Feuding families & swashbuckling siblings
April 11, 2007 | 12:00am
Blood is thicker than water," goes the age-old saying. True, but is it thicker than money? Definitely not. Take a look around you. Chances are, every family that has a surplus of assets worth squabbling about has, at one time or another, done just that  claw each other over it. Whether it is over a sack of rice or hundreds of millions worth of assets, it happens all the time.
Sad you say? Sure. But in spite of history having proven its inevitability, patriarchs and matriarchs of moneyed families have time and again failed to make provisions for their heirs, which stipulate incontestable, iron-clad last wills and testaments. Is it because they have failed to instill among their progeny the value of fraternity that ensures their peaceful financial future? Or is it because human nature dictates a mad scramble for any commodity thrown into a pit where two or more people are assembled. Again, this addresses the nature or nurture dichotomy.
Deconstructing the intricate web of relationship dynamics that lie at the heart of family financial conflicts may give us an insight into the matter. Some family counselors, adherents of world-renowned psychologist Carl Jung, claim that the birth order of siblings is the strongest determinant of personality. First-borns grow up with a sense of entitlement that drives their acquisitive nature. Myth or fact, the middle child syndrome is well known. They are said to harbor deep insecurities that translate to maladjusted and troubled personalities that constantly have to prove themselves. Their jealous nature and low sense of self-worth are supposedly legendary. Youngest children are the most indulged, the most pampered. This gives them an ambivalent and laid-back attitude that makes them the least contentious among siblings, electing to stay out of all decision-making and allowing themselves to be swayed by the most influential of personalities.
As in most everything, gender does have a bearing on these. The birth order theory only applies to same-sex siblings born successively. In other words, if the first-born is male and the succeeding sibling is female and vice-versa, the theory does not apply. Second-born children who are of the opposite sex qualify as first-borns; they are, therefore, strong, aggressive characters as well.
Nothing is wrong with the picture just yet, for as long as the parents are benevolent and respected heads of the family. But throw in a patriarch or matriarch who plays politics, exercises favoritism, and who uses inheritance as a bargaining chip for the children‚s obeisance and the impetus for World War III is immediately established. Throw in meddling spouses’ in-laws who should have no business involving themselves, and you have total anarchy.
We have all been to parties and funerals where members of one family stay on opposite sides of the room in militant avoidance of each other; where guests exercise supreme diplomacy in dealing with each camp, consciously appropriating equal time with both. Again, sad, we say. But all we do is talk about it among ourselves and not constructively.
The most tragic outcome of financial family feuds is the legacy of animosity that is inherited by generations to come; scores of innocent blood relatives remain embroiled in family feuds they have absolutely no part in. Over and above unclaimed assets, this severance of family ties is the most heartrending collateral damage.
The following scenarios may materialize upon the outbreak of trouble: jockeying for position; formation of opposing camps; the worst of which is the each-man-to-himself free-for-all. After which all sense of family is obliterated. Money, after all, is thicker than blood.
It is not enough that responsible parenting is firmly set in place, asset management and equal distribution of goods must be enforced by the patriarch early on, while he still ably sits as head of the family. Democracy should not be exercised at this point yet. A benevolent dictatorship must oversee the fair allocation of assets and the strict compliance of subjects.
What about family corporations? Nothing wrong with these. But care must be taken so they are not run like backyard operations or cottage industries devoid of professionalism. There must be a duly-elected board overseeing all operations; an organizational hierarchy must be installed and enforced as with shares of stock and dividends and everything else that secures the corporation’s future. The company must be greater than any one individual for its longevity to be assured.
If, en medias res, something goes wrong, like a clash of wills that leads to defection or mutiny, the quality of leadership must be addressed. Ineffectual familial relations can almost always be traced to a problematic leadership; as in any organized group, there must be command responsibility. In immediate families, this is normally symptomatic of a weak foundation and ineffective parenthood. A litany of arguments may be presented to refute this, but the bottom line is, where there is financial trouble among family members, amicably or otherwise, a resolution must be sought.
Why is there a need to discuss this issue? Because it is rampant; it happens to every family and so far, those involved have swept all the dirt under the rug, hoping for it to somehow evaporate and stay out of the public’s eye. But only those who enjoy some degree of anonymity have succeeded at these. Regrettably, the truly affluent ones, whose high profiles have not allowed them to fly under the social radar, have failed to escape the long reaches of gossip mills.
It is a shame that such tragedies grace our publications as human interest stories or business stories; that they grace our coffee breaks and dinners as entertaining table talk; and that no effort has been focused on addressing what indeed lies at the heart of the matter. There is no claim whatsoever here of an antidote or step-by-step preventive or curative measures. All that is offered are questions to be raised so that concerned individuals may author their futures keeping these in mind, hopefully as a rudimentary map to approach and navigate family financial concerns not as a tragedy but as a comedy of manners, as a benign and temporary threat to the institution of family, possibly overcome with equal parts sensibility, filial piety, prudence, and humor.
E-mail the author at clfortyfied@yahoo.com
Sad you say? Sure. But in spite of history having proven its inevitability, patriarchs and matriarchs of moneyed families have time and again failed to make provisions for their heirs, which stipulate incontestable, iron-clad last wills and testaments. Is it because they have failed to instill among their progeny the value of fraternity that ensures their peaceful financial future? Or is it because human nature dictates a mad scramble for any commodity thrown into a pit where two or more people are assembled. Again, this addresses the nature or nurture dichotomy.
Deconstructing the intricate web of relationship dynamics that lie at the heart of family financial conflicts may give us an insight into the matter. Some family counselors, adherents of world-renowned psychologist Carl Jung, claim that the birth order of siblings is the strongest determinant of personality. First-borns grow up with a sense of entitlement that drives their acquisitive nature. Myth or fact, the middle child syndrome is well known. They are said to harbor deep insecurities that translate to maladjusted and troubled personalities that constantly have to prove themselves. Their jealous nature and low sense of self-worth are supposedly legendary. Youngest children are the most indulged, the most pampered. This gives them an ambivalent and laid-back attitude that makes them the least contentious among siblings, electing to stay out of all decision-making and allowing themselves to be swayed by the most influential of personalities.
As in most everything, gender does have a bearing on these. The birth order theory only applies to same-sex siblings born successively. In other words, if the first-born is male and the succeeding sibling is female and vice-versa, the theory does not apply. Second-born children who are of the opposite sex qualify as first-borns; they are, therefore, strong, aggressive characters as well.
Nothing is wrong with the picture just yet, for as long as the parents are benevolent and respected heads of the family. But throw in a patriarch or matriarch who plays politics, exercises favoritism, and who uses inheritance as a bargaining chip for the children‚s obeisance and the impetus for World War III is immediately established. Throw in meddling spouses’ in-laws who should have no business involving themselves, and you have total anarchy.
We have all been to parties and funerals where members of one family stay on opposite sides of the room in militant avoidance of each other; where guests exercise supreme diplomacy in dealing with each camp, consciously appropriating equal time with both. Again, sad, we say. But all we do is talk about it among ourselves and not constructively.
The most tragic outcome of financial family feuds is the legacy of animosity that is inherited by generations to come; scores of innocent blood relatives remain embroiled in family feuds they have absolutely no part in. Over and above unclaimed assets, this severance of family ties is the most heartrending collateral damage.
The following scenarios may materialize upon the outbreak of trouble: jockeying for position; formation of opposing camps; the worst of which is the each-man-to-himself free-for-all. After which all sense of family is obliterated. Money, after all, is thicker than blood.
It is not enough that responsible parenting is firmly set in place, asset management and equal distribution of goods must be enforced by the patriarch early on, while he still ably sits as head of the family. Democracy should not be exercised at this point yet. A benevolent dictatorship must oversee the fair allocation of assets and the strict compliance of subjects.
What about family corporations? Nothing wrong with these. But care must be taken so they are not run like backyard operations or cottage industries devoid of professionalism. There must be a duly-elected board overseeing all operations; an organizational hierarchy must be installed and enforced as with shares of stock and dividends and everything else that secures the corporation’s future. The company must be greater than any one individual for its longevity to be assured.
If, en medias res, something goes wrong, like a clash of wills that leads to defection or mutiny, the quality of leadership must be addressed. Ineffectual familial relations can almost always be traced to a problematic leadership; as in any organized group, there must be command responsibility. In immediate families, this is normally symptomatic of a weak foundation and ineffective parenthood. A litany of arguments may be presented to refute this, but the bottom line is, where there is financial trouble among family members, amicably or otherwise, a resolution must be sought.
Why is there a need to discuss this issue? Because it is rampant; it happens to every family and so far, those involved have swept all the dirt under the rug, hoping for it to somehow evaporate and stay out of the public’s eye. But only those who enjoy some degree of anonymity have succeeded at these. Regrettably, the truly affluent ones, whose high profiles have not allowed them to fly under the social radar, have failed to escape the long reaches of gossip mills.
It is a shame that such tragedies grace our publications as human interest stories or business stories; that they grace our coffee breaks and dinners as entertaining table talk; and that no effort has been focused on addressing what indeed lies at the heart of the matter. There is no claim whatsoever here of an antidote or step-by-step preventive or curative measures. All that is offered are questions to be raised so that concerned individuals may author their futures keeping these in mind, hopefully as a rudimentary map to approach and navigate family financial concerns not as a tragedy but as a comedy of manners, as a benign and temporary threat to the institution of family, possibly overcome with equal parts sensibility, filial piety, prudence, and humor.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
