Close-knit vs. Enmeshed

[LovebirdsFlying]

Here's an interesting article on the enmeshed family. This is on my mind because I escaped from one, and they're trying to pull me back into it. The general sentiment seems to be, if you share a significant amount of DNA with somebody, you owe them your loyalty at all costs. There are no boundaries in an enmeshed family, and no individuals.

Call my family "enmeshed," and I'm sure they'll counter with words like "close-knit." There is a lot of talk about loyalty, and sticking together, and "loving each other through it," when in fact there is no "through it" but instead staying constantly "in it."

So how close is "too" close? When is loyalty misplaced? My belief is, when you get to the point of lying to the police to keep a loved one from going back to prison, that's over the line. (It's happened in my family.) Are there more subtle cues? For example, how much nudity is acceptable? Some families don't think twice about walking around undressed in front of each other, regardless of gender or age level. "Hey, we're family. So what?" I'm a little squicky about letting that continue past the age of toilet training, myself, unless somebody needs help for medical reasons. But in a past marriage, I saw grown men walk around in their underwear or less in front of grown sisters, or even grown sisters-in-law (namely me). In that family, it's normal.

And this, "If you mess with my relative, you mess with me..." How much of that is healthy, and how much is pathological?

 

[seeingeyes]

Here's an interesting article on the enmeshed family. This is on my mind because I escaped from one, and they're trying to pull me back into it. The general sentiment seems to be, if you share a significant amount of DNA with somebody, you owe them your loyalty at all costs. There are no boundaries in an enmeshed family, and no individuals.

Call my family "enmeshed," and I'm sure they'll counter with words like "close-knit." There is a lot of talk about loyalty, and sticking together, and "loving each other through it," when in fact there is no "through it" but instead staying constantly "in it."

So how close is "too" close? When is loyalty misplaced? My belief is, when you get to the point of lying to the police to keep a loved one from going back to prison, that's over the line. (It's happened in my family.) Are there more subtle cues? For example, how much nudity is acceptable? Some families don't think twice about walking around undressed in front of each other, regardless of gender or age level. "Hey, we're family. So what?" I'm a little squicky about letting that continue past the age of toilet training, myself, unless somebody needs help for medical reasons. But in a past marriage, I saw grown men walk around in their underwear or less in front of grown sisters, or even grown sisters-in-law (namely me). In that family, it's normal.

And this, "If you mess with my relative, you mess with me..." How much of that is healthy, and how much is pathological?

My "family" is the people who show me selfless love, the people who care about me, and respect my boundaries. Genetics is secondary.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

My daughter and I agreed, when I made the statement earlier today: Family ties are overrated. NOT MEANINGLESS. But overrated.

 

[ValleyGal]

Before I ever had my son, I'd agree and say family relationships are overrated, but my family was very dysfunctional, with no boundaries and a lot of codependency. Now I have my son - he's 20, and I love my relationship with him. I hope he feels respected and valued enough by me that he does not think family relationships are overrated. I have worked very hard to overcome codependency and other interpersonal issues that were evident in my family of origin. I did not want my son to have the same dynamic with me as I had with my family of origin.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Maybe I should say SOME family relationships are overrated. I mean this in the sense that if you are compromising your own sense of right and wrong because X is your relative, and you want to make X happy, then something isn't as it should be.

I'm thinking of something that happened yesterday. My daughter was a bit worked up, and her mouth was running off without her. We told her she would have to leave our house if she couldn't keep a civil tongue in her head when speaking to my husband. You don't swear at someone or flip them the middle finger in their own house. (I am now in possession of a written apology from her, which I will give him when he comes home tonight.) Well, when we said that to her, and she left in a huff, my sister immediately asked if we would now have a problem with her son continuing to live in our house. Um.... why would we penalize him for something his cousin did? I escaped the enmeshment seven years ago, and I've adjusted well enough since then that the idea made no sense to me. But in an enmeshed family, I had to remember, what happens to one happens to all, and if one family member isn't welcome in some place, the entire family should stay away from there in solidarity. Also, as my nephew explained, my mother would have done exactly that. When he, my sister, and my brother-in-law (not his father) were staying at her house, she would threaten to kick the whole family out any time one of them didn't do what she wanted.

Our family had no boundaries. There were too many people living in too small a space, which meant no privacy between opposite sex siblings, well into teen years. Having only one bathroom in the house, sister could be in the shower with only a sheer plastic curtain between herself and brother or even father, using the toilet. Parents didn't knock before entering a child's bedroom. They didn't feel they should be required to. They're the parents, and as parents they have absolute control over everything concerning the child. There was no such thing as a child's right to privacy when it comes to parents.

Absolute control also gives parents the right to practice double standards without being questioned about it. They didn't see anything wrong with expressly forbidding the children to do something they themselves did freely--use of even mild profanity comes to mind. Parents could say whatever they wanted, but their children had to watch every syllable. As my father explained it (in a loud, angry tone,) "What I do, is my business! What YOU do, is also my business!" They also thought nothing of smoking cigarettes in a car full of children, with all windows rolled up. So, I suppose there were boundaries, but they were absolutely one-sided.

 

[ValleyGal]

That sounds really unhealthy, Lovebird. How are things now that you are married to someone who is likely not from an enmeshment like the one you describe? How long of being on your own or married did it take to start recognizing how unhealthy it is and start working towards healing? Do you have strong boundaries with them now?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

My husband, actually, was abused as a child. Back then, the laws to protect him were still flimsy, and then complicate matters with the fact that his abusive father was a police officer. He would often remind his wife and kids that it wouldn't do any good to report him, because his colleagues would have his back, and nothing would happen to him. In those days, unfortunately, that was true. My husband reports that his father also didn't believe in knocking. However, the family itself is not enmeshed, because they didn't all band together to present a "we're a perfect family" face to the world. They have their skeletons too, but they don't hide those skeletons in a closet. What struck me most was that nobody, not one person in my husband's family, has ever made excuses for his father. Nobody denies that it happened or tells him it wasn't all that bad, as my family would do with me. They all come right out and call it abuse. When we went to see his aunt and uncle renew their wedding vows on their 50th anniversary, I actually saw his uncle pull him aside and apologize to him for not being able to do more to stop the abuse.

My family, by contrast, would be of the "hang together at all costs" mentality. When I talk about something that happened in the past, I am told it's my imagination, and that it didn't happen the way I tell it. We *can't* have people thinking we're dysfunctional! My brother told me, in a private message via Facebook, that I had a "severe reaction to normal child raising." My psychologist tells me the opposite: that PTSD is actually a normal reaction to abnormal events. If we're all in agreement that I have PTSD, then, it follows that something abnormal must have happened. I cannot have PTSD without the T to have S over. Faced with this logic, my brother denied ever telling me I had a normal childhood. I screenshotted where he did say that, and showed it, whereupon he unfriended me. How dare I betray the family by revealing we're not perfect?

To get away from the family dynamics, I had to move from Kentucky to Washington, far enough away to stop their influences on me. I've only been licensed to drive a car for a year, and I'm going to be 50 in June. If I had stayed in Kentucky, my mother would still be doing such things as rearranging my kitchen cabinets without my permission, and without my husband's support, I can almost guarantee I *still* wouldn't have learned to drive. Having a mental condition makes me "disabled," and with an enmeshed family, there is a lot to lose if the disabled person doesn't continue to be helpless and dependent. Therefore, while putting on a great show of wanting the sick person to get well, everyone must make sure this doesn't ACTUALLY happen. Otherwise, they lose their purpose in life, which is taking care of (controlling) the sick person.

When they realized that my life really has improved by leaps and bounds since I climbed out of that crab bucket, one by one, roughly half of them have followed me out here. It was like, "Hey, crabs, there must be something about Washington--she's happy. Let's go where she is! Don't forget to bring the bucket!" Sadly, it's not about where you live. If you don't change your mindset, it doesn't matter how drastically you change your address, your lifestyle and the resulting problems are going to pack their own bags and come right along with you. If I allowed it, we'd be just as enmeshed and dysfunctional in Washington as we were in Kentucky.

I didn't realize how far I'd come until my nephew (age 19) joined us recently. He is afraid to make a single mistake, can't stand the thought of displeasing us in any way. I asked my husband if I was like that when I first came out here, and he assured me I was.

 

[ValleyGal]

It sounds like you've come a long way, physically all the way from Kentucky as well as emotionally. It sounds like you're doing great, and it sure helps to have a husband who loves you. Between the two of you coming from such opposite family styles, has it been hard to find a way to meet in the middle? Anyway, keep up the good work! Healing is a long and hard process, but soooo worth it!

 

[LinkH]

Aside from the nudity, some aspects of this sound like the issue of individualist cultures versus collectivist cultures. Most cultures have probably been collectivist throughout history. Individualist cultures seem to correlate with countries with a lot of urban communities.

Most of the world is probably collectivists. A lot of Asian young adult children major in what their parents want them to major in in college, or at least have to negotiate. I was talking with a former co-worker and later a fellow MBA student I knew when I worked overseas. He'd majored in what his dad wanted him to major in. He wanted economics. His dad wanted him to major in accounting. Parents have more say in who their kids marry in a lot of these collectivist cultures than in ours. People tend to make decisions based on what is good for their in-group. The boundary between their own identity and their in-group's identity (often family) is a bit less fuzzy than in western culture.

People from collectivist cultures might think of individualistic viewpoints as selfish. The advantage of individualism is personal freedom. A disadvantage is that individualists tend to be selfsih.

In collectivist cultures, family and others in the in-group may be more free to get in your business and give you advice. That has a down side, of course. But individualistic cultures tend to be more lonely. But psychological counseling is almost totally an individualistic culture thing. It's rare for someone to go talk to a therapist about his problems in collectivist cultures.

Loyalty to the ingroup is extremely important in some of the collectivist cultures, speaking from experience. My guess is there is probalby a lot of academic literature on this aspect, too, though I'm not aware of it.

So if anyone tries to treat the whole 'enmeshed' family thing as some kind of a social or psychological disorder, that seems a little ethnocentric and prejudiced to me. The nudity-- that's alarming. But not all other aspects of it.

 

[seeingeyes]

I've had a small taste of this. Not from my own family, but from my husband's. My sister-in-law has an...unpleasant situation of her own making going on, and my brother-in-law tried to convince my husband that they have to band together and cover for her "because she's family".

My husband essentially replied, "if family's so important, than why haven't you called me in the last ten years?" (I have no choice but to love that man. )

Good on you for leaving that behind!

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Interesting perspective on the other cultures. My husband's first wife was from the Philippines, and apparently their family was very close. He felt like his in-laws were invasive on their personal space, but to her, it was just the way families do.

I must sympathize with him on that point, because I know what it feels like when there's just too many people involved in your marriage. I can't quite agree that nudity is the ONLY alarming aspect of my previous marriage. My ex's sister was under the impression she had the right to dictate such things as our financial decisions and whether or not we would have children. When we were engaged, his mother casually asked me if we were planning to have any, and before I could say no--that sister of his jumped in, all aflutter. "Mom, remember? We discussed that. We decided they shouldn't."

WE decided THEY shouldn't.

I would have answered no, if she had given me a chance. But after that, I started talking about what we were going to name our children, just to tick her off. Ditto for the fact that she told him not to LET me apply for a credit card. I wasn't going to. I hadn't even planned on it. But when she said that, I seriously entertained the notion of getting one just to show her it wasn't her decision to make.

And when told she was butting in where she wasn't welcome, she'd get huffy and remind me, "He was my brother before he was your husband!"

My now-and-forever husband has a sister too. But she doesn't tell us how to live our lives, and if she tried to, he definitely wouldn't sit by in silence and let her. He'd tell her off, for certain. I never should have married that wishy-washy wimp who didn't tell his own sister to back off. Thank God he left me after a year of marriage, because his sister didn't like me. He did me a big favor.

 

[sdmsanjose]

our families are our primary social communities;
True for us

Healthy families allow for differences in their members; adults and children alike.
True for us

how much nudity is acceptable?
None except the very young

"If you mess with my relative, you mess with me..." How much of that is healthy, and how much is pathological?

We are not a mafia type family but we will back each other up in most cases. Supporting a family member that is abusive to their spouse of has an addiction is going too far. You support positive things with an addict but do not enable.

My 23 year old grandson lives with us as does my 32 year son. There are almost no problems and we get along real good. These two add to our lives in a positive way. Our lives would not be nearly as full without them! I guess we have just been lucky so far.

 

[LinkH]

LovebirdsFlying,

I think in most collectivist cultures, the sister doesn't get to decide if you have children. Parents have a say. In my wife's culture, the oldest brother becomes the head of the clan, and men defer to the older brother on certain issues, but there are limits to what's considered acceptable. The older brother is in charge of certain things related to traditional family gatherings. that may be after his father has died, though. There are lots of things about her people-groups culture that I dont' understand, and neither does she since she was raised off in the city instead of up in the heartland of her people-group.

 

[sdmsanjose]

In my wife's culture, the oldest brother becomes the head of the clan, and men defer to the older brother on certain issues,

Link
I am familiar with that culture and have seen it in action. I do not buy that as a standard rule for all as it can be dangereous. Take Joseph for example, His older brothers wanted to kill him but wound up selling as an Egyptian slave. God choose the younger brother Joseph to be the head of the clan and he saved the tribes of Israel.

 

[LinkH]

He did, and he also chose Jacob and Ephraim for special blessings. But I hear Jewish culture in Biblical times general gave a prominent place to the older brother in family leadership.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Some questions to throw out for general discussion:

My husband was telling me this morning about how, during his first marriage, his brother-in-law was driving recklessly and well over the speed limit, with my husband's son in the car, who at the time was still a baby. When he confronted his brother-in-law, "Don't drive like that when you've got my son with you," his now ex-wife sided with her brother, because he was her brother. Never mind that my husband's son was her son too. If there is a conflict between her brother and her husband, blood is thicker than water. He told me this to thank me for standing with him when my daughter was so rude to him yesterday. Well, I feel right is right, no matter who's related or how. Your thoughts?

 

[sdmsanjose]

He did, and he also chose Jacob and Ephraim for special blessings. But I hear Jewish culture in Biblical times general gave a prominent place to the older brother in family leadership

Yes Jewish culture gave a prominent place to the older brother but God proved that can be the wrong way to go sometimes. My father's culture is the same as the jewish culture but it is not a solid rule and God does not always support that jewish custom nor my father's custom.. I have no set alligence to that custom.

 

[Hetta]

Some questions to throw out for general discussion:

My husband was telling me this morning about how, during his first marriage, his brother-in-law was driving recklessly and well over the speed limit, with my husband's son in the car, who at the time was still a baby. When he confronted his brother-in-law, "Don't drive like that when you've got my son with you," his now ex-wife sided with her brother, because he was her brother. Never mind that my husband's son was her son too. If there is a conflict between her brother and her husband, blood is thicker than water. He told me this to thank me for standing with him when my daughter was so rude to him yesterday. Well, I feel right is right, no matter who's related or how. Your thoughts?

I think that is ridiculous. The woman's loyalty should have been to her husband and child, not her brother. Otherwise why 'leave and cleave'? People like that should have just stayed home with their family of birth and never ventured out. Sorry if that's harsh to your husband's ex in-laws. I just don't understand that thinking.

My husband's family is a little like the example of the enmeshed family. They 'live in each other's pockets' as the saying goes. I find it overwhelming. I love my family dearly, but I would not side with my siblings against my spouse, or my parents against my spouse, and if my husband ever sided with his family against me, he would never hear the end of it. I think that because I have seen this in his family, I have tried to provide a different environment for our children, allowing them more freedom and encouraging them to build close bonds outside of the family. They are still our kids - always will be - but they are cleaving to others as time goes along, and that's right.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

"Leave and cleave." Oh, yes. That hits it right on the head. The same could be said to my ex-sister-in-law, and her "he was my brother before he was your husband" stuff. When we get married our spouses (later our children) become our primary relationship after Jesus Christ. Family of origin comes in behind, after that.

In my family, I was totally undermined as a mother. My relatives might discipline my children right there in front of me. "Hey, there, miss smart aleck. You wanna go sit in the corner?" And this is before I've had a chance to say a word. If I told them they weren't supposed to do something, the relatives would make double dog sure they DID do it. "These are new shoes for school. Don't wear them before school starts, or they'll wear out." I even wrote them a "note" from the shoes. "Please don't wear us before school starts. We want to look nice and shiny. Love, your shoes." The girls found that amusing. "Hey Mammaw, our shoes wrote us a note!" The next time I saw those shoes, they were on my daughters' feet. Mammaw had put them there. "Oh, it won't hurt anything." She KNEW what I said and went against it on purpose. I also told them they weren't supposed to watch The Simpsons. (They were 5 and 7 years old.) Not only did family go out of the way to make sure my kids did watch it, but that year, all of their Christmas presents were somehow Simpson-themed. If I told my mother no, don't have their hair cut, they're growing it out long on purpose, she'd take them out "for lunch" and they'd come home with fresh haircuts. "I know you said not to, but it looked bad." During their early childhood, in my first marriage, we belonged to the Seventh-day Adventist church. Knowing the beliefs of the church, my relatives still gave my daughters pork to eat, just to spite us.

I think this behavior was deliberately calculated to instill in my children that Mama is not someone who needs to be listened to. Then later, when I can't control my children, they can cite that as evidence that I'm incompetent, and need my decisions made for me. Because you see, the whole goal is to keep me dependent on them so they feel important, taking care of someone who is disabled and "helpless."

This kind of thing is what I mean by "enmeshed." A close-knit family wouldn't just blatantly disregard each other's feelings and beliefs like that.

 

[mkgal1]

I've only recently began to understand the difference between "enmeshed" and "tightly knit"......unfortunately by experience.

You made a GREAT distinction, Lovebirds, when you said this: "Because you see, the whole goal is to keep me dependent on them so they feel important, taking care of someone who is disabled and "helpless."

This kind of thing is what I mean by "enmeshed." A close-knit family wouldn't just blatantly disregard each other's feelings and beliefs like that."

The first thing that I'd ever seen that I could relate to was this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TplqWrya_Kg

__________________