On 读评论答网友疑：关于我特殊的母女关系 - 小红书. Also on love, obligation, and gratitude.

I'm often criticized by many of my friends for lacking a personal perspective or a strong voice—a phenomenon/syndrome I have come to call the "diluted voice." While I tried to justify or at least explain my reasons for and understandings of making such a choice (like in here and there), I've finally come across an ideal case in point to exemplify the matter, as well as to discuss some other findings I recently discovered.

The inciting event is a series of public videos (or sayings, let's say) of a Chinese actress/influencer, Ms. W, on her relationships with her mother, whom she has seen for three or four times since the age of three, and her grandmother, who effectively undertook the parenting role and raised her. Just for more context, those sayings, including that she admires more of her mother's lifestyle, she does not blame her mother at all, nor crave for a 'traditional' motherhood, and she thinks her grandmother raised her willingly out of 'free will', and that does not necessarily mean one is obligated to be grateful, etc. had triggered great backlash, polarized comments, on Chinese social media—as you may imagine. That being said, before I try to make my comment and project my understanding of the matter, I find it to be a perfect example to demonstrate how the "diluted voice" originates.

Anyways, I realized the best way to explain this is probably to first think in the opposite direction, as we are more likely to encounter the case in which people rush to a conclusion, judgment, or comment. When we say someone is rushing to a conclusion, I guess we typically mean that, compared to our current knowledge/understanding, we believe that the individual hasn't comprehensively considered the context enough, and thus their conclusion is built upon some incomplete foundation. A very handy analogy here could be a less-than-ideal research in which the author draws a precipitous conclusion, while the context, domain knowledge, and the existing academic conversation haven't been fully explored.

Then, on the contrary, if one is so dedicated to, so attached to—or even paralyzed by—the literature review process, I suppose it's certainly possible for them to become ambivalent and hesitate about their own stance, because they have studied and understood and become so familiar with those possibilities, stances, and opinions. Of course, ideally, one should hone their initial idea/hypothesis during the research or develop one if they don't have one yet. Still, I do believe it's not a rare case in which, after all the heavy-lifting, one suddenly finds themselves in the middle of nowhere with no direction. Comparatively speaking, I would say it's even methodologically easier when it comes to actual research—since we can for sure tell if we've got a thesis/message/stance or not. If not, then we automatically know there is more to go. However, in real life, there is no hard criterion or incentive to constantly check, in general. Subsequently, we, or at least I, end up knowing less about my own stance—knowing less what exactly it is, if it exists at all, or if it's yet to be thought through—when I'm so used to automatically going through each side, aspect, perspective, level of storytelling and consideration, and each possible explanation I could think of at the moment.

Now, finally, maybe we can get back to Ms. W's case. While there are plenty of discussions all over the place, I'll just briefly name a few perspectives/possibilities I thought of at first glance that would potentially lead to a "diluted voice." For Ms. W's supporters, her pioneering tone, sophisticated language and logic, and strong voice seem to represent an "ideal big woman" figure, which is allegedly so rightful to be respected and admired in a liberal opinion field; meanwhile, they also consider the other voices as envious of Ms. W's pleasant life. On the other hand, for Ms. W's critics, it is obvious enough that her stance is against the very general and foundational understanding of filial piety and how parenting, especially motherhood, typically works. In other words, it directly challenges some of the most firmly accepted/shared tenets of our society for all these years.

Although it may seem to be another cliché left-versus-right issue, as I frame it this way (although it is indeed one, to some extent), there's much more nuance behind, I believe. For example, another axis in the matter is certainly the age/role, let's say. In both for and against parties, there are children and parents, and I think one can easily 'imagine' their potential rationales, no matter which side they take. Another common perspective in the discussions is that, if we zoom out a bit, ditch the framework used by Ms. W herself as well as the left-versus-right battlefield, and consider Ms. W's saying over time, a psychoanalytic possibility emerges: it was exactly because Ms. W's mother effectively abandoned her, Ms. W can then treat and admire her now—but not as a mother, but an admirable stranger; meanwhile, as Ms. W's grandmother is effectively her 'mother' and bore the weight of parenting, she thus is the subject of a much more "bittersweet" and complex sentiment.

Anyhow, I'm just listing these perspectives to show how, typically, a "diluted voice" could happen when one realizes or is exposed to so many interpretations/camps/axes at once. Furthermore, in fact, even if I do have a stance/opinion deep down, I will often hesitate if I'm to directly express it, as there may still be unresolved issues, and it's surely really hard to be 'sure' about something when I know there are issues unsolved. To be honest, in most cases, I would even argue that expressing these immature ideas is even worse, or at least, more dangerous, than having no voice. At the end of the day, even if we try our best to be objective and comprehensive, our perspectives are still destined to be biased and subjective. This is indeed a dilemma of whether to choose the safety of silence or the risk of precipitation.

However, again, what if expressing those immature ideas and receiving feedback are necessary to develop our own on a broader scope, just like how a paper is peer-reviewed and then may be further criticized after its publication—in those back-and-forth, we mature. Honestly, the precise reason that made me realize what exactly my stance is was the fact that I happened to discuss this matter with a friend.

Interestingly enough, though, the diluted voice didn't happen to me this time when I first brought it up to my friend. Frankly speaking, when sharing one of Ms. W's videos, I hadn't even gone through the entire business, but simply and straightforwardly expressed my appreciation of her style, tone, and strong voice, which brought me some simple pleasure and satisfaction when observing her performance. And that appreciation was reasonably received by my friend as my agreeing with Ms. W's argument, which is also partially true, though. However, sometimes we are not even aware of what exactly we are agreeing with or against, unfortunately. And specifically, in this case, it's the tug-of-war between my psychological resonance and intellectual hesitation.

What I was actually agreeing with... or not even necessarily agreeing, but, like I said, psychologically resonating with is her courageous, although maybe also defensive, stance/performance. On one hand, her daring to express those known-to-be-controversial messages in public with a preparation to be interpreted in that exaggerated, misinforming, and distorting social media environment was itself rather appealing to my expresser self—as a model against the danger of silence. On the other hand, although intellectually I sensed the "unresolved issue" that I don't agree with her from the very beginning, her saying about relieving one from both the obligation and being bound to be grateful still psychologically triggered some of my own bittersweet feelings when it comes to my family of origin, or in particular, my relationship with my mother.

Raised in a single-parent family, I would say my relationship with my mother has recently reached a state that we have claimed to have for many years, after years of struggle and growth—to be more peaceful, open, assured, and of more trust and respect as an individual. Without touching too much on the entire history, one of the jarring and biting things I've just figured out is exactly how obligation, love, and gratitude work jointly instead of mutually effacing. From one thread, there is no doubt that I was, intellectually, all the time aware of the necessitated motherhood obligation in human society, at least still in today's society, aware of its sacrificial reality, and aware of the fact that this is not at all conflicting with love. From the other thread, it was poignantly, although maybe subconsciously at the beginning, hurting each time a kid heard his mother publicly and proudly express the idea that she sincerely valued her obligation of raising a "worth-raising child" for society over mere motherhood. For years, it did take a while to psychologically maneuver around when that felt like a weakening and even betrayal of the emotional bond—even if intellectually, I knew it was not a zero-sum game at all, and love and obligation are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, when it comes to gratitude, I was also bothered by a should-not-exist tug-of-war between obligation and free will when it comes to the morals of gratitude. Theoretically speaking and in real life, I guess we shouldn't be more or less grateful depending on whether another's action is out of obligation or "free will"—this also seems to align with my own preference to be judged by my deeds instead of my thoughts. However, maybe I'm less determined than I sound. To borrow from Ms. W a second, I hold the exact opposite to her saying that suggests we don't necessarily need to be grateful, as the others are only doing good (or bad) to us out of their free will. From my perspective, we are grateful precisely because the others are not forced by external forces and still choose to do us good. Therefore, awkwardly, there was indeed this weird twist in my mind before I recognized that those are two parallel lines: while I was always so much grateful for my mom, following both the common values and my own rationale and understanding of gratitude, whenever my mother expressed her emphasis on the obligation-driven parenting philosophy, I found an inner conflict that, at some level, effaces the very gratitude. In hindsight, none of these are extremely difficult issues, but more self-inflicted, I guess. Unfortunately or fortunately, the process of dealing with problems like these is effectively how I grow and develop, practicing the de-and-reconstruction circle.

Well, so much for my personal anecdote. At the end of the day, similar to how I was subconsciously triggered by her saying, maybe Ms. W was also first triggered by the comments she received (or maybe she wasn't, IDK). Ms. W's admiration for her mother's "lifestyle" may serve as a cognitive shield against the pain of original abandonment (although I recall she had already addressed this in her video here and there)—it is presumably easier to admire a "stranger" for their aesthetic choices than to forgive a parent for their absence. This possibility does explain, though, at large, why she would appear in an aggressive tone responding to the comments that are, from her perspective, a misunderstanding of her relationship with her mother. In recognizing this, maybe Ms. W and I were just both using logic and intellectualization as a shield for very different psychological wounds.

That said, as I discovered the distinction between the subsequences caused by my psychological resonance (satisfaction and pain, in this case) and intellectual awareness (ambivalence and hesitation)—or, in our analogical terms, further conducted the research with my own methodology after the literature review—I suddenly also discovered my further stance on Ms. W's saying.

What I will still agree with is the normative pursuit to be courageous enough to speak up, to be sound and clear in defending one's own stance, and to have a determined vision of what to value as an individual. What I cannot agree with, though, is not only a part of her saying itself, but also, ironically, opposed to my initial appreciation of her performance, the even deeper attitude or premise beyond an independent and strong persona. It was the nevertheless preaching and even pretentious attitude, implicitly enforcing a personal value system over the public without acknowledging the immense resources and luck, and the social hierarchy that only made it work for her—and I suppose that's quite by definition arrogant—and arrogance, in this context, is her very denial of contingency. (Don't take me wrong, not at all to say I'm not arrogant here to judge.)

Well, at the end of the day, Ms. W's story is her own business—I believe it's enough for me to ramble on that matter. However, on top of that, what really benefits me in this process is beyond figuring out my stance for a social media event or even tackling a long-lasting trauma. To some extent, I can now penetrate a problem to see its paradoxical nature, and thus many of my seemingly radical sayings before can now settle with some deeper assurance.

Again, using the "diluted voice" as an example, while a diluted voice, or choosing "silence," is indeed a safe space to avoid taking sides—a refusal to join the iconoclasts or the traditionalists, born from an awareness of the costs of both, rejecting the potential arrogance that comes along with certainty, waiting for the "perfect" or "mature" stance certainly also risk becoming what Kierkegaard called the "abstract thinker"—someone who builds a magnificent palace of thought but lives in a shack nearby. Sometimes we simply cannot distinguish between epistemic humility and cowardice, and the former should not become a cloak for the latter.

What is a voice anyways? Are there any states of "comprehensive understanding"? What if every voice is "immature" and we are always in the process of becoming as beings?

Don't take me wrong, I'm not taking sides between "silence" and "precipitation," nor praising or criticizing "diluted voice"—although this already sounds like another diluted voice XD. The point is, the "diluted voice" only arises because I was trying to solve a paradox as if it were a problem. A problem has a solution, but a paradox (including the love vs. obligation case) must be lived, I'm afraid.

Here is one last handy example: I tend to say "I don't believe in love" in many scenarios, just like I told my mother some days ago that I don't believe in whether life has meaning. By expressing those ostensibly radical or rebellious notions, I'm not at all refusing the possibility of love or the meaning of life—not nihilistically, at least. On the contrary, by using these expressions, I'm refusing and shielding the very simpleton, or, normally, totally unclarified understanding or assumption of those things, things that indeed matter, to protect myself from and from expressing the arrogance of a poorly formed certainty.

Let's wrap this up by getting back to our research analogy. If we admit that there is no certainty, no ultimate truth or solution, and no eternally tenable conclusion, shouldn't we, at the same time, attempt to find the strength to be certain? Mustn't we step out of the library into the field to truly live in such a world?

P.S.

Interestingly, I only realized that I've been, again, unconsciously touching on the matter of (having a) "voice" a lot in recent journals. Believe it or not, I a hundred percent didn't plan it. Zooming out, this matter has been a recurrent theme in years of writing—starting from choosing between resonating more with Wait for it or My shot almost half a decade ago when producing Hamilton, to my pivotal moments facing poetry and music. I would have said that I felt bothered or trapped by this theme, but now I only find satisfaction in considering it as a mirror and an anchor.