Is blood REALLY thicker than water?

Fittle

Is that saying really true?

How many of us are really a product of the dysfunction of our families?

How many of us, who claim to be 'close' to our families, really aren't comfortable with that 'closeness'?

Is family really where it's at - or is friendship, something that has been built up over a liftetime of trust and honesty, the real 'family'?

Does the family we are born into, determine who we become and should family be the the people we put first in our lives? What do ye humanities boardsies think?

liah

You can't choose your family, and for me, the 'blood is thicker than water' line doesn't hold true at all for pretty much my entire family except for my mother since my grandmother passed. In fairness though, I was raised well away from all of them so there was no real bond to begin with, just civil interactions at major holidays. I also have no siblings.

My mother, I'd stick up for no matter what, I'll love her til the day I die. But that's because she's an awesome person. My dad is not an awesome person and I've cut ties with him totally. He means very little to me as I was raised without him and he's an asshole. The rest of them I just don't know very well or connect with.

I guess my view is that since you can't choose your family, you can't be expected to tolerate someone you cannot stand or who has damaged you in some way (in adulthood, anyway) simply on the basis of family ties. It's masochistic. Rationally, blood means very little in that scenario, if someone is treating you poorly, staying around based on something you've had no control over seems illogical.

But obviously, this is much easier for me to say, as I've always been very detached from the standard family scene. I recognize history with the person comes into it a lot of the time, and that's hard to let go of, but I also think it can be unhealthy to hold on to too tightly, especially if it's damaging.

Your family obviously has a large part in defining who you are, there's no question about that. I'd say your friends do just as much as your family in defining you as a person, it just happens after you leave the nest. And it's what happens when you leave your family that really matters, because that's what you have control over. Your friends are the ones you choose, and they're the ones you're going to be spending the most time with, and to me, they're more important than the rest of my family (except my mom) will ever be because I know they care for me, and aren't just tolerating me because I'm family. So it seems more genuine, I guess.

krd

It depends on your family.

Most of my family are not very nice people. They're of the who needs enemies variety.

SugarHigh

I do think it's true for the most part. There is always a line you can cross where people would cease to be your friend and while there is also a line for family it is a lot further away. This gives you a safety net if you ever need it. If you fall into a depression and people can't handle being around you it will be your family who stick by you the longest.

There is also the fact that I think your own family genuinely want to see you do well in life. Not to get personal but look at your own situation Fittle of wanting your son to do well at football. While his friends I'm sure want him to do well they don't want him to do much better than them because it makes them look bad. I think you judge yourself by how well your peers do so your success is relative to the success of those around you. Let's say your son did turn pro, while you would be delighted for him I bet there would be a few of his friends who would be more than a little pissed off it wasn't them.

Dudess

If a family member is an awful person who has done awful things to others, including family, and has been given countless chances, I see nothing wrong with their relatives cutting them out of their lives - blood or not. That said, there is a bond, and it must be a very difficult decision to make. If that person has children, no doubt it is very painful indeed.

Earthhorse

The phrase blood is thicker than water isn't really about familial influence or closeness (in the sense of friendship) but rather the bond between family members are stronger than those between friends. Broadly speaking, this is absolutely true. A person will lay down their life for their child, spouse or sibling before they will for a friend. They'll go into debt for them, they'll take care of them when they're ill. If forced to choose between selling your family down the river and selling your friends down the river, most will choose their friends, even if they like them more. This all comes back to selfish genes really.

Now, obviously, there are exceptions to the above, where ties have been severed, or where no bond existed because a family member wasn't around. But once the bond is established even if you spend more time with and around friends, agree with them more and like them more, and even after time and distance grows between you and your family, the familial bond will still win out in an either/or scenario.

seenitall

Earthhorse wrote: »

But once the bond is established even if you spend more time with and around friends, agree with them more and like them more, and even after time and distance grows between you and your family, the familial bond will still win out in an either/or scenario.

Sorry but this is just not true in many cases, including mine. I've got the whole "bond" thing, as much as anyone who was raised by their parents does, it's only that it is so severely compromised by years of psychological abuse, that it most certainly would not win over the bonds I have with my closest friends in any meaningful way ("selling down the river" etc.). No way.

Or to quote John Osbourne: "A year in which my mother died can’t be all bad". :eek:

Earthhorse

And by leaving out the first sentence of my paragraph you completely missed that I included that as an exception.

seenitall

Earthhorse wrote: »

And by leaving out the first sentence of my paragraph you completely missed that I included that as an exception.

No, I didn't. I was raised by my parents and still see them regularly - so, no "ties severed" or erstwhile "absence of bonds" there.

Earthhorse

Your "years of psychological abuse" statement would suggest that the bond has now withered away in the sense that it is used in this phrase.

seenitall

Well I can only reply to the words you actually write, and not to how you meant to write them (perhaps "Now, obviously, there are exceptions to the above, where ties have been severed, or where no bond existed because a family member wasn't around, or the bond - in my personal opinion on other's circumstances - has withered away...").

As far as I am concerned, the "bond" is still there, otherwise I wouldn't bother with my parents at all anymore. It's just that things sometimes aren't as black-and-white as the general feeling I get from your post.

Dudess

Earthhorse wrote: »

The phrase blood is thicker than water isn't really about familial influence or closeness (in the sense of friendship) but rather the bond between family members are stronger than those between friends. Broadly speaking, this is absolutely true. A person will lay down their life for their child, spouse or sibling before they will for a friend. They'll go into debt for them, they'll take care of them when they're ill. If forced to choose between selling your family down the river and selling your friends down the river, most will choose their friends, even if they like them more. This all comes back to selfish genes really.

Now, obviously, there are exceptions to the above, where ties have been severed, or where no bond existed because a family member wasn't around. But once the bond is established even if you spend more time with and around friends, agree with them more and like them more, and even after time and distance grows between you and your family, the familial bond will still win out in an either/or scenario.

I wonder whether that could sometimes be altruism rather than actual preference though?

SugarHigh

Dudess wrote: »

I wonder whether that could sometimes be altruism rather than actual preference though?

I don't understand what you mean?

WesternNight

As was already said, it really depends on the family. Sometimes family is the unit you can depend on no matter what the situation, and sometimes family is the one unit that knocks you down no matter how many times you get up.

I think a lot of people feel obligated to maintain ties with family and feel obligated to feel some kind of love for them, even when they know they'd be better off without. There's always the whole "but they're family" qualification to whatever issue comes up is. I think oftentimes friends and other relatives can be closer to a person than an immediate family, and there's nothing wrong with that.

By and large, though, I'd imagine that people would feel closer loyalty to their family, but it's by no means guaranteed.

Fittle

I originally posted this thread, as I have had some difficulties within my own family, but as it wasn't really a PI issue, I thought I'd post it in Humanities.

In my own family, there is major dysfunction and for most of my life, although I have fought with the emotion, I find myself closer to friends over the years. There are times when I had convinced myself that I was adopted, because I really could not believe that I was a blood relative of my own siblings.

To this day, I still wonder and without going into too much detail here, I still have some doubt.

Personally, I don't believe that blood is thicker than water, but as others have said, I also believe it's down to the family relationship...so I believe that 'family' is more about the environment of your own family, and how you were reared, as opposed to relationships that you might build up in your own life (friends).

WesternNight

Fittle wrote: »

Personally, I don't believe that blood is thicker than water, but as others have said, I also believe it's down to the family relationship...so I believe that 'family' is more about the environment of your own family, and how you were reared, as opposed to relationships that you might build up in your own life (friends).

How you were raised, especially in the very early years, impacts hugely on every other area of your life. The interaction between biological elements and environmental ones means that each child turns out differently and responds differently to situations. Different siblings within one family will have different interpretations and perceptions and responses to the same situation, for example. So the fact that you can't see yourself in your family (so to speak) doesn't mean that you're not genetically linked to them. If that makes sense.

krd

Dudess wrote: »

If a family member is an awful person who has done awful things to others, including family, and has been given countless chances, I see nothing wrong with their relatives cutting them out of their lives - blood or not. That said, there is a bond, and it must be a very difficult decision to make. If that person has children, no doubt it is very painful indeed.

What if it's the other way round. A family can chose a scapegoat, project all the ills of the family onto that one individual, and torture them and destroy their life. Even marshal the extended family or anyone else they can convince into attacking the individual.

The family black sheep is often not black at all.

In scapegoating, feelings of guilt, aggression, blame and suffering are transferred away from a person or group so as to fulfill an unconscious drive to resolve or avoid such bad feelings. This is done by the displacement of responsibility and blame to another who serves as a target for blame both for the scapegoater and his supporters. The scapegoating process can be understood as an example of the Drama Triangle concept [Karpman, 1968].

So many people - if they saw their family life as preformed by actors, would be horrified.

Dudess

krd wrote: »

What if it's the other way round. A family can chose a scapegoat, project all the ills of the family onto that one individual, and torture them and destroy their life. Even marshal the extended family or anyone else they can convince into attacking the individual.

The family black sheep is often not black at all.


So many people - if they saw their family life as preformed by actors, would be horrified.

Yeah, that happens too but I wasn't talking about that.

Fittle

I don't think the 'family' picks the scapegoat though. I think it's the parent.

In my own family, there was a scapegoat, specifically picked by my father. And we all followed his lead - because, as young children, why wouldn't we? It's only as an adult myself that I can even acknowledge that my brother - who was no different to any of us - became the scapegoat and went on to live the life he now leads, because of it.

krd

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, that happens too but I wasn't talking about that.

I know - I think it's a case you should always be carefully in making a judgment.

I take an agnostic approach to nearly everything these days. And you don't know with families - often the people who seem superficially straight and plead victim, can be the most dysfunctional and outright evil. Your eyes can play tricks on you. Just for an example - one of my brothers would spread terrible rumours about me - absolutely no basis in truth. He used to poison my friends against me as child - worse, as adult.

Thinking about my brother, I've just had an epiphany. As a child one thing he would do. He might do something terribly cruel or nasty to me - then the rumour, which he would campaign to all the other children living around us. Would be a version of the story, with a complete reversal - where I had done the thing to him. The devious little basterd. I'm not saying I'm an angel - I've done cruel things but I've never done anything cruel for pleasure or even vindictiveness. Even though I can understand these things at a root level, they still feel inexplicable.

krd

Fittle wrote: »

I don't think the 'family' picks the scapegoat though. I think it's the parent.

In my own family, there was a scapegoat, specifically picked by my father. And we all followed his lead - because, as young children, why wouldn't we? It's only as an adult myself that I can even acknowledge that my brother - who was no different to any of us - became the scapegoat and went on to live the life he now leads, because of it.

Where the term scapegoat comes from is illuminating in itself. It comes from a practice that was once part of the Jewish festival Yom Kippur - the festival of atonement. A goat would be selected in a village. The villagers would cast all their evils onto the goat and the goat would be driven from the village (and then shoved over a cliff).

In families where there's scapegoating - every day is Yom Kippor.

What it comes down to - people can feel better when they have someone to cast their sins onto and to punish. Family scapegoating is especially brutal as the sacrifice is human. The persecutors become corrupted by their persecution then the scapegoat is tortured even. I know it can escalate in adulthood. Like a drug addiction, requiring stronger and stronger doses - the cruelty can become even more destructive. Children have the excuse of being children - adults don't.

I have a friend who was a family scapegoat. It got so bad when she was a teenager, her aunt took her in. She sees her aunt as her mother. The stories are hilarious for their outlandishness. There's just this driving inexplicable madness to them.

gbee

Family is defiantly where it's at.

I came from a somewhat broken family, we fought and grew up somewhat apart, not enemies or anything like that, just not close.

My own family [children] is very close, they are constantly travelling all over Ireland and to England for family events, but I am not so close to them.

They sometimes ask me why I don't meet my own brothers and sisters, I don't have an answer, I just don't have a desire [and there is no enmity or dispute or anything].

Family are just that, whatever, friends, well friends are secondary, they always will be, are they better? Until the pressure comes, you won't know, there will be no dummy runs to see who answers the call for help.

Family is with you until you or they die off, friends tend to get new friends every twenty years or so [or less!] ~ friends tend to be transient, I'm thinking of my friends now, my past friends, actually, they were once my life, now my family as in my siblings are still here, my family as in my own children, are still here.

caseyann

I agree with you,when the chips come down and even if you havent seen your family in ten years and not close at all you can turn to them.They love you also unconditionally and even if they feel they shouldn't they will.It doesnt go away.
Blood is thicker than water,even if i didnt agree with them for something they did or are doing i would always be there for them and they for me.

Fittle

caseyann wrote: »

I agree with you,when the chips come down and even if you havent seen your family in ten years and not close at all you can turn to them.They love you also unconditionally and even if they feel they shouldn't they will.It doesnt go away.
Blood is thicker than water,even if i didnt agree with them for something they did or are doing i would always be there for them and they for me.

But that's not the case in ALL families caseyann.

caseyann

Fittle wrote: »

But that's not the case in ALL families caseyann.

Well i would agree in some cases,I know of someone who raped a family member of theirs and now in prison luckily.Blood is not thicker than water then.
But i am speaking from my own personal take on it.

SugarHigh

Fittle wrote: »

But that's not the case in ALL families caseyann.

Of course not but I don't think that detracts from her point. I think if you do have a family bond than a friendship bond won't ever really come close because it's just a completely different relationship. You have a lot more leeway with family than you do with friends. I think there are limits to how strong a bond between friends can become and these limits are widened a lot for family.

seenitall

SugarHigh wrote: »

Of course not but I don't think that detracts from her point. I think if you do have a family bond than a friendship bond won't ever really come close because it's just a completely different relationship. You have a lot more leeway with family than you do with friends. I think there are limits to how strong a bond between friends can become and these limits are widened a lot for family.

Just as long it is understood that some people who do have existing family bonds (like myself) still wouldn't put their families ahead of their good friends. (Friendships are bonds too, after all.) Leeway and limits included.

Fittle

Well, I personally don't believe that blood is thicker than water, but then I also have quite a dysfunctional family, so I guess I would think this way.
Perhaps the answer is obviously based soley on your own relationship with your family. I have never gotten that whole 'but it's family' expression. I'm speaking about my siblings here specifically, as opposed to my own child - who of course, comes before everyone and everything.

Perhaps it's because we weren't encouraged to 'bond' at all - perhaps it's because there is such a large boy vs girl ratio and the fact that as boys grow and develop relationships, there is a tendency that they become closer to their wives families, who knows...?

I have built some amazing friendships in my life and can honestly say I treasure those friendships way above relationships within my own family. there were times when I battled with that - but those times are long gone (my 20's, when I was an emotional wreck;))