After the debate that arose in the internet environment regarding the conflict that became publicized between Kimpulung Mayor Elena Lasconi and her daughter, many wondered if it could be explained by the change in the relationship between generations today, when almost everything happens on the Internet. I spoke with anthropologist Alec Belescu about family relationships in the Internet age.

Last week, a public debate started on the Romanian Internet about the relationship between parents and children, as well as some practices and values ​​that have become “traditional” in Romanian society.

It all started when Elena Lasconi, the mayor of Kampulung-Mussel, was appointed head of the USR list for next year’s European Parliament elections. After she revealed on Prima TV that she had voted “YES” in the 2018 referendum on the traditional family, her daughter Oana Lasconi made a public statement admitting that she was “disgusted” by her mother’s actions .

Although Oana later said she “regretted” this approach, Olena Lasconi withdrew from the European Parliament campaign at the request of USR President Catalin Drula.

The case sparked a flurry of discussion online about Romanian family relationships, so I spoke to anthropologist Alec Belescu. He is an associate professor at Royal Roads University, Canada, and a lecturer at Casa Paleolog.

In Romanian society, the institution of the family seems to have values ​​such as “a child must obey its parents”, “a child must respect its parents”, “a child must take care of its parents”. How did they get to us?

Alec Bălășescu: In absolutely all societies there are forms of regulation of relations between parents and children based on respect and obedience. But the content of these values ​​is different. They are often encoded in stories.

To illustrate, I will tell you a Zen (traditional Japanese) story. Judge for yourself about the difference in the meaning of the words respect, care and humility:

Roosters are migratory. One day the son says to his father: “Dad, I’m tired, can you carry me on your back?” “Of course. Get behind me.”

After a while, the father asks: “when I am old, will you carry me on your back?” The son replies: “Of course, Dad!” The father-rooster gesture throws his son off his back and leaves him to die.

A little later, another son asks to be carried. After some time, his father asks him the same question: “When I grow old, will you also carry me on your back?” The son replies: “Of course not, Dad. When you are old, I will have children of my own to carry when they are in need, just as you have me now.’

The father smiles and continues on his way, carrying his son until he can fly again.

Do you think that the new generation still identifies with such values? What factors led young people to change or break away from them?

It largely depends on the area where we are with the analysis. In the rapidly modernizing areas of Romania, there is a tendency to break with the values ​​of “caring for parents in old age”, but not completely.

Physical absence is often replaced by material assistance, and in many situations the decision-making system in the family remains collective. That is, parents and children “decide together” what the children will do, starting from the college they will study and ending with what they will cook for the holidays.

In large cities or areas of high social mobility, these ties are likely to weaken. There are many factors. Migration, especially migration on a social scale (rather than physical), a change in social context is the biggest factor.

Are Generation Z’s attitudes to parenting different from millennials?

I can’t say as much about the alphabetized generations. Personally, I think the idea of ​​classifying generations and assigning them different general characteristics just because they are different generations is less than a good idea and explains little.

As I said, values ​​of the type you are exploring here are rather determinants of sociocultural position and are passed down from generation to generation.

“Presentation of personal life is a kind of currency of popularity”

The Internet provides an open platform for discussing things publicly. Is the Internet a tool for breaking certain patterns or for public discussion of family values?

The Internet is what people do on it. It is designed to be a democratic platform for expressing opinions, and ultimately everyone uses it as they see fit.

What I find interesting, however, is how the practice of the last 15 years, especially with the explosion of social media, has made the representation of private life a kind of currency for popularity. This is for the simple reason that people are interested in seeing and understanding how other people live.

Probably, as a measure of one’s own “normality”. This then leads to a variety of phenomena, one of which is the growing porosity between public and private, with consequences that we cannot quantify as “good” or “bad”.

Family conflicts and the lack of a common language between members at the level of values ​​can lead to trauma for all participants. Why is it difficult for us to solve such situations alone, sometimes we turn to witnesses, external factors?

Well, it depends on what external factors we are talking about in the end. As in any conflict situation, an external factor can be an excellent mediator who will soften the situation, can improve it, can give advice, etc.

For example, we may turn to friends to feel understood and perhaps validated, but we may turn to psychologists or therapists to find solutions to what is troubling us. There are family therapists, family therapists, etc.

The external factor can have several roles, I think that everyone, if they turn to it, expects something different, from personal confirmation to improvement of the situation. The way in which this challenge is carried out and the goal we have will directly affect the result obtained.

“Clash of generations is absolutely natural”

Generation Z. PHOTO: Alamy/ Profimedia

In a clash between generations and family values, what would be the right solutions to manage them?

After all, the clash of generations is absolutely natural. We anthropologists would say it is structural. It comes from the encounter between the desire of new generations for self-determination and the desire of older generations to pass on their values ​​or way of being. As a rule, good intentions come from both sides.

A possible external mediating factor here is the representatives of the grandparents’ generation, but they are often not involved. In fact, in our youth-obsessed society, grandparents have been completely forgotten. But, finally, there is an almost universal law, from genetics to culture: what children forget, grandchildren remember, that is, grandparents and grandchildren often come to mind.

why Climax, because it is quite a binary system of oppositions – parents opposed grandfathers, and children, opposing parents, partially return to grandfathers. You see, it’s simple and complicated at the same time. But it’s interesting and we often see it in fashion and style.

Is radical action needed to change mindsets or transgenerational traumas regarding child-parent relationships in our society?

I am in no way a supporter of radicalism. A change of mind? It’s a mirage, and if we can change anything, it’s practices, and they change gradually.

From my random observations, I can say that the relationship is quite strained, at least at the level of those who are now between 20 and 50 years old and their parents.

This can be explained, again, by several factors, and the important one is the rapid change of society, starting from 1989, and the appearance of practices, which for a certain time were considered absolutely normal, in the countries that Romania perceived mainly as a model (Western civilization, so to speak to speak), but for which parents are not ready at all, precisely because they did not experience them in their youth.

This leads to a much greater deepening of the natural generation gap. What is happening to us now can rather be compared to the gap between the golden generation (those who survived the second war) and the boomers (the generation of the 50s that embraced the first wave of consumerism, illustrated by films such as Rebel Without a Cause or “Wild”.).

To what extent is communism responsible for our values, behavior and attitudes as a nation towards family life?

Well, obviously, being the closest historical experience, to the one that defines the current generation, it bears responsibility, but the values ​​that were promoted in communism did not come on a tabula rasa, but were based on what existed before.

Communism only slowed changes like the ones I’ve just described (the boomer boomer and the glorification of consumerism and individualism expressed through consumption) and ossified previously existing ways of being and seeing the world.

What are the chances and methods by which we can create a change in mentality at this level? Is there a need for changes?

Practices can be changed, not “mentals”. Change happens whether we like it or not. What can be changed is how we deal with the changes and suggestions that new generations bring.

Are we trying to understand them? Do we ignore them? Do we listen to them, analyze them, create them together? Do we say “no” to them a priori because of “traditions”, “customs”, “this is how it is done, not otherwise”?

Why are we so fond of discussing public affairs, analyzing and condemning them on the Internet, taking sides and expressing our opinions?

I think I have answered, at least in part, this question: validation, comparison, the desire to feel less alone or misunderstood in conjunction with the online environment that is the new public space. It’s just a selective public space that can create the illusion that we’re always right (if you look only at confirmation) and those who disagree with us are “wrong.” But that’s another discussion.

“I think a lot of people go online not to talk to people they don’t agree with, but to find people they do agree with and validate themselves.”

Alek Belescu. PHOTO: Personal archive

Can these online discussions and contradictions be necessary (constructive) elements to analyze important topics and change something in society?

Any conflict in society, wherever it arises, is necessary if the desire of those involved in the conflict is to communicate with the other side, to resolve the conflict, if it is a conflict, and to reach a compromise. which allows us to create a joint intergenerational construction in this case, which we really need.

The problem with online is that it quickly becomes polarizing rather than conciliatory and constructive. People are easily satisfied with confirmation, and genuine communication with those with whom we may not share the same views is difficult and difficult.

I think a lot of people go online not to talk to those they disagree with, but to find those they do agree with and thus validate themselves. The Internet wanted a forum for diversity and became a collection of “small churches”.

Where will this lead us? At best, in a society that is becoming more and more isolated, where no one learns anything new, where communication with others begins to be perceived as a threat, and the attempt to do so will be labeled as “treason”.

In the worst case, to a generalized conflict. So what I think is extremely necessary right now is to find communication outside the “bubble” so to speak. Reconnecting people who differ in views or generations.

I remind you that systems theorists say that a system heals only by reconnecting with itself. Society will heal only by reconnecting its elements beyond generations or other criteria of identity.

Online is still only an illusion of communication. I don’t know if this is the answer you are looking for.

• Read also: When the youth of Generation Z start having sex: “Sex is overrated. Most of the world exaggerates it”