What truly makes a father and a mother?
What is biologically good is not necessarily sociologically functional
There is a problem with our terminologies that demands our closer attention. We often say, adoptive father or mother to refer to a man or woman who redeems a child from the absence of a family. And we tend to simply understand that when “father” or “mother” is stated, it refers to the biological parent of a certain person. To this, we ought to think.
Biological ties are merely blood and flesh. Two biologically capable heterosexual beings mate and produce an offspring. The two parents are therefore under the responsibility to meet all the biological needs of their offspring — whether they like it or not. We ought to call this as basic needs or concretely, biological needs.
Now, father and mother are constructs. They are societal roles distributed in the basic unit of society — the family. But family, then again, ought not be called so for a mere fact that individuals within are biologically related. There are families who are not biologically related and yet they function well. And on the contrary, there are biologically related individuals who are conventionally identified as family and yet dysfunctional. Therefore, family is a social construct, one that is coined to simply categorize groups of people for easier identification.
What is biologically good is not necessarily sociologically functional. What is biologically “together” is not necessarily sociologically “together.” Some may be biologically identifiable but never sociologically compatible. This plagues society across all levels of social understanding. And this is where all societal horrors spring forth.
The mere fact that one is born in a group of biologically related individuals does not mean the parent can be an automatic father or mother nor can the child be an automatic son or daughter. Biology must be kept distinct from the sociological substance of this phenomenon.
To keep the offspring free from harm is an imperative, not a debt. To feed, dress, and shelter him or her on a regular basis is not a debt that he or she ought to reckon and repay when he or she finally grows up. Mating is a biological process that perhaps only humans and humans alone are capable of deciding to do or not do. And such a decision is coupled with a societal role that a biological parent cannot abandon once done. Two individuals decided to mate and bring an offspring to come about, and the two ought to meet all the basic or biological needs of the infant — this should never be a case for debt of gratitude, but just a biological case.
When parents finally assume their rightful role such as paving the way for the child to society, communicating to the child what he or she may or may not do, or advising and teaching the child the “musts” for this life, among all other things that parents are obliged to do, only then shall they become “father” and “mother.” Apart from this, they are merely biologically related creatures. And by default, an offspring is never indebted to his or her biological parents.
Precisely, a family is formed when groups of individuals, whether biologically related or otherwise, celebrate the existence of each other, empower each member to become better members of larger society, and uphold the values and/or culture in a society they belong to.
Biology is primitive and fixed. Society is progressive and dynamic. Roles are constructs, and when society changes, roles change — in part or as a whole. If one dares to become a “father” or a “mother,” the same must be progressive, dynamic, and adaptive to changes in the society. Should one dare mate for the sake of biological enterprise, the same must tame his or her genitals for societal good. This simple logic alone that I have laid is not difficult to grasp.
