Family Conflict, Humanism and Formalism

I was thinking about how people navigate relationships after a series of surprising conflicts with family. The sources of the conflict did not feel intuitive - I could not not have predicted these ex-ante. C and I went on a long hike and came up with this theory to explain what was happening.

There seem to be two dominant approaches to relationships, which I'll call "Formalism"* and "Humanism." This distinction helps explain why some people consistently struggle to understand others' emotional needs. I think formalism in this construction is similar to a deontological approach.

The Formalists view relationships through rules and obligations. Son-father, husband-wife, friend-friend — each relationship comes with its prescribed behaviors and expectations. It's a rulebook approach to human connection.

The Humanists view prioritizes emotional outcomes. What matters isn't following predetermined rules, but ensuring everyone's emotional needs are met. Success is measured by mutual understanding and comfort.

Our observation: Formalists often struggle more than average to understand others' emotions. This isn't because they're less empathetic by nature. Rather, they've rarely had to exercise their emotional intelligence — their rulebook hasn't required it. When you can always refer to a manual for correct behavior, you don't develop the muscle for reading and responding to others' feelings.

Neither approach is clearly superior:

The Formalist approach makes daily decisions easier as they have clear rules to follow. It reduces cognitive loads. But it also leads to emotional blindness, often unable to comprehend their counterparty's reactions.

The Humanist approach allows for a more flexible approach, prioritizing the harmony of most interactions. It comes at a price - requiring more emotional processing to identify the right action in a given situation

Our parents sometimes have to code-switch to make sense of our conflicts. I think what's particularly difficult is switching from Formalism to Humanism, especially if your social circle only has Formalists. It's like trying to speak a new language while everyone around you speaks your native tongue.

This framework explains a lot about intergenerational conflict in modern families, at least in South Asian families. Older generations often operate from formalism, while younger ones lean humanist. When they clash, it's not just about specific decisions—it's about two fundamentally different ways of understanding human relationships.

The Bhagavad Gita usually comes up in these discussions, but I think it's still Formalist. It moves from a rigid universal conception of duty toward individual dharma — personal duty. But even this more flexible approach still assumes everyone has a rulebook, just a personalized one.

That said, even committed Humanists have implicit duties they follow. The difference is they rarely acknowledge these underlying rules, focusing instead on the emotional outcomes they're trying to achieve. It just so happens that the humanist-prescribed action coincides with what the Formalists would have done.

Understanding these patterns has helped me navigate relationships with Formalists in my family. It's made me more patient with the Formalists, although I'm not sure my family would agree!