was widely accepted her second round. but by that point, the student had a child with a person who owned a house, and they were not in any position to travel to take advantage of the great opportunities that the student was receiving. fortunately, UNC was so enamored with the student that they held a place for her in the next cohort, so the anecdote has a happy ending.

during this conversation, my friend in the department referred to the situation as 'family blackmail.' my friend's earlier student was not able to follow her dreams and aspirations because of the emotional ties and pressures that come with having a child and a family.

this got me to thinking. is there what's good for the family, and what's good for the various family members? is there an objective good for the group which transcends the good of each of the individuals? is there a family good which is in some way different and separate from the aggregate good of the various members of the family?

there are two sides to this, as i see it. you can look at it as a traditional existentialist, such that the individuals are radically independent. in which case, the student should have packed off to UNC come what may, because that was the culmination of ther dreams and aspirations up to that point. or, you can look at this like an idealist, such that there are greater goods than the good of a single individual, and the truly moral act is one which takes that greater (essentially social) good into consideration, sometimes against the good of the individual. in that case, the student should have never followed such a idiosyncratic and unique set of interests to their culmination in graduate study, but rather should have put themselves to work doing something "useful."

i think you can see to what side my sympathies lie. but i am interested in your perspective. have you come across family blackmail? how do you reconcile these competing moral imperatives, the imperative to be yourself and the imperative to those you love?

I was raised by a woman who firmly believed that a happy, fulfilled mother, meant happy, fulfilled children, no matter where they lived. I was a suitcase child - moved where ever and whenever (appx every two years) cross cultural (away from the US when I was six to Israel), until high school. we still moved houses when I was in high school, but I didn't change schools anymore.

My half-sister was raised VERY differently. She's 11 years younger, and some of my mother's wanderlust had calmed down by that point (due to a successful second marriage and some maturity). The "family" needs (i.e. my sister's needs) were taken into account much more than mine. she wasn't raised out of a suitcase.

Both my sister and I have our share of problems as adults. We are also, overall, had fairly happy childhoods. We also have very different personalities (and always have), which might be the more important factor than the way we were raised.

I guess my take is - kids will have problems, no matter if you move them or not. Young children, especially, have less trouble adjusting to different environments, but teenagers can handle it as well. However, every child will develop some SERIOUS problems if their parents are miserable and unfulfilled in their lives. Somehow, it always gets taken out on the child - either the child becomes the main focus of the parent's hopes and dreams (and must fulfill them as a proxy for the parent), or the child is raised with the belief that their hopes and dreams are meaningless and they should concentrate on "useful" stuff. In extreme cases, it can result in violence - physical or emotional. I'm not saying it's a good thing to move your family around every year, but a move to a different state might actually benefit the child quite a bit. Help them get a different perspective, meet different people and even different cultures. It might open up their mind, flex adaptability.

So I suppose I'm middle-of-the-road on this. Don't ignore the overall family needs - but don't become a slave to them either. Any relationship should also leave plenty of room for the individual. Houses can be sold, babies are easily moved, new jobs can be found. Life requires flexibility to live well and happily. Sometimes it means one person defers for a couple of years. Other times, it means moving willy-nilly cross-country.

[JerryLandis]

I am facing a choice between two MA programs, one in an area where I have quite a number of family members I have not lived near for some time, and another in an area where I know no one, and, to make it worse, my significant other would have more difficulty moving along with me. I change my mind ever 5 minutes about where I think I should go. The second program is perfect for me, but the first one is good enough (excellent program, just not great for my specific interests) and I think that I would be much happier in the familiar location. I know that I'm young and shouldn't be so worried about this sort of thing, but I know that once I apply to PhD programs after doing one of these MAs, I will have to choose between very random locations and, who knows, I may never get lucky enough to move somewhere based on location instead of institution. Any advice would be appreciated.

[EAL2010]

I am facing a choice between two MA programs, one in an area where I have quite a number of family members I have not lived near for some time, and another in an area where I know no one, and, to make it worse, my significant other would have more difficulty moving along with me. I change my mind ever 5 minutes about where I think I should go. The second program is perfect for me, but the first one is good enough (excellent program, just not great for my specific interests) and I think that I would be much happier in the familiar location. I know that I'm young and shouldn't be so worried about this sort of thing, but I know that once I apply to PhD programs after doing one of these MAs, I will have to choose between very random locations and, who knows, I may never get lucky enough to move somewhere based on location instead of institution. Any advice would be appreciated.

If I were you, I would go for the perfect program that's further away. For my MA, I moved from Chicago to a small town in Alabama-- I had no family/friends for 800+ miles. I will say that the first month really sucked because I felt lonely. But after I started talking to my fellow 1st year MAs, things got SO MUCH BETTER. Grad school is a lot different from undergrad in that you're admitted with a very small group of people (I was 1 of 12), so you get to know the people in your cohort really well. And since you're all going through the same scary experience, you bond together quickly. That's not to say that I love everyone here, but I definitely think that the friends I made in grad school understand things about me that other people don't.

Now that I'm thinking about where to go for my PhD, part of me wants to stay in AL to be near these people I've come to love so much.

Of course, I'm sure there are awful MA experiences too, but from my perspective, it was worth it to go far away for the program I thought would fit me best.

[EKPhrase]

Johnny Leston,

I wonder what would happen if you posted this in the cultural anthropology or statistics boards! Interesting theory, but I find this more interesting in terms of the linguistic and rhetorical relationship between the words "family" and "Slavery." At any rate, I would disagree, noting that delayed enrollment seems like it would statistically improve the overall degree quality and success, and better for the both the individual and the family by accomplishing two very likely needs: bonding with the newborn, and ensuring that her first semester in school was a time where she felt like she COULD focus. All in all, pregnancy is a protected status for that reason.

"in that case, the student should have never followed such a idiosyncratic and unique set of interests to their culmination in graduate study, but rather should have put themselves to work doing something "useful."

This is a non sequiter argument. Lit students, in particular, could make a very strong argument that following their hearts is "useful!" We are the stewards or poetry and beauty! It does not follow that waiting a year wasn't still useful, even if she spent the year reading Harry Potter novels!

Well anyway, not to belabor the point. It is an very interesting term, and I had not heard it before.

Edited March 18, 2010 by EKPhrase