A Venetian couple has appealed to an association for the defense of consumers’ rights for legal assistance with evicting their 41-year-old son from their home, as his resistance against attempts to implement his departure has turned aggressive. Though this man has a steady job that pays well, he insists on having his laundry washed and ironed as well as his meals provided by his elderly parents, one of which has had to be hospitalized for a stress related condition. He has 10 days to find his own flat, or risk racing heavier consequences if the case is taken to court. He belongs to the 48% of all young Italians between the ages of 18 and 39, who still live with their parents, earning Italian males the nickname “mammone,” or mummy’s boys. In order to evaluate whether the Venetian couple should have taken legal action it is necessary to examine the logical, emotional and language aspects of these two issues. Because parents are responsible for bringing their child into this world, it would stand to reason that they are responsible for that child’s life, even when they are no longer a child but are still their child, and an emotional perspective would be that it is heartless for a mother and father to expel their own blood and flesh from their home. However, this is but a weak and superficial assertion. For the first two decades of their lives, children are cared for by their parents only because they are not capable of doing so for themselves – infants cannot earn wages, cook or buy food, do their laundry, or iron their own clothes, being about the same size and shape as an iron. Logically, it would follow that once a person has reached adulthood, this arrangement is no longer necessary, because they are able to fend adequately for themselves – major illness or other handicap aside. The other side of the emotional argument supports this point, because it is selfish and almost cruel for a son to hamper the lives of those who have raised him and cared for him for so long (especially if it’s as long as 41 years) against their will, and even – as the article implies – driving his mother to a nervous breakdown. What are the responsibilities of a parent to a child and a child to a parent? How are family dynamics defined? Can they be defined absolutely?
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines “parent” as “one occupies the role of mother or father”. So even after discarding the confusion of distinguishing biological parents (those who have contributed to your DNA) from social parents (those who have brought you up), there is still uncertainty regarding the extent of the social role. My father has ensured me he is willing to support me financially as long as he is able to support himself. On the other hand, my Australian relatives have required my cousin to pay for own life expenses – besides that of education – since her thirteenth birthday (upon graduating from high school, she had to pay for her college fee too). Nursing homes are abundant throughout western countries because it is socially accepted that grown children need not care for their elderly relatives. In eastern countries, they are scarce, because it is considered the height of disrespect and ingratitude for a child not to personally see to the wellbeing of their parents, after their parents had done so for them. Obviously, the concept of parenthood is very different depending on culture and personality.
The same is true for childhood. There are two official definitions for the word “child,” the first being “a person between birth and full growth,” and the second being “a son or a daughter”. Therefore, it is true that I will always be my parents’ child, but not always a child (as demonstrated in the paragraph above), and for the first part of my life these two definitions will overlap, making the exact point of divergence even more ambiguous. When does a person cease to be a child and become an adult? Adulthood is defined as “the period after full physical and intellectual maturity has been reached,” which brings up the concept of maturity. Sexual maturity is reached by some girls at the age of 12, and indeed in India, it is not uncommon for girls younger than 15-years-old to be considered adults and married. Legal maturity in American is the age of 18, when people must assume responsibility for their actions. Yet it would be incorrect to assume that all high school seniors or college freshmen are prepared to do so. Mental maturity may be sped up or delayed by experience and intelligence.
The variability of human existence in combination with the limitations of the human language guarantees that reality can ever be accurately defined. In this specific case however, there is little doubt in my mind that a 41-year-old man with a steady income and no suggestion of mental or physical infirmity should be considered an adult, capable of taking care of himself (the definition of “taking care” can also be explored, but I think financial stability is sufficient for now). A related example is the controversy surrounding sexualized editorial shots of 10-year-old Thylane Blondeau on the cover of French Vogue, as it too deals with the blurred and fluctuating line between childhood and adulthood. A broader illustration is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders, which wrestles with the difficulty of defining normality and abnormality as two, non-inclusive categories, and demonstrates the confines of human language.
It’s always interesting to see the reasons that people have for suing members of their families. I think it’s obvious from the evidence given by the article that the man is fully capable of living by himself, however refuses to do so for no reason other than laziness. Since legally a parent is not responsible for their child after the child reaches the age of 18 I think arguments can be made out of something other than the definition of what a child is. An issue that can be examined from this case is whether or not the government should become involved with the issues of the family. It seems as if the predicament that the parents have landed in is a personal issue. It could be argued that it’s the parent’s own responsibility to raise their child to be a responsible member of society. If the parents failed to raise an independent child, it can be argued that it is their fault. A good question to address for these questions is should the government have the responsibility to involve themselves into family cases such as this? In order to determine this I think they would need to first decide whether or not the parents have the power to evict their son, or if they are absolutely incapable of doing it themselves. These questions are all within the big general question of to what extent should the government be involved in a persons personal life.
ReplyDeleteIt seems evident that the man mentioned in said article is perfectly capable of sustaining himself. Although children are compelled to stay by their parents’ side, this man is doing so willingly. Although the conventional notion is to have children move out after they have reached adulthood, there is no law stating that they can’t do otherwise-stay with their parents. In Asian culture, parents want their children to eventually come back and spend time with them. It is seen as an age-long lesson of filial piety, in that the children stay by the parents’ side until the very end. This obviously is completely different from the case being presented in the article. I feel that short of disowning the child, or bringing in lawyers to evict the child, there is no way for the parents to effectively send the child off into the world. Children, no matter what age, maturity level etc, will always be connected to their family by blood. Therefore, the parents have a duty that lasts their whole lifetime-taking care of their children. Most of the time, parents don’t actively take care of their children after the children have moved out, but they do call to check up from time to time, and offer their own insight and opinions on personal matters. The best example I can think of in regards to the influence of the parent after the child has moved out, is in marriage. The child brings his bride, or her groom to introduce to the parent to gain blessing for their marriage. Even if someone is considered an adult, I feel that they can still go back to their parent if the need arises.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that culture contributes to this specific issue. Certainly, it may seem absurd that a 41-year old man who is capable of living on his own and supporting himself still find the necessity to live with his parents. However, this may not necessarily be abnormal for people in other cultures, as some people may have emotional complexities when dealing with certain issues like ‘abandonment’ or detachment from their parents. This further reminds me of what we discussed in class about how different languages can have the capability of shaping the way individuals think. In a lot of Confucian cultures, family and community play key roles in which the foundation of their society is built upon. As shown by their language, they focus on the collectivity of a group; the collective body of which their society revolves around.
ReplyDeleteHaving grown up with a fairly traditional Chinese family, I think it’s safe to say that Chinese cultures center on the responsibility of the younger generation to perform filial piety. I’ve noticed that my mom visits my grandparents every weekend in order to maintain that certain connection and tradition of the culture. I suppose it gives the elderly the sense of unity of an extensive family which is a focus of the Chinese culture. Western cultures on the other hand, fixate and place more emphasis on the individual, where individual good is emphasized more regularly throughout one’s life than the collective body. Certainly, in regards to the above article, I find it to be fairly odd for the parents to suggest evicting their own son as they have been taking care of him ever since he was born. So why would they stop now? He can provide for them so why does this seemingly simple idea turn into such a big problem for them? This is the case for many families, and this is also apparent in movies like Failure to Launch. I suppose it works differently primarily by how people are brought up during their childhood. Or it may simply be that they just don’t feel the need to move out of their parent’s homes. The main idea that this issue touches upon is primarily an individual’s freedom of speech, and what is deemed as ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ (which may touch upon some psychological aspects and ideas).