My sister
lives out west with her boyfriend (let’s call him Michael). They’ve been
together for a couple of years now and bought a house together last Christmas,
but as they are on the front-end of the millennial generation no one was quite
sure whether they would bother with the whole wedding thing or not. The
question had been floating around the holidays and summer visits for a while
though I was never privy to a moment when it was brought out into the open.
Instead, we discussed it in quiet, gossipy undertones that always felt weirdly
hysterical. It wasn’t so much that we cared one way or the other whether they
officially got married. It was that we were plagued by the uncertainty of not
knowing what to expect from them. We couldn’t put them into our categorical box
and move on to other things because we didn’t know which box to put them in.
The
resolution to all of this came last week with the news that Michael had finally
“popped the question.” This set off a flurry of text messages back and forth,
some phone calls, and a good bit of preliminary planning with regards to dates
and places and styles.
All the
fuss has made Pip and Polly a bit confused. They have met Michael during each
of the past two Christmases at my folk’s house and have found him to be fun in
a tentative, supplemental way. My mother tends to swarm the kids during this
time so it’s hard for anyone else to do much with them, but Michael has shared
his guitar with them and shown Pip some card tricks and let Polly try taking
some pictures with his camera. To them, he is an amusing side character,
someone who is there but not someone that they have particularly strong
feelings about. However, in the wake of his engagement to my sister, my mother
has told them both individually that Michael “is going to be part of our family
now.” She did this, I imagine, as a way of trying to explain what it means to
get married but all this did was make Polly and Pip more confused. “Being part
of the family” is an abstract concept. They are not abstract beings. So, they
turned to Ava and me to find out what this all means in practice.
The answer
is that Michael’s now “being part of the family” means practically nothing new.
We will not be seeing any more of him than before. Our knowledge (and trust or
lack thereof) of him will not suddenly change. He will still be subject to the
same positionality during family holidays and the same gradual processes of
incorporation that have been going on previously. He will become a more
familiar and more comfortable person to them over time (or he won’t). His now
being married to my sister will not change any of that. The biggest change I
can possibly see at this point is that the kids may call him Uncle Michael
instead of just Michael.
In thinking
about this question of what it means to be part of a family, particularly in an
era where so many families are like ours – spread broadly across the country –
I keep coming back to this idea: that family is much more about one’s history
together than one’s biological and legal ties. I have been thinking about this
along two distinct tracks. The first is that I have a couple of friends with
whom I keep in pretty regular contact. I’ve known them for close to two
decades. I went to college with them, saw them get their first jobs, watched
them get married, have kids, lose parents, get divorced. I’ve called them to
celebrate my own triumphs and to get advice on how to handle my own trials. I
trust them with thoughts I wouldn’t share with anyone else. I rely on them
almost as much as I rely on Ava. They are not blood. They are not family. But
as thick as we are together, they might as well be.
My second
track of thinking has to do with biological parentage and adoption. In the last
decade or so, reproductive technologies have become a huge business for couples
who want to have children and are having trouble doing so. Ava and I were
fortunate enough to not have to endure this kind of struggle, so I obviously do
not know how it feels. However, given the cost and the effort involved with
these various procedures, I don’t quite understand why people are so ready to
undergo them. Is adoption really that difficult an option? Is there something
about the notion of a child not being really yours if it doesn’t share your
blood? This second thought strikes me as incredibly ridiculous. Having now
spent almost nine years with my children, I can say with authority that who
they are has little to nothing to do with their biology. Their thoughts, their
feelings, their reactions to situations, their likes, their dislikes – all of
it comes from what they’ve learned by being around Ava and me. They are our
children because we raised them. We are a family because of the time and effort
we expend on each other. We are a family because of our history, not our
biology.
And so,
Michael is going to be part of our family now, except that he’s really not. Not
yet anyway. For that we’ll still need a little more time.
This is interesting reading but I'd have to disagree about genetics. The more I observe and experience non-biological children, the more I see that a large part of who they are is genetic and can be impacted but probably not entirely changed by nuture. That's not a reason not to adopt and there are way too many factors for a controlled experiment. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd, while I'm at it, I think that the issue with live-ins that is being pinpointed is committment. It doesn't always work out, but it seems to me that "popping the question" is another way of making a long-term committment. In fact, wedding ceremonies usually involve some (evidently rashly made) promises about the rest of one's life. I can see why an extended family would be holding back a little, wondering if it's worthwhile to invest in someone emotionally who's not likely to be around for long. But in-laws in their many forms are complicated and not often to be compared with Good Friends. :)
Thanks Tara. Those are fair points all. The reality of relationships within families is always very complicated and trying to explain such things to my kids is even more so. I guess I feel that the expressions of commitment in a wedding ceremony or the claims that one is part of the family now presume a shift in relations that will really only happen over time. They are a promise, an expression of hope even, but one whose real test is still down the road.
ReplyDelete