Unhappy Families or Part 2

Welcome back to our discussion and today's episode of Decipher the Meaning.  Today, we will determine what is meant by the words "every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" and decide whether they are true or false.  First though, a few quotes from respondents on unhappiness and unhappy families:


What is happiness anyway?  I think people have a tendency toward optimism or pessimism.  Jes

Unhappy families are different (from happy ones) in the sense of a ship that is rudderless that gets thrown hither and yon.  Mary Ann/ Mom


"Sin is the cause of all unhappiness."  (priest at Family Fest)  There are lots of choices in the ways of sinning, but in the end they are all boringly similar.   Mom again


The assertion, “every happy family is unhappy in its own way is easy to refute.  Just watch the Jerry Springer show or Dr. Phil for a few weeks.  You will see the same things over and over again: infidelity, drug and alcohol addiction, abuse etc. etc.  There are only so many things that can make a family or an individual unhappy.   David

In our study, unhappy families followed a much wider arch of themes and underlying causes. Examples included jealousy, infidelity, scorn, hostility, hypocrisy, greed, lack of commitment, apathy, abandonment, and abuse...In my opinion, unhappy families are likely to be much more entrenched in the seven deadly sins, where as happy families are buoyed by the constant pursuit and practice of moral goodness.   Chris

In Part 1, I stated that the clause "happy families are all alike" has to be true because the "happy families" referred to are at least alike in happiness.  David left this comment on the post:

Sure it is true that all happy families are alike in the sense that they are all happy.  But I think that conclusion fails to address the essence of the statement.  When he says that, “every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”, Tolstoy is implying that the same cannot be said of happy families.  In order to argue that the first half of the quote is true, I think you have to argue why it is not possible for every happy family to be happy in its own way.

David speaks of the "essence" of the sentence or something implied when we join the two independent clauses.  There would be no real need for literary analysis or for discussions about meaning if everything we read were completely explicit.  In the example at hand, I would say the first independent clause is explicit, the second is not as explicit and when you put the two together, the meaning becomes very unclear.  But we'll get to that later.  For now, we are doing something that I vaguely (very vaguely) remember doing in Chemistry class.  We are learning about a compound by first examining its component elements independently. 

But to address David's last point--In order to argue that the first half of the quote is true, I think you have to argue why it is not possible for every happy family to be happy in its own way.  I actually do not believe the statements to be mutually exclusive.  In my experience, happy families can be both alike and happy in their own way.  The same cannot be said of unhappy families.  While they are certainly alike in being labeled "unhappy", they cannot be unhappy in their own way.  Therefore, the half of the sentence about unhappy families is false.  I have three reasons to offer for this conclusion:

#1  The words "unhappy in its own way" imply something different, unique or creative.  Something new.  Unhappiness is none of those things.  Can we really imagine naming a person or family a pioneer in the field of unhappiness? 

#2  While there may be different roads to arrive at the state of being unhappy, chronic unhappiness results from attitudes and behaviors rooted in selfishness and a refusal to submit* or--pride.

#3  The word "way" could refer to either a road/ path or the manner in which something is done.  Regardless, "own way" does not make sense in the context of our relationship to a God who created us and has given us commands about how to live.  Ways are either "God's ways" or "not God's ways".  Anything that exists exists through and because of God which means that anything that pretends to exist outside of Him is not real.  At least not in the end.  "There is nothing new under the sun" (Eccles 1:9)--particularly when it comes to rebellion*.  It is literally the oldest story in the book and is a one way ticket to chronic--even everlasting--unhappiness. 

I thought my mom's point about the rudderless ship was interesting.  It reminded me of the way C.S. Lewis portrayed hell in The Great Divorce (awesome book, short, read it).  In hell, everyone keeps moving farther away from the center of town, farther away from each other.  In the same way, I agree that each unhappy family may go its own way and be alone and isolated in the storms of life.  But that is different than saying they are essentially distinct.  Regardless of who experiences it, unhappiness is lonely, self-centered and monotonous.

That's all for now.  Up next--what do you get when you mix happy families with unhappy ones and a true with a false?   

*Refusal to submit and rebellion may not be as dramatic as they sound.  In a marriage, it could be spouses refusing to submit to one another or to God's plan for the family.  Rebellion could be against legitimate authority such as parents or teachers.  Some people never submit to God's authority over every part of them including their bodies, their lives, the lives of their loved ones etc.  All areas of life must be turned over to God.  This is of course a journey for all of us but there are watershed moments when a decision to say "no" or "not now" turns into a habit of saying "no" or "not now".  A big problem.