Happy families are all alike; but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. This is what Leo Tolstoy thought in his time. But the twenty-first century seems to have turned Tolstoy’s argument on its head. Unhappy families now seem to have one — singular — thread of discontent: difference of opinion. Hard data may be difficult to come by just yet but psychologists and sociologists seem to be echoing news reports that suggest that more and more young people in Western countries are choosing to cut ties with parents or close family members over clashes in cultural values. Formally known as ‘estrangement’, most of these ‘break-ups’ between parents and children tend to be initiated by the latter. Families have always harboured differences of opinion: loud arguments are the hallmark of, say, the argumentative Indian clan. The disapproval of individualism and juvenile autonomy — purportedly another leading cause of estrangement — within familial settings is not new either. Indian children are particularly aware of the parental scowl over their independence and opinion. The family as an institution has survived all this — till now.

What has changed, according to experts, is a growing awareness of mental health, leading, in turn, to deeper appreciation of how toxic or abusive family relationships can affect psychological well-being. There has also been a corresponding rise in self-dependence; fewer children are now reliant on their parents for livelihood or property. However, the principal cause of estrangement — rifts based on political opinion and values — is a growing area of concern. In the course of its evolution, the family has found ingenious ways of fusing the political with the personal. What, then, has changed so fundamentally? The answer seems to be the prevailing — deepening — crisis in consensus. Individuality, it would seem, has birthed an inflexibility of opinion, so much so that a difference in views is now tantamount to a moral transgression. The fractured political constituency is encouraging these chasms within other institutions. Social media — that other fount of shrill opinion and false narratives — is equally dismissive of divergent points of view. There is another stubborn residue — the insularity of adults. For instance, it is possible that the young are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the reluctance of older relatives to acknowledge climate change and to make transformations in their lifestyles that are deemed necessary for the health of the planet.

What an embittered, opinionated but divided family — and the world? — needs are greater investments in conversation, empathy and consensus. Isolation — a social pathology that is spreading like a pathogen — breeds ignorance. Moreover, cutting ties goes against the evolutionary instincts of the human race. Deep down, mankind remains a sociable species. ‘Unfriending’ the family is unlikely to be a source of healing. The challenge across social settings is to debate differences without demonizing them.