Interesting that you would post this. I woke up this morning with thoughts of once again accepting that I will not have children of my own. It does challenge you to figure out what your life will mean in a different way. You have more time, more money, more room in your life, and simply more choices in your life than those with children. I think it is one of the reason that people with kids sometimes think that those of us without kids are selfish.
I worry sometimes that it now becomes about work for me. This is less upsetting when you like your work, which I do, but there has to be more to what my life will mean than that. And I struggle to think about what that "more" will be.
I think I will probably read O'Faolain's book and, if I like it, I will give it to others.
I just finished Ron Hansen's latest novel, Exiles, in which he poses, I think, the What-was-I-for question. (The novel takes as its starting point Gerard Manley Hopkins' writing of "The Wreck of the Deutschland": http://www.amazon.com/Exiles-Nov...cm_cr-mr-title)
Hansen seems to be suggesting that all of us are exiles in one way or another, longing to find some place that we can call home. For many of us, that "place" is community. When we find a community, its roots become our own, connecting us to the past. When we add to the community (through work or children or both), we connect with the future. In either case, we transcend the present, and that transcendence helps us to locate ourselves and live rather than merely speculate about what we're for.
I don't think it's quite as simple as this, but it's a start.
I guess my first gut response is, why do I need to be "for" anything? (Not as opposed to "against" anything, but "for" as in "what am I for? what is my purpose or place? what does my life mean"?)
I've felt a whole lot better since I stopped worrying about that question. (Come to think of it, it's around the same time that I stopped worrying about whether I wanted to or was going to have kids.) Not sure exactly what to do with that, but there it is.
I have absolutely no perspective on how having children changes anything, so I'll have to be kind of tangential ^^
Perhaps like "I", I find the very phrasing of the question rather interesting and somewhat perplexing. Rather, when reflecting on my own life, I'm more interested in what gives it significance (which I would take as synonymous with asking about the meaning of my life). It isn't purpose driven, but the various purposes and principles I hold in high regard will undoubtedly be affected by what I value.
In that light, I can see how having children might radically change what you place significance on. Indeed, just yesterday I was looking over some old poems I had written (not very good unfortunately!) and was struck by the way I was thinking about and struggling with a shift in what I valued most - right when I really fell in love with someone for the first time (sentimental indeed!). I would imagine that this goes double when you have children.
Though, I am describing a significant shift, and not any sort necessary precondition for asking these questions about meaning/significance. It strikes me, in my experience on only one side of the child divide, that these are questions we ask implicitly or explicitly all along.
Though, in the end, it might be because I feel lots of "ethical angst" and rather little "existential angst!"
My experience, not having any kids myself, is that many people think that life without kids is less worthwhile. People are almost embarrassed to hear the answer "No" when they ask "do you have kids.?" So I think that most people, especially women, at least those living in suburban America, are put on the defensive about not having kids, unless it is the great sorrow of their lives.
There's the debate about what words to use -- childless or childfree -- which often feels pretty silly to me. But it signifies the anxiety that people feel over the question.
There's also an unaskable question for people who have had kids -- was it worth it? I've never heard anyone ask that question. I wonder how often parents consider the question whether it was worth it. Why is it unaskable out loud? Is it just because the answer is so obvious, or is there a taboo for that question?
Metapsychologist,
A fair question and the answer is an unequivocal yes. When my first was born, the feeling was not only immense joy but unbelievable fear. This was a human being whom we have complete responsibility for, who could grow up to have an incredibly rich and wonderful life, but who literally will die unless we do things right and we've never done this before so we don't quite know what this everything is much less how to do it all right. Children bring to the surface every single insecurity you have -- this, I believe is one of the reasons there are so many bad parents out there.
But it also means that you experience in a visceral way the interconnectedness of people. If you are a reflective person at all, all of a sudden, you realize directly how important people are to each other and the meaningfulness of my life is no longer something I can consider in isolation. My life and the way I live it has a direct influence on the lives of others and the ways they live, something that can be swept away when we don't have kids, but something that becomes undeniable after. You see lives as inseparable in a way that you don't when you entertain Waldenesque fantasies in the pre-kids days, fantasies that seem absurd once you have children.
That, and they are hilarious.
As someone who has recently become a "member" of the Pregnant-Woman community (yes, in spite of serious complications, i'm about 12 weeks along, so what the heck, i'm going public!) i have been thinking about this question a lot lately. So i am glad to see it appear here. My concern is that if one contextualizes one's meaning of life in these terms we risk sending the message to those who choose not to have kids or who can't have kids that their lives are meaningless. I generally dislike these kinds of binary thinking. I think that one can find/give meaning in many other ways. We have civic/social/environmental/political/etc responsibilities at both a local and global level, and fulfilling them is not only necessary but also very meaningful.
This question also leads to other thoughts such as the meaning of giving children up for adoption. The other day, someone mentioned that, the emotional difficulty of such a choice is such that abortion would be the only way to go. While i understand the poignancy of such a decision, my first thought is, having been adopted, all adoptees would not be alive today. Think of all the people we know and how many of them have been adopted or have adopted a child. And then remove them from the equation. Would be kinda empty. Not to mention the fact that we would not have experienced the amazing things that we did. Our parents would have missed out on so much and would have to be reminded of what they might consider their personal shortcomings every day. Also, we are hiccups in the time continuum that kerry mentions, especially when asked the question about the history of our family's healthy. But to get back to my point. Does the person giving up one's child lose life-meaning (no children=no meaning)? Or does the act of giving a child to a couple with reproductive complications give meaning to the woman/couple's decision of giving up a child? I would like to say yes. Because for all the parents who are faced with reproductive complications but who desperately want a child, adoption is one of the most meaningful things that can happen to someone. Meaning then could be found precisely in the rejection of parenthood. This sounds a little confused and poorly articulated. I apologize. But i think you get the gist.
i had more to say, but i kinda lost my train of thought, so shall sign off here.
Metapsychologist--
My experience, not having any kids myself, is that many people think that life without kids is less worthwhile.
I don't think that was O'Faolain's point. She was (she recently passed) childless and I don't think she had deep regrets about that. She saw her mother endure13 pregnancies and thought her mother would've been better off not being a mother, but rather being a librarian.
I guess what interested me about what she said was not that children make life meaninful. Rather, that those who have children don't seem to ask themselves the question: what was it all for?
Since I ask myself that question ALOT and I have a daughter, I was trying to make sense of her claim. If I had children earlier in my life, would I have been less concerned with wht my mark on the planet will be?
It seems to me that children are a legacy--they carry some of the best (and worst) of you on into the future. But, certainly, it would be hard for me to imagine that I would see Maddie as the whole meaning of my life.
Alessia--
You are kind to not out me for making the comment about rather having an abortion than give up a baby to adoption. I regret having said that now--especially realizing I said it in front of you.
I just couldn't imagine what it would be like to give birth to a child and then hand that child off immediately to someone else and know, for the rest of my life, he or she was out there and I couldn't be part of his or her life.
But, this is the perspective of someone who is not in such a situation that the best option is to give a child away. I had to step back and realize--after expressing my visceral reaction--that my 37 year old self couldn't have done that. And, this self is far more capable of handling a child.
In any case, I don't think that those who have had to give up children have a less meaninful life. But, I wonder if the question--what was I for--is more urgent for them than someone who kept their child?
I've felt a whole lot better since I stopped worrying about that question.
Isn't that kind of Spaz's initial point (just trying to clarify)? That having children puts the "What's it all mean?" question on the proverbial back-burner. Maybe deciding not to decide is ultimately the best decision. Wouldn't it be awful if you pigeonholed yourself only to later realize that your chosen path in life is not at all for you? Not worrying about it leaves it open, and if at some point later you go, "Ah, there it is!" then that's great. And if that never happens, it won't occur to you that it was such a big loss.
I like jeff's usage of the word "significance". I think that makes it less Romantic and grandiose, and probably more along the lines of the actual language we would use.
Aspazia
You wrote: Since I ask myself that question ALOT [points off for grammar] -- yes, of course you do, your are a philosopher, and you elected to train in a tradition that emphasizes phenomenelogy and hermeneutics. I would expect most philosophers, especially those who work with deeply personal issues, to be thinking about the purpose of their lives.
My point was that adults without kids are forced to question the value of their lives by the embarrassed reactions and other assumptions of people (probably the majority) who believe that having kids is the best sort of life.
People tend to question the value and purpose of their lives in adolescence (which these days extends to mid-to-late twenties for many people living at home with parents), people going through mid-life crises, and people at the end of their lives. It's generally an uncomfortable process. It's good to do occasionally, and some people should do it more, but it can shake things up. When you are in settled relationships, you don't want to shake things up. New parents are generally not in a good position to be thinking "do I want to be a parent?" and they are probably better off being fully in the parent role.
I've always thought about this in the complete opposite way — that having children is a desperate and infallible attempt at creating (the illusion of) meaning in a meaningless life. Knowing that your life is necessary for someone else's well-being isn't equivalent to it having meaning. Is it? And pushing the problem of that meaninglessness on to the next generation doesn't resolve it either.
Congratulations Alessia! That's awesome!
"I" - thanks!
"Asp" - no worries. i knew where you were coming from, and i don't take lightly the difficulty amd tremendous sense of guilt that must come from giving someone up.
"aaliyah" - interesting point.
one more thing - i think that midlife or post retirement blues (metro - boulot - dodo - umpteenth PT meetings, endless mac and cheese dinners, pile high in laundry, what do i do with my day now, eccetera eccetera eccetera) make evident that such a question continues to be asked with just as much urgency, regardless of whether one has children or not.
Commenting by HaloScan
