Storge

Storge is the love of family. The love a parent has for a child, or a child has for a favourite aunt or uncle. The love a foster parent feels for the children in his or her care, or the love a grandparent feels for the child adopted by his son- and daughter-in-law.

According to the Greeks, storge is the almost unconditional love that certain people feel for others.

This love could have its base in the genetic relation of parents and offspring, or nephew and niece, and everything in between.

Storgic lovers place much importance on commitment. Living together, or maybe even children, are seen as legitimate long term aims for their bond.

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” – Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

However, more modern interpretations of storge also include the love between those who are committed and have a long, meaningful relationship together in which, over time, the physical element has ceased to be a factor – the love of the significant other.

See other: Kinds of Greek Love

Characteristics of a Dysfunctional Family

According to the Handbook of Relational Diagnosis and Dysfunctional Family Patterns by Florence W. Kaslow, the near universal characteristics of a dysfunctional family are the following:

• Lack of empathy, understanding, and sensitivity towards certain family members, while expressing extreme empathy towards one or more members who have real or perceived “special needs”. In other words, one family member continuously receives far more than he or she deserves, while another is marginalized.
• Denial (refusal to acknowledge abusive behaviour, possibly believing that the situation is normal or even beneficial; also known as the “elephant in the room.”)
• Inadequate or missing boundaries (e.g. tolerating inappropriate treatment from others, failing to express what is acceptable and unacceptable treatment, tolerance of physical, emotional or sexual abuse.)

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
– Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

• Disrespect of others’ boundaries (e.g. physical contact that other person dislikes; breaking important promises without just cause; purposefully violating a boundary another person has expressed)
• Extremes in conflict (either too much fighting or insufficient peaceful arguing between family members)
• Unequal or unfair treatment of one or more family members due to their birth order, gender, age, family role (mother, etc.), abilities, race, caste, etc. (may include frequent appeasement of one member at the expense of others, or an uneven enforcement of rules)

“After a good dinner one can forgive anybody, even one’s own relations.”
– Oscar Wilde, A Woman of No Importance

Anna Karenina Principle

In his book Guns Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond uses the Anna Karenina Principle to explain the success of certain societies as opposed to others by explaining how some animals could domesticated and some could not.

“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” – Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

Anna Karenina (1948 film)

The first line of Tolstoy’s great novel tries to explain why some relationships work and others fail. According to Diamond, this also applies to the process of domesticating animals.

Just like relationships fail for many different reasons, certain societies failed to domesticate the animals in their respective geographic regions for different reasons.

There are many contributing factors which make a family, or a marriage happy; however, if one of those key components fails, the whole thing falls apart or loses its ability to be considered happy – the same is true for the successful domestication of animals.

Diamond tries to explain how some species of mammals were not domesticated because they were not a good fit with man.

“The Anna Karenina principle explains a feature of animal domestication that had heavy consequences for human history, namely that so many seemingly suitable wild mammal species, such as zebras and peccaries have never been domesticated.” – Jared Diamond, Guns Germs and Steel

According to the Anna Karenia principle – which says that if one of the basic factors of a good relationship fails, the marriage or the relationship will not succeed – applying this to the domestication of animals goes like this: if the animals in an environment were not a good fit for domestication than the society could not access this resource in the same way that the successful Eurasians did because they had animals in their geographic region that were easy to domesticate.

For example, just like happy marriages that have certain factors for success, domesticating animals also have to fit into certain categories in order to succeed in becoming domestic and therefore assisting man in his survival.

1. Diet; It matters what they eat and how much, if the animal eats too much than it isn’t worth the effort to domesticate.

2. Growth Rate; To be worth keeping or domesticating, animals must grow quickly.

3. Problems of Captive Breeding; The animals must be able to successfully breed in captivity, have live births.

4. Disposition; If the animal is nasty or capable of killing humans and are really dangerous, that disqualifies them for domestication.

5. Tendency to Panic; Some species of large animal tend to get nervous and run, this is counter productive to domestication.

6. Social Structure; If the animal lives in groups then it tends to be more easily domesticated, rather than animals who live alone and prowl.

Christian Talmud

“With St. Paul the Christian Talmud begins which is called ‘Church’.”

– Leo Tolstoy

The Stremov Solution

(Part IV – Chapter VI)

‘Alexey Alexandrovitch had gained a brilliant victory at the sitting of the Commission of the 17th of August, but in the sequel this victory cut the ground from under his feet. The new commission for the inquiry into the condition of the native tribes in all its branches had been formed and despatched to its destination with an unusual speed and energy inspired by Alexey Alexandrovitch. Within three months a report was presented. The condition of the native tribes was investigated in its political, administrative, economic, ethnographic, material, and religious aspects. To all these questions there were answers admirably stated, and answers admitting no shade of doubt, since they were not a product of human thought, always liable to error, but were all the product of official activity. The answers were all based on official data furnished by governors and heads of churches, and founded on the reports of district magistrates and ecclesiastical superintendents, founded in their turn on the reports of parochial overseers and parish priests; and so all of these answers were unhesitating and certain. All such questions as, for instance, of the cause of failure of crops, of the adherence of certain tribes to their ancient beliefs, etc.—questions which, but for the convenient intervention of the official machine, are not, and cannot be solved for ages—received full, unhesitating solution. And this solution was in favor of Alexey Alexandrovitch’s contention. But Stremov, who had felt stung to the quick at the last sitting, had, on the reception of the commission’s report, resorted to tactics which Alexey Alexandrovitch had not anticipated. Stremov, carrying with him several members, went over to Alexey Alexandrovitch’s side, and not contenting himself with warmly defending the measure proposed by Karenin, proposed other more extreme measures in the same direction. These measures, still further exaggerated in opposition to what was Alexey Alexandrovitch’s fundamental idea, were passed by the commission, and then the aim of Stremov’s tactics became apparent. Carried to an extreme, the measures seemed at once to be so absurd that the highest authorities, and public opinion, and intellectual ladies, and the newspapers, all at the same time fell foul of them, expressing their indignation both with the measures and their nominal father, Alexey Alexandrovitch. Stremov drew back, affecting to have blindly followed Karenin, and to be astounded and distressed at what had been done. This meant the defeat of Alexey Alexandrovitch. But in spite of failing health, in spite of his domestic griefs, he did not give in. There was a split in the commission. Some members, with Stremov at their head, justified their mistake on the ground that they had put faith in the commission of revision, instituted by Alexey Alexandrovitch, and maintained that the report of the commission was rubbish, and simply so much waste paper. Alexey Alexandrovitch, with a following of those who saw the danger of so revolutionary an attitude to official documents, persisted in upholding the statements obtained by the revising commission. In consequence of this, in the higher spheres, and even in society, all was chaos, and although everyone was interested, no one could tell whether the native tribes really were becoming impoverished and ruined, or whether they were in a flourishing condition. The position of Alexey Alexandrovitch, owing to this, and partly owing to the contempt lavished on him for his wife’s infidelity, became very precarious.’

– Tolstoy. L. 1877. Anna Karenina Mattituck, United States: Aeonian Press (1917) p. 306-307

Tolstoy’s View On Europeans

(Part IX – Chapter X)

‘A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured just because he knows nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German’s self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth–science–which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth.’

– Tolstoy. L. 1869. War and Peace Moscow, Russia: Russkii Vestnik

On Only Talking

“Religious authorities cannot prove anything, they can only talk.”

– Leo Tolstoy