Family wars: fundamentals of social mythology of
A funny it turns out. One of the most popular that is today a family. Magazines, telecasts, the Internet only also discuss how to make a family strong and why they, families, so often break up. The statistics, stubborn piece, in plain terms speaks - more than 51 percent of marriages come to an end with divorce. It is strange if to consider that practically all whom ask, know what has to be a happy family. And precisely all who establish a family, consider that at them - that by all means everything will turn out remarkably.
Nevertheless, a subject, the second for popularity, dispute on graphics of family crises appears. First year. Third year. Fifth year. Tenth year. To look from outside, it seems that a family - in general the such prolonged permanent crisis which is smoothly flowing from one boundary to another. On what additional factors from above are imposed. The first both subsequent pregnancies and birth of children. To a heap also crises nurseries age.
As so? If all know - how it is correct to make - that why a lot of marriage in marriages? And whether the reason in initially incorrect formulation, so to speak, of the technical project on a family is covered? As how influences drawing up this technical project?
of People - a being, in addition, gregarious. The psychology opened this fact long ago. It is a little simple to us to know something. We by all means need to compare ourselves to an environment. In effect, everything that surrounds us, has status character. Model and year of release of the car. Size and location of the apartment. Brand of footwear and clothes. Fanciness of the mobile phone and size of diagonal of the TV.
Of course, we do not admit that we estimate a statusnost at the very first turn. However let`s be honest before by itself. The we recognize not one and all surrounding, and only those who correspond certain, sometimes to very accurate criteria. Including mass of concrete “measures and scales“.
the list of status concepts includes, alas, also determination of social norms. A bright example - a hackneyed subject of prostitution. Is “well-known“ that from the prostitute the good wife cannot turn out. Why? Because the prostitute - the person of “not our circle“! Because the profession of the prostitute initially means violation (read, absence!) unconditional status norms of the “correct“ behavior. It is not important at all why and as the woman became a prostitute. It is not important at all that the profession this was always demanded by society. Important only the fact that prostitution breaks certain abstract “correctness“. What leads to a little consolatory conclusion. It is all about this “correctness“. In its semantic contents.
God with them, with prostitutes. Not about them, actually, the speech. The speech that the fair share of behavior of the person is defined by this “correctness“. More precisely, ours about it representation. As it appears, the very first “rusty mine“ traps a family exactly here.
What there is “correctness“? Anything. Abstraction. A certain set randomly the formulated postulates. Whom formulated? Books and movies. Mother`s manuals and convincing advice of the friends and acquaintances. With very big amendment on subjective perception. However, about subjectivity a bit later. Now it is better to consider more in details myths about “correctness“. Why myths? Because nobody saw completely “correct“ people. And if who where met, then usually treated them with big suspicion. Because, somehow so constantly it turned out in life that practically at each such righteous person at least one skeleton yes was in a case. Or cockroach. And not one. And not in a case, and in the head. So can, everything put just that postulates of “correctness“ are utopian in essence?to Take
, for example, the first most widespread myth - a family, it our everything! Usually it is exposed when the spouse or the spouse is required to be forced to something. Earlier each of us, on this logic, lived by the principle - you can if you want. Somehow by itself it was meant that if the person does something, then, just because wants it. And, on the contrary, does not do because does not wish. What has full authority to. But once “family“ arises, approach sharply changes. You have to (!) because it is demanded by interests of a family!
It is good, we will allow. But interests cannot exist without their carrier. Who is the carrier of interests of a family if members of this family have others, opposite, interests? And why every time turns out that interests of a family constantly are meant as interests of the one who is dissatisfied with result? So it is interests of a family or private subjective interests someone from family members? And then at what moment private interests of one (!) from family members suddenly get the weight of all-family interests to which the others the semyena are obliged to submit even contrary to own desires? whether > it is time for p to recognize
I honestly that the concept of a family is only a semi-official organ? A family as something independent is not in the nature at all. There is a team consisting of players. Players unite for the sake of achievement of definite purposes which there is a lot of and different. The result so far received by each player for itself satisfactory, so far it is more and more valuably than personal expenses on it (time, forces, desires, compromises, etc.) the family is. As soon as someone feels bypassed as soon as he begins to consider directly - I do this and it therefore I count on this and it, and I receive only and - a family as business - process, the family right there disappears.
Or one more, not less popular, the myth - if loves, then has to. What is characteristic, remembering itself, we usually a priori recognize from the fact that ourselves do all, in full, that demands a debt from us. And what we do not do … so we have not to do full authority. In relation to ourselves we usually consider ourselves not obliged to cave in and submit. While are obliged to cave in and submit to us by definition.
Actually, a basis of this myth - in a contradiction: if loves, then has to accept me such what to eat, forgive, show generosity, not to demand, to suffer, appreciate, etc. While itself if loves, is obliged to concede, try, to change, adapt, make a compromise. And the sexual difference does not exist. Men perceive this myth in the same way. Only in the center of the Universe put, of course, themselves. That how many does not change an essence.
Clear business, having faced realities of life, we strongly take offense then. As children. Why it did not concede? Why he did not make a compromise? Why does not do as I want? Means, does not love?! Would love, would concede!to
It is interesting and why? From where this approach undertakes? Whether from the childhood when the child surrounded with attention and care perceived such state of affairs as something natural? That it is the center of the Universe that it is always indulged, concede, it is loved any, even when it harmful, whimsical and opposite. Is it time to call honestly it infantility and to try to eradicate?
of the Child are so loved only by parents. Spouses are not parents. And if you harmful and opposite if you do not meet desire and expectation of the second half, then will not communicate with you “despite everything“.
Egoism - it is normal. It follows from human nature. Each person wants to be full, regardless of that, the neighbor ate or not. Is it time to recognize flatness of our egoism? I want. You want. That I was happy, I need to agree with you. But I will agree only when you become happy too. And you will become happy only when you agree, respectively, with me. What means achievement and my pleasure. Here also leaves that only both can be happy. So, or “we together“, or then “everyone for, one God for all“.
Especially wants to emphasize one more popular myth - it is heavy to live! That life is divided into three periods:“ the childhood “, “ to a wedding“, “popadalovo“. With the childhood it is clear. Lovely it is time. It is a pity only comes to an end somehow quickly. And in its time do not sell beer and cigarettes. However, then, when begin to sell, there comes the uniform lafa. That you want, do. Actually, it is also the real life. So far is. There was no festive ceremony of registration of marriage yet. Because then life comes to an end. It is necessary to clean, erase, prepare, to stay at home and to raise children. All.
That the most amusing, and really people, in the majority, feel quite so! In times student`s, it seems, and session on a nose, and offsets with course a dofiga and to sleep hunting even horror, at lectures it is necessary to insert into eyes of a match, but once evening comes, legs pull where - nibud on a disco, in club, in the company, at cinema or on appointments. There is no free time at all, but it does not strain at all. Because there is no feeling of deficiency of time. Fatigue? Yes nonsenses! On pension we will sleep off. However the wedding ring should arise on a finger as precisely the same becomes a heavy burden.
Why? Life did not change! Only the changed to it the relation! To live so heavy or hard so to treat life? Not so and idle question.
In my opinion, the answer to it is simple. Though it is unpleasant. In any case, for some. It is all about infantility. Enduring. To understand that we are had to, we just very well understand. We refuse to understand what in the same way, and as much on the volume and weight, is also our duties. And both our obligations and our hotelka for the value are absolutely equal.We refuse to understand
that the childhood ended. What is characteristic, finally and irrevocably. That life such what it is. Therefore silly to blame of an elephant the fact that he is an elephant, but not, for example, a hare. Yes, in the childhood it easily. Same boxes could be the ocean yacht, tomorrow the spaceship, after tomorrow racing car today, and at once behind it is a lodge for a mouse. It was rather simple to want and present to us that it “has to be“.
Life - not boxes. Therefore it is time to mature. And to refuse myths. If, of course, you are interested in the end result.