Family Guy Doctrine: Love but not Like

[Existing Alternatives]

Ok, I do watch Family Guy on occasion, so what!?

In one of the episodes Peter (main character) has a hear-to-heart conversation with Francis, his adoptive strict and distant father. To Peter’s relief it turns out that Francis LOVES him, just does NOT LIKE him. As serious as the format of the cartoon allows for, it is an interesting concept, which seems to gain some traction with many of my friends that I watched the episode with (no, there weren’t that many). According to my friends it is perfectly normal to have loving feelings towards your family, even though you don’t like them as individuals. What do you make of that?

[darknova]

What I'm getting from this is a weird disconnect. I don't understand how you can simultaneously not like someone and also love them. It seems to me that it could be a defense mechanism. Basically saying that someone subconsciously doesn't like their family, yet still feels the need to cling to the mythology of the family (hence the "loving feelings towards your family").

Is the phrase "have loving feelings towards your family" yours, or is it the words of your friends? When I read it, I get the sense that it's a deliberate way of NOT saying "loving your family". Do you get that sense, too, or am I reading too much into it?

[JamesP]

It's propaganda which serves the interests of people who don't want to change themselves.

[MrCapitalism]

Cult of the family.Family Guy is still hilarious though []

[MysterionMuffles]

As a kid, I took that message whole heartedly. I used to believe that because of my DNA connection with these people, I HAD to love them, but I didn't have to like them. Which in itself was a strange dichotomy. Basically I didn't like anything about certain family members, but I convinced myself that I still love them. 

In hindsight, that was quite brainwashing as it makes no sense. It's a squared circle argument. Liking someone is a prerequisite to loving them. Whether the writers intended on that concept of loving which you do not like was supposed to be social commentary, or they really meant it as a genuine sentiment, I think it should be taken with the grainiest grains of salt.

And yes, Family Guy was hilarious when it first came out, and oh boy did I wish for it to return. It was STILL pretty good when it got renewed many years later, but it eventually became a self refrencing onslaught of obscure TV references (that you wouldnt understand unless you've watched endless of hours of TV for the past century) and just a bunch of cut away gags that had nothing to do with anything. I am disappoint.

[STer]

I guess it all depends on the definitions of "love" and "like" being used. I think when people say you can love family without liking them, by love they mean something like "strongly wish the best for them" but by like they mean "enjoy being around them on a day to day basis." Perhaps you can argue with these definitions, but I get the sense that people are defining these words when they use them in a way where this seeming contradiction can actually be reconciled.

It's easy to understand this if you imagine a family member who is a drug addict. You may deeply care for their welfare and want badly for them to get better. But at the same time you may find it extremely unpleasant being around them.

[Existing Alternatives]

Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning towards a disconnect – while LOVE and LIKE can exist independently they cannot exist in opposition. It almost sounds like a cop-out: it’s ok for you not to like me, but you have to love me. It seems that people use this substitution to deal with the fact that they are stuck with people they sincerely do not like. They must “love” them then, otherwise why they’d stick around.

@MCS: I think we all grew up with this disconnect – at first you rely on this people for your very survival, then you hang out with them all the time. Perhaps your psyche processes it some kind of feeling, so love seems to fit the bill.

I totally agree, one should be pre-requisite for another. Even if you assume “falling in love,” would you not want to “like” the person in order to develop a long term relationship?

@darknova: Sorry, it is my phrase. The original is a lot less subtle: LOVE. Having said that, it does not seem all that subconscious. I keep on probing whether “you would still hang out with these people if you were to meet them at a party,” and the answer is usually NO, but then this weird LOVE-NOT-LIKE argument comes in.

@STer: I wonder if it’s true definition differences or people just hide behind it and misuse it to their benefit. So, Love takes more of a Christian form: you have to love (i.e. sincerely care for) everyone. But then why would the same term be used for some of the most intense emotions (i.e. sexual / romantic love).

@MrCapitalism: It’s kind of funny. I just realized that the very show is called FAMILY Guy.

@JamesP: I don’t know if it is propaganda, at the end of the day, it is Family Guy. Although, I see how this can fit in the whole “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength” domain.

[STer]

 

Thanks everyone for the input. I am leaning towards a disconnect – while LOVE and LIKE can exist independently they cannot exist in opposition. It almost sounds like a cop-out: it’s ok for you not to like me, but you have to love me. It seems that people use this substitution to deal with the fact that they are stuck with people they sincerely do not like. They must “love” them then, otherwise why they’d stick around.

@MCS: I think we all grew up with this disconnect – at first you rely on this people for your very survival, then you hang out with them all the time. Perhaps your psyche processes it some kind of feeling, so love seems to fit the bill.

I totally agree, one should be pre-requisite for another. Even if you assume “falling in love,” would you not want to “like” the person in order to develop a long term relationship?

@darknova: Sorry, it is my phrase. The original is a lot less subtle: LOVE. Having said that, it does not seem all that subconscious. I keep on probing whether “you would still hang out with these people if you were to meet them at a party,” and the answer is usually NO, but then this weird LOVE-NOT-LIKE argument comes in.

@STer: I wonder if it’s true definition differences or people just hide behind it and misuse it to their benefit. So, Love takes more of a Christian form: you have to love (i.e. sincerely care for) everyone. But then why would the same term be used for some of the most intense emotions (i.e. sexual / romantic love).

@MrCapitalism: It’s kind of funny. I just realized that the very show is called FAMILY Guy.

@JamesP: I don’t know if it is propaganda, at the end of the day, it is Family Guy. Although, I see how this can fit in the whole “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength” domain.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

[Matt Hill]

 Hi all. I can sorta relate to that . My dad and I have worked together for over twenty years . I dont particularily like him or agree with the way he does things and Im pretty sure if he were to give an honest opinion he wouldnt like me either. But there are other fatherly things i love about him . He has been not been judgmental with me as an adult and was not abusive to me as a child.

[JamesP]

I've heard the "love but not like" message pretty much all my life in various forms.

In dysfunctional families, it shows up when you don't want to visit your family because you don't like them ("But they're your FAMILY").  It shows up when you have issues and people counsel you to forgive without them having earned it.  It also shows up when you hear people talking about how their family is "crazy" or "hard to deal with" but they "love them anyway."

It's not love.  It's Stockholm syndrome, or insecure attachment that emerges from unmet needs, or whatever occurs for people who say that they love unloveable people.

Family Guy is just repeating that old propaganda, but then again, FG isn't particularly original a lot of the time []

[Matt Hill]

 There is a tension in any relationship, and relationships should be mutually advantagous , and this would apply to kin as well would it not ?

[JamesP]

 

 There is a tension in any relationship, and relationships should be mutually advantagous , and this would apply to kin as well would it not ?

 

I don't know what this means.

[Matt Hill]

 Hi James. My post was not a reply to yours , but rather an afterthought to my earlier post. Ours came though within in moments of one another.

[Existing Alternatives]

 

 Hi all. I can sorta relate to that . My dad and I have worked together for over twenty years . I dont particularily like him or agree with the way he does things and Im pretty sure if he were to give an honest opinion he wouldnt like me either. But there are other fatherly things i love about him . He has been not been judgmental with me as an adult and was not abusive to me as a child.

 

Yes, all relationships have issues and take different ways in resolving them. However, I don’t think your example would qualify as NOT LIKE. Despite the judgments and abuse you still “love fatherly things” in him, which, in my view, qualifies as a pretty significant LIKE. To me (and apparently to Peter’s father Francis) NOT LIKE would be closer to complete inability to stand that person. I have huge disagreements with a lot of my friends, lots of them are statists, some of them are fundamental Christians, but I still LIKE them, which is why I hang out with them. At the same time, I’m sure there are some people that I would agree close to 100% on many things, but won’t be able to stand them. I guess my point is that disagreement is not a prerequisite for LIKE or dis-LIKE.

[Existing Alternatives]

 

It's not love.  It's Stockholm syndrome, or insecure attachment that emerges from unmet needs, or whatever occurs for people who say that they love unloveable people.

 

As obvious as it may be, I never thought of it as a Stockholm syndrome. It does seem to have many of its characteristics though... According to Wikipedia, it is “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.” I’d have to think more on this one.

[cherapple]

 

... Disagreement is not a prerequisite for LIKE or dis-LIKE.

 

How do the people that you like handle disagreement, and do you like that?

[Existing Alternatives]

 

 

... Disagreement is not a prerequisite for LIKE or dis-LIKE.

 

How do the people that you like handle disagreement, and do you like that?

 

This is an excellent point. It’s not the disagreement per se, but rather ability to handle a disagreement constructively (or at least civilly) that would have an impact on LIKE / dis-LIKE.

[Elias Tate]

This idea is blatantly self contradictory. I think it appeals to people who are dissatisfied with thier relationships but are too afraid of the consequences of ending them. Or perhaps it is more about having a platitude to fall back on as an excuse for being abusive. 

[MysterionMuffles]

 

This idea is blatantly self contradictory. I think it appeals to people who are dissatisfied with thier relationships but are too afraid of the consequences of ending them. Or perhaps it is more about having a platitude to fall back on as an excuse for being abusive. 

 

Yeah, exactly. It's a form of normalizing such behaviour, which I think is very destructive because it still enables the abuse to occur if no moral argument is made to the abuser. Not to modify their behaviour per se, but to at least get them to question their own motives to see if the relationship is based on power or reciprocity.