There is a trend being promoted by some psychologists for young adults to cut all contact with parents: don't visit, don't call, don't text, don't respond. This is not general advice for all young adults, but for those whose parents are labeled as toxic, immature, or narcissistic. A few months ago a video from Oprah gave space to one of the psychologists leading the charge for children to go no-contact with their aging parents. A counter-argument in Psychology Today pointed out that what was being welcomed as growth was estrangement, and that it denied the idea of an obligatory parent/child relationship.
I don't believe that "Honor your father and mother" came up in discussion when I watched the Oprah video. Likewise "Honor your father and mother" was not mentioned in the response in Psychology Today. On the one hand, why would psychologists bring up the Ten Commandments and enter into the realm of spirituality and faith? But here we can see true advantages in religion -- yes, organized religion, complete with shared expectations that are not optional. Religion brings a social contract, an essential element of a functioning society.
The social fabric is messy, complicated, and built one relationship at a time. It takes work. The social fabric is also necessary even at the psychological level. People who lack a sense of belonging tend to have serious struggles with life happiness. When psychologists normalize breaking off key relationships, it is not always to the benefit of the client that they would help.
What about those parents who actually are immature, narcissistic, or toxic? There are a number of us whose childhoods were marred by parenting that was worse than indifferent. Labeling the parents as a problem is not always too hasty or too convenient; it can also be too true. I speak as someone with experience dealing with parents who had more than the typical faults. I had a brother who went no-contact with the harsher parent, to the extent possible. The result was not his growth and peace but empowering the unhealed wounds to isolate him still.
The premise of much popular psychology is that a person's primary duty is to their own personal happiness and well-being. Even if we allow that premise for this conversation, the "cut and run" approach can deprive the adult children of learning how to stand up for themselves, learning to define and redefine relationships to insist on the healthy respect due to an adult. It cuts off opportunities to learn and practice a relationship of equals, and to gain that necessary adult skill of insisting on fairness and respect in mature relationships.
It can be tricky to rebuild the adult-child relationship when both parties are adults. The habit of power with the parent may show up as disrespect for the adult children when the now-adult children need to claim responsibility over their own lives. But this transition to full adults is not optional, and claiming agency in the relationship is not a developmental milestone we can afford to skip.
For those of us with challenging parents, going no-contact can deprive us of learning how to find our voice and redefine the relationship, and the related practice of steering a relationship onto a healthier course. The lack of those relationship skills can take a toll on those who go no-contact.
There may be a time and a place to take a break from a family relationship. But a permanent rupture has its own price tag of leaving the wounds unhealed, the skills unlearned, the power to redefine it unclaimed.
"Honor your father and mother" may not be easy. And it does not mean tolerating abuse. But there is a place in the conversation for leveling up our own skills so that each side is treated with honor and respect.
