Summary of the September 14th meeting of the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe
Topic: "What makes a family?"
Steve began the meeting by reminding everyone that the purpose of the Philosophy
Cafe is not to teach specific philosophical theories. Instead, we should aim at
*doing* philosophy ourselves by seeking to clarify and understand each other's
views. We should be open-minded and not take offense if someone challenges our
personal beliefs.
Alex gave a brief introduction of the topic 'What makes a family?' The idea
arose out of the 'right of abode' saga which had stormed the whole Hong Kong
society earlier this year. The issue made him think about 'what is being a
member of a family and also a human being'. In short, what is a family and what
makes a family?
First we discussed a number of possible ways of understanding the essential
meaning of the word 'family'. Tom suggested that we should start with the legal
status of a family, the legal responsibility of its members, etc. He also
questioned whether we should see families as the focus for maintaining moral
obligations. Louisa pointed out that 'family' can refer to either a biological
or a social unit. And she suggested that nurturing might be the defining factor
of being in a family. Anthony gave the definition that a family is basically an
organization or institution that holds people together. Clifford claimed that
family is all about survivability.
The conversation changed course when Michelle observed that the term 'family'
has different meanings in different cultures. Some discussion followed,
concerning the different expectations or obligations different societies have of
families. For example, in Israel families tend to be regarded as an obligation
of the whole society (as in the Kibbutz), whereas in India families are an
extended unit that goes on forever and members are supposed to take care of
those within their unit. Steve then asked what if one member of a family, such
as a father, decides he has no responsibility for the family and he does not
follow whatever it is that his society expects of him as a father? Should he
still be considered as a member of the family? When does a family stop being a
family? There followed a discussion of the phenomenon of family breakdown and
what causes it.
Grace suggested that we should keep things simple and try not to give
definitions that are too complicated. When she hears or uses the word 'family',
she normally associates it only with her parents and sisters. It is something
basic and natural and not much to argue about.
After summarizing the discussion up to this point, Steve observed that the local
situation that gave rise to Alex's original concern with this issue has to do
largely with 'family' arrangements that are *not* generally accepted by the
society. That is, the fathers of many of the children who were seeking right of
abode have two distinct families, each with a different wife, one in Hong Kong
and one on the mainland. We then discussed the general question of whether
polygamy and other alternative partnering arrangements can qualify as
constituting 'families'.
This prompted Louisa to suggest that 'family' should be defined not in a
strictly legal way, nor even according to a set of social expectations, but by
the *function* fulfilled by its members. Roy pointed out that the function of
families constantly changes in the light of pressures such as social changes or
changes in culture. Steve then reminded us that culture may not always be right.
Culture can provide us with guidelines, but they may be wrong. A philosophical
approach to such issues has to be willing to question the established norms.
At this point, Nicole said there is one thing that may define the function of
any genuine family: that is, the unconditional love parents give to their
children. Most people agreed that this is an essential factor of any family that
is not dysfunctional. We then briefly discussed whether or not married couples
also share this type of unconditional love. Several people expressed strong
views that romantic love cannot be unconditional. Roy further added that the
myth 'we should love our children unconditionally' may also be an expectation we
have been inducted into by our own society.
We took a brief break at this point.
After Alex shared several respects in which the discussion had been helpful up
to this point, Steve suggested that we should now try to relate the issue more
specifically to the Hong Kong context. Roy shared his own hypothesis in some
detail. Having observed that many Hong Kong Chinese men are experiencing mid-
life crisis, he wonders whether their family dynamics may be a contributing
factor to this problem. He believes men in Hong Kong tend to be over-protected
by their mothers. Children in general are not encouraged to explore the outside
world and their future is largely determined for them by their life-long need to
respect their parents' wishes. This results in an unusually slow development for
men and an inability to handle difficult situations, especially in mid-life.
Steve gave an example about a former student who once told him that her main
goal in life was to study hard and get good results, so that she could find a
good job and earn as much money as possible. She planned to spend her next 25
years paying back her father for the 25 years he had spent working to pay for
her upbringing. Then she would end her life. Her parents were divorced and she
lived with her mother. Her father lived in a caged home so that he could give
most of his earnings to support her.
The remainder of the discussion was devoted to an assessment of how this girl's
outlook on life might have been affected by her family situation. Tom said this
girl is missing the value of living. Michelle expressed the hope that she might
change her mind as she grows older and finds a new goal for her life. She also
suggested that she was probably missing her mother's love. Grace commented that
this girl does have a goal. Although she doesn't like her own life, she stays
alive for the sake of the love and respect she has for her father; her desire to
do something for him can in this sense be regarded as 'noble'. Steve agreed, but
opined that this is a perverted form of nobility, based on a dysfunctional
family.
At the end of the meeting, Alex shared that the discussion did not really answer
his question, but that this was the result he had expected, because philosophy
deals with this 'disequilibrium' between our ideas and our experience.
Topics suggestions for next Philosophy Cafe meeting were:
Marriage -- What is it for? (by Michelle)
Unconditional love (Steve)
Virtues of emotion against reason (Clifford)
Is love in a marriage / what do you in love with? (Louisa)
Is marriage a business / love agreement? (Louisa)
After discussing these options, we chose the first topic 'Marriage -- what for?'
Michelle offered to give a brief introduction at the beginning of the next
meeting, which will be on October 12, 1999 at 7:30pm.
This page was placed on this web site on 2 March 2000.
Back to the the Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe web site.
Back to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.