XMO Resources
Peace beyond disillusionment is never found in denial, repression, or silent acquiescence to the unacceptable.
July 17, 2025
Peace beyond disillusionment is never found in denial, repression, or silent acquiescence to the unacceptable.
July 17, 2025
Functional Families and the Social Contract
More on Family Obligations to Each Other
continue >>>
continue >>>
Home | Contact Us
Apostasy | Our Mission | Legal Notice
Copyright (c) 2009-2025
Home | Contact Us | PBR Development
Copyright (c) 2009-2025
More on Family Obligations to Each Other
continue >>>
Most functional families subscribe to a shared view of mutual obligations that differ somewhat, and in some cases exceed the fiduciary obligations between business partners.
Supportive Social Statements
Congratulatory Statements
Weddings, baptisms, and other such celebrations are classic examples of types of family obligations that are widely accepted across most cultures. Family members are expected to join in a wedding celebration with an outward display of attentiveness and support. Attendance at the wedding ceremony or celebrations is socially required, along with reasonable gifts and other supportiveness. Absence from such celebrations must be justified with fairly dire circumstances largely outside the control of the absentee family member. Considerable offense is otherwise taken by the wedding party, and considerable delinquency is attributed to the absentee family member by all.
This outward display of relatively superficial love and supportiveness constitutes a significant social statement. The importance placed on the statement made by attendance can be measured in terms of the offense taken and by the delinquency attributed to those who fail to make the statement without a very good excuse.
Statements in support of individual rights
Given that such importance is placed on the social statement of appearance in support of the marriage, it follows that statements and appearances in support of family members' interests matter. Generally, in functional families they most certainly do, and are seen as an obligation of the family social contract. Accordingly, it follows that statements in support of family member's interests in other situations should be seen with corresponding importance and accepted equally as obligations of the social family contract.
For the most part, unwarranted abuse of a family member, by an outsider, warrants the attention of the rest of the family, if it is functional. Most families respond to such situations with far more than statements of support. Members of a functional family can generally count on their fellow family members to respond to unwarranted abuse with all of the resources they can reasonably marshal to address the problem and secure justice for the abused family member. In most functional families, this is an obligation of the social contract.
My first significant "street fight" was over abuse of my younger sister in a play yard. She was being bullied off of a swing set consistently by a small group of kids who seemed to have more interest in the bullying than the swing. More than once, as I recall, she was actually shoved, pushed, or physically obstructed, so the bullying involved an assault. I was in the yard and saw what happened from a distance.
I felt deeply compelled to stand up for my sister. The confrontation that ensued lasted about an hour to the best of my recollection. It was relatively tame as far as street fights go. There was a lot more positioning than actual hitting. Given that this was the case, the point was made more by way of a statement than by a beating. The confrontation involved posturing in readiness for blows with declarations of the offense and its unacceptable nature.
Ultimately, the confrontation fizzled out. Witnesses, however, were present to attest that my position of intolerance of the abuse of my sister was made abundantly clear, and that I was prepared to come to blows with the ring leader who was primarily responsible for the abuse.
Since he backed down and acquiesced to the position that the abuse was unacceptable, and since no real harm beyond hurt feelings had been done, it seemed appropriate to leave it at that. The statement was made and it made the difference that was intended. This was about injustice.
I think most functional families would agree that it was, in fact, a family obligation to confront the injustice against a weaker family member who was being bullied with a clear and unequivocal declaration of intolerance. Many would agree that the declaration would have been meaningless were it not backed up with a reasonable threat of consequences that the perpetrator would take seriously.
Now, what if the perpetrator of injustice against a family member is another family member? Do the perceived obligations change? More on this question follows.
Supportive Social Statements
Congratulatory Statements
Weddings, baptisms, and other such celebrations are classic examples of types of family obligations that are widely accepted across most cultures. Family members are expected to join in a wedding celebration with an outward display of attentiveness and support. Attendance at the wedding ceremony or celebrations is socially required, along with reasonable gifts and other supportiveness. Absence from such celebrations must be justified with fairly dire circumstances largely outside the control of the absentee family member. Considerable offense is otherwise taken by the wedding party, and considerable delinquency is attributed to the absentee family member by all.
This outward display of relatively superficial love and supportiveness constitutes a significant social statement. The importance placed on the statement made by attendance can be measured in terms of the offense taken and by the delinquency attributed to those who fail to make the statement without a very good excuse.
Statements in support of individual rights
Given that such importance is placed on the social statement of appearance in support of the marriage, it follows that statements and appearances in support of family members' interests matter. Generally, in functional families they most certainly do, and are seen as an obligation of the family social contract. Accordingly, it follows that statements in support of family member's interests in other situations should be seen with corresponding importance and accepted equally as obligations of the social family contract.
For the most part, unwarranted abuse of a family member, by an outsider, warrants the attention of the rest of the family, if it is functional. Most families respond to such situations with far more than statements of support. Members of a functional family can generally count on their fellow family members to respond to unwarranted abuse with all of the resources they can reasonably marshal to address the problem and secure justice for the abused family member. In most functional families, this is an obligation of the social contract.
My first significant "street fight" was over abuse of my younger sister in a play yard. She was being bullied off of a swing set consistently by a small group of kids who seemed to have more interest in the bullying than the swing. More than once, as I recall, she was actually shoved, pushed, or physically obstructed, so the bullying involved an assault. I was in the yard and saw what happened from a distance.
I felt deeply compelled to stand up for my sister. The confrontation that ensued lasted about an hour to the best of my recollection. It was relatively tame as far as street fights go. There was a lot more positioning than actual hitting. Given that this was the case, the point was made more by way of a statement than by a beating. The confrontation involved posturing in readiness for blows with declarations of the offense and its unacceptable nature.
Ultimately, the confrontation fizzled out. Witnesses, however, were present to attest that my position of intolerance of the abuse of my sister was made abundantly clear, and that I was prepared to come to blows with the ring leader who was primarily responsible for the abuse.
Since he backed down and acquiesced to the position that the abuse was unacceptable, and since no real harm beyond hurt feelings had been done, it seemed appropriate to leave it at that. The statement was made and it made the difference that was intended. This was about injustice.
I think most functional families would agree that it was, in fact, a family obligation to confront the injustice against a weaker family member who was being bullied with a clear and unequivocal declaration of intolerance. Many would agree that the declaration would have been meaningless were it not backed up with a reasonable threat of consequences that the perpetrator would take seriously.
Now, what if the perpetrator of injustice against a family member is another family member? Do the perceived obligations change? More on this question follows.
continue >>>
Home | Contact Us
Apostasy | Our Mission | Legal Notice
Copyright (c) 2009-2025
Home | Contact Us | PBR Development
Copyright (c) 2009-2025