What I wonder about is why we love our children so
asymmetrically, so entirely, knowing that the very best we can hope for is that
they will feel about us as we feel about our own parents: that slightly
aggrieved mixture of affection, pity, tolerance and forgiveness, with a final soupcon
- if we live long enough - of sorrow for our falling away, stumbling and
shattered, from the vigour that once was ours.
One theory, popular among the cold-blooded, is that we feel this
way only because it's a peculiar feature of our new, smothering middle-class
culture. Back in the day, they insist, parents yawned over their kids.
The poor had 10 or 11 children and used them, the myth runs,
more or less as the Norwegians used their sled dogs on the way to the South
Pole, while the rich hardly saw their children from one year to the next,
bumping into them occasionally at a Christmas party. Only the growth of
middle-class manners made child love so obsessive.
Perhaps that's so. But then I think of that passage in the first
of all Western classics, the Iliad, where Priam of Troy goes to Achilles for
the body of his son, Hector:
"Honour
the gods, Achilles; pity him.
"Think of your father; I'm more pitiful
"I've suffered what no other mortal has
"I've kissed the hand of one who killed
my children."
He spoke, and stirred Achilles' grief to tears
He gently pushed the old man's hand away.
They both remembered; Priam wept for Hector,
Sitting crouched before Achilles' feet.
Achilles mourned his father.
Homer's point, which moved the Greeks and still moves us, was
that even in heroic society, the love of parents for their children as children
was the strongest bonding emotion of all that humans knew, the one common
emotion that could reconcile enemies in grief. Hector, the prince and hero of
his people, was also - indeed primarily - Priam's son.
The new and more scientific explanation for the asymmetry is
that it is all in our inheritance. Our genes are just using us to make more of
them. (That Dawkinsian idea of selfish genes always gives me an image of the
galley slaves on a Roman ship, peering and panting out of their little window
and then, with a silent nod to each other, deciding where to steer the ship
while the captain frets helplessly above.)
Our genes, we're told, force us to sacrifice for our children
because they - the genes - want to make more of themselves, and our unequal
love for our children is the only way to keep the children healthy enough for
long enough to reproduce so that the selfish little buggers - the genes, I mean
- can flourish.
The trouble with that explanation is that - as with all genetic
explanations of anything involving human love - it restates truths we know
already, only in slightly more robotic terms.
An obvious truth - for instance, "women just love guys like
Daniel Craig" - becomes "our genes compel women to be attracted to
men with a full head of hair, broad shoulders and narrow waists, who are
perceived as having high social status." Oh. This does not illuminate our
lust, it merely annotates it. It explains the origins but not the intensity of
the effect.
Our love for anything cannot be explained by our possession of
genes, any more than our love for football can be explained by our possession
of feet. It is true that football would be impossible without feet, but the
feeling it inspires long ago left feet behind - even Frank Lampard's.
It is not that the big emotions we feel - love or lust or
loyalty - are more mystical than their biological origins but exactly that they
are far more material, more over-loaded with precise dates and data,
associations and allegiances, experiences and memories, days and times.The
mechanism of life may be set in motion by our genes, as the mechanism of
football is set in motion by our feet, but the feelings we acquire are unique
to our own weird walk through time.
My own best guess about the asymmetry of parental love lies in a
metaphor borrowed from the sciences. Merely a metaphor, maybe, but one that -
as metaphors can - touches the edge of actuality.
One of the rules of mathematics and physics, as I - a complete
non-mathematician - read often in science books, is that when infinity is
introduced into a scientific equation it no longer makes sense. All the numbers
go blooey when you have one in the equation that doesn't have a beginning or an
end.
Parental love, I think, is infinite. I mean this in the most
prosaic possible way. Not infinitely good, or infinitely ennobling, or
infinitely beautiful. Just infinite. Often, infinitely boring. Occasionally,
infinitely exasperating. To other people, always infinitely dull - unless, of
course, it involves their own children, when it becomes infinitely necessary.
That's why parents talking about their children can be so
tedious - other parents, I mean, not me or you - not because we doubt their
love, or the child's charms, but because itemizing infinities is obviously the
most boring thing imaginable.
We see this, with heartbreaking clarity, in those people we
know, or read about, who continue to love, say, a meth-addicted child. And we
think: "Why don't you just give up?" And they look at us blankly and
we say: "Oh, yeah. Right."
The joke our genes and our years play on us is to leave us, as
parents, forever with this weird column of figures scribbled on our souls, ones
that make no sense, no matter how long you squint at them or how hard you try
to make them work.
The parental emotion is as simple as a learning to count and as
strange as discovering that the series of numbers, the counting, never ends.
Our children seem, at least, to travel for light years. We think their
suitcases contain the cosmos. Though our story is ending, their story, we
choose to think - we can't think otherwise - will go on forever.
When we have children, we introduce infinities into all of our
emotional equations. Nothing ever adds up quite the same again.
No comments:
Post a Comment