The Two Faces of Family — Choi Gwang-hyun

The Two Faces of Family

Author

Choi Gwang-hyun

Publisher

Booky | published 2012-02-21

Category

Humanities

Book description

Why do families wound one another? Me and my family, who love but also hurt each other...

This photo is a plaster cast modeled on 'Janus,' a god from Roman mythology. As a being with 'two faces,' the word 'Janus' is often used to express opposing existences like light and darkness. Since 'two faces' brought it to mind, I brought a photo of Janus. The book I read this time, 'The Two Faces of Family,' is a book that unpacks, in psychoanalytic terms, the 'dark side' of the image of 'family' I'd ordinarily known. In particular, it borrows Freud's 'psychoanalysis' to describe the dark side of family.

Psychoanalysis, in modern times, has been mercilessly destroyed by the discipline of 'behavioral biology.' Behavioral biology is, simply, the discipline that holds that when an animal shows some 'behavior,' that response varies by learning and heredity. It holds that the 'genetic information' programmed into each animal's DNA changes little by little according to the external environment, and that response appears as 'behavior.' The reason this behavioral biology erased the presence of 'psychoanalysis' is that most behavior in 'psychoanalysis' is explained through human 'sexual desire.' (After all, the root of Freud's theory is mostly in 'sexual desire.') Now both psychoanalysis and behavioral biology are correct in their ways, so it's hard to flatly say which is right or wrong, but the two disciplines present quite valid theories about human society.

If behavioral biology explains human behavior by random movement and oriented movement, psychoanalysis explains human behavior as all ultimately by 'sexual desire' and 'trauma.' Written on the basis of psychoanalysis, this book explains how trauma and past memories — and the acts of trying to erase, dress up, and beautify the bad memories among them — are all to protect oneself, but in the end cause bad relationships to repeat. Things like 'family relations,' 'passive aggression,' and 'attachment theory.'

There was a page explaining the term 'passive aggression.' 'Passive aggression' refers to expressing dissatisfaction to someone you dislike or feel averse to, not by directly blurting out words like telling them to back off or to stop talking, but indirectly, in a way the other party can't quite notice. Common examples are when a dating couple has fought and both stay angry without saying anything, or a situation where someone of higher status leaves you unable to say anything. Usually it's a state where passive aggression is fully expressed. You can't vent anger directly, but you express dissatisfaction by 'not talking.' You didn't directly say 'I'm not talking!' but if you stay silent, people can't help feeling something is off. That's passive aggression. The feeling of saying 'get lost' without directly saying 'get lost.'

For 'family relations,' the 'homecoming theory' — being drawn to the familiar and comfortable, wanting to return to an environment and atmosphere similar to 'childhood' — can be cited. You seek out something similar to the 'feeling' you've experienced all along since childhood. It's not easy, but since you can find something similar, people all have, to varying degrees, a fondness for the 'familiar.' Basically, the very existence called a human, even if it has a 'novelty' toward 'something different,' that ultimately feels weaker than the 'familiar,' so in the end one seeks out what one has often touched and smelled. They usually call it 'homecoming theory' or 'homecoming syndrome.' Even my own values about fashion were formed by a certain feeling built up from childhood until now, and so is the atmosphere of my home, and what I like and dislike, etc. Of course, this feeling isn't always a good thing.

For example, it means that even something I was always 'deprived of' from childhood is familiar to me, so I come to seek it out. If I grew up without receiving love and then met someone who doesn't give love well, this ends up reviving the bad feeling of the past. But because it's familiar, I keep holding that feeling. In the end, this too is explained as the unconscious's struggle to resolve bad past memories and ease conflict. Because I'm reenacting this conflict without even realizing it.

The part that impressed me most was the part about the relationship bankbook. It's a concept similar to a bank account: it assumed that for things that feel 'good,' a deposit is made, and for things that lead to bad feelings, a 'withdrawal' is made. So this relationship bankbook meant that if deposits exceed withdrawals, the relationship can be maintained. But it wasn't necessarily good just to be high. It said that if one side keeps only giving and the other keeps only receiving, this ultimately brings the relationship's ruin. You know, this often happens when dating. Stories of one side only giving and the other only receiving, so the receiving side eventually finds it too burdensome and says let's break up; or breaking up because one gave too much and the other didn't give when they wanted to receive. It may feel a bit 'trivial,' but most people want to receive, to some degree, as much as they give. It'd be nice if the 'utility for investment' were 100%, but they still want their own standard met to some extent. And this isn't easy. Because everyone has 'flaws,' little by little.

I thought about something like a 'relationship bankbook' while dating, and hmm... it doesn't seem like an easy problem. Lately I've had a strong thought of 'wanting to receive,' but saying it would seem burdensome, so I pity myself a bit for not being able to say it well.....haha

I've already read 2 books this year, so let's run hard.