Sub-theme Two: Negative Familial Influence

Some participants had experienced abuse within the family setting. However, since this aspect of their background was discussed in the exploratory thematic analysis (see Chapter 4), this Section focuses on other negative aspects of family influence such as control.

Control and Autonomy

Some participants discussed the control their parents exerted over them and the lack of autonomy they experienced within their lives. This control ranged from controlling people’s movements to controlling where they lived. Since she had been sent away from home, Caroline spent her life in institutions of some description: first boarding school; working in a laundry; a convent and then various care homes. Caroline claimed to have had little autonomy and said her mother chose these places for her. She disliked most of the places she was sent to but appeared unable to challenge her mother’s authority.

Caroline: My mum thought it was a good idea that I lived there [convent]. I didn’t like it at the convent as it was really religious.

Caroline’s acceptance and placidity was unsurprising as twenty plus years ago there were fewer opportunities available to people with learning disabilities, little focus on individuals’ empowerment or rights and few advocacy/disability groups. Caroline’s mother appeared to have controlled aspects of Caroline’s life under the premise that she was acting in her daughter’s best interests, fearing there was no place in the world for her daughter so she attempted the best she could to find one for her. However, that was not how Caroline interpreted her actions. Caroline’s mother’s actions also

159

suggested that she may have thought Caroline lacked the autonomy to make her own choices. Her mother’s actions may have acted as a potential barrier to Caroline’s ascension of Maslow’s hierarchy.

Mary stated that her parents restricted her actions while living within the family home. It could be inferred that Mary was empowered by the freedom that her current home provided as opposed to living with family where Mary stated she was allowed to have partners who could visit her flat unchaperoned, unlike when she was living with her family who did not allow her to engage in relationships. It appeared that Mary, like Caroline, had never challenged her family’s authority. However, this may have been due to her ethnic background, which places significant emphasis on respecting elders.

Researcher: When you lived with your family would you have been allowed to have a boy in your room?

Mary: Not allowed

Researcher: You said they [parents] wouldn’t have let boys in your room. Mary: No you don’t do this.

Researcher: Ok, so you used to live with mum and dad and they did not allow boys in the home. Did you ever ask if a boy could come over?

Mary: No, not much really

Researcher: Would mum and dad have allowed you to have a boyfriend? Mary: Oh no, it’s not allowed really

Despite the influence of her family, Mary was able to increase her autonomy and pursue a relationship with staff support. Mary had recognised that her parents no longer had authority over her relationships, which was empowering. However, from her comments, it did not appear that her parents recognised this relationship as serious. They had never met Gary and staff confirmed that her parents were aware of him but they did not ‘see him’ as a ‘real’ boyfriend. Mary saw her relationship with Gary as more important than her relationship with her family. This appeared to be related to the amount of contact she had with Gary.

Mary: I like Gary - he is better [than parents].

Researcher: You like Gary - he is better. Why do you like Gary better? Mary: He is more often [seen more often]. He comes here every day isn’t it?

This was in sharp contrast to Carrie, who was very open in discussing relationships with her mother and her mother was happy for her to date as a teenager.

160

Carrie: She had no idea. I said I was going out with a friend to the cinema, then when I can home from school she said ‘right how did you get on your date’? I said he is really sexy and hot. Researcher: OK so was your mum pleased?

Carrie: Yeah she was fine

This was unsurprising considering there is approximately fifteen years’ age difference between the two women. Within the past two decades there had been changes in attitudes towards the rights and perception of adults with learning disabilities (as discussed in Chapter 6) and in society as a whole (as discussed in Section 2.2). Mary is also from an ethnic minority which probably holds more traditional values than western society, thereby making it unlikely that Mary’s family would be as accepting as Carrie’s regarding relationships. Joe’s family actively encouraged him to be

autonomous and to engage in a relationship.

Joe: I told my brother and he told mum and dad. [that he had girlfriends] Researcher: What did they think?

Joe: Get in there boy!

In summary, the participants’ relationships with their parents were significant to the later development of their relationships with others. This appeared more apparent in cases where participants had spent extended periods living within the family unit.

Parents/family background appeared to have an impact on aspects of participants’ relationships with partners, such as determining the level of acceptable conflict and physical affection. As outlined in attachment theory (Hazan and Shaver, 1987), participants who originated from families which displayed happy, affectionate relationships appeared to have happier, more affectionate, relationships with others later. All of the partners who came from families where there was conflict between parents were keen not to replicate this in their own relationships. A negative parental relationship did not act as a barrier to forming a relationship, but it could possibly involve more dedication and effort from participants to ensure it was not replicated in their own relationships.

Younger participants were less likely to experience families who were controlling. Their parents were more likely to encourage their children to be autonomous and have similar life experiences to their non-disabled peers, such as engaging in relationships and offering advice and support. Controlling families in this group were not barriers to relationships once people had moved from home. Staff (who went on to have more influence over relationships than families), empowered people to be autonomous and engage in relationships if they desired and did not usually replicate these controls. This

161

highlighted the significance of families in the attainment of ‘love and belonging needs’; controlling families could possibly stop people reaching this level of Maslow’s hierarchy. Most couples appeared to select partners with a similar family background or dynamics which, while probably an unconscious choice, suggested a level of comfort and

familiarity.

In document Experience of Partner Selection and Relationships for People with Learning Disabilities (Page 166-169)