Estrangement Ideology – Part 2. Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values
Do you even know what rules you broke? How would you know if they won't talk to you?
This is the second in series of articles concerning Estrangement Ideology. Part 1 focuses on the Tenets, Goals and Methods of this ideology based on my investigations and analysis of the language and interactions of people espousing estrangement ideas and therapists engaged in the area. Part 2 is concerned with Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values and how one might know if one of the fundamental tenets of the ideology has been broken. Other parts in this series can be found here.
Transgressions of Estrangement Ideology
Given the often mystifying terminology used in accusations against them, parents of adult children who have adopted Estrangement Ideology as a way of dealing with family conflict and unresolved childhood or post childhood issues are often oblivious of what they have done which has led to often disparaging and even angry responses to their attempts to reach out.
For instance, a Reddit post recounts how a parent consistently sends cheerful and casual messages, such as birthday wishes and updates about family events, without acknowledging the estrangement or the reasons for it. It would seem from the context that this parent genuinely believed they had done nothing wrong and attributed the estrangement to external factors like “stress” or the child’s busy life. The adult child vents in the Reddit post that: “She sent me a card saying, ‘I hope we can catch up soon, it’s been too long,’ as if the last time we spoke wasn’t a massive blowout.”
Based on my personal experience and analysis of comments on forums like Reddit, this misapprehension on the part of parents reflects how they are often placed in a double bind where the parent tries to fix things but due to the progressive cut-off of communication on the part of the adult child and their own lack of knowledge of the ideological imperatives their child has adopted they are continually seen as falling short.
The following case studies highlight the inherently one-sided nature of redemption as framed within Estrangement Ideology. This dynamic often places the entire burden of repair, accountability, and change on the parent, while the estranged individual retains the power to dictate the terms of reconciliation.
Case Study 1: Unsolicited Financial Help
A parent insists on paying for their adult child's rent despite the child explicitly stating they do not want or need the help. The parent is said to later use this as leverage to guilt the child into staying in closer contact.
The adult child perceives this behaviour as controlling and manipulative, interpreting the financial assistance as a means to undermine their autonomy.
“They said, ‘I helped you, so now you owe me,’ as if I didn’t explicitly tell them not to. It’s not help if it comes with strings.”
Analysis of Violations:
Individual Autonomy: The parent’s insistence on providing unwanted financial help violates the child’s autonomy by ignoring their explicit wishes.
Boundaries as Moral Imperatives: Using the financial assistance as leverage disregards the child’s established boundaries.
Validation of Lived Experiences: The parent dismisses the child’s feelings about the unsolicited help, invalidating their perspective.
Case Study 2: Dismissal of Past Harm
A parent downplays incidents of emotional neglect during the child’s upbringing, claiming they “did the best they could” and insisting the child focus on the positive aspects of their childhood.
The adult child feels dismissed and invalidated, interpreting the parent’s response as a refusal to take accountability for past harm.
“They said, ‘Everyone makes mistakes,’ but I needed them to acknowledge what those ‘mistakes’ cost me.”
Analysis of Violations:
Accountability as a Prerequisite: The parent fails to acknowledge the adult child’s claims of past harm caused and avoids taking responsibility for their actions, undermining the conditions necessary for reconciliation.
Validation of Lived Experiences: By minimising the child’s grievances, the parent is seen to have invalidated their lived experiences.
Emotional Empowerment: The lack of acknowledgment is constructed as impeding the child’s ability to heal and move forward.
Case Study 3: Guilt-Driven Holiday Expectations
A parent pressures their adult child to attend every holiday gathering, claiming the child’s absence would “break the family’s heart.”
The adult child feels manipulated by guilt and interprets this as the parent prioritising their own needs over the child’s emotional well-being.
“They said, ‘It’s just one day—why can’t you sacrifice for the family?’ as if I haven’t explained why holidays are hard for me.”
Analysis of Violations:
Rejection of Traditional Obligations: The parent frames attendance as a moral duty, which is taken as ignoring the child’s emotional needs.
Individual Autonomy: Pressuring the child is evidence that the parent has disregarded their right to make choices about their time and energy.
Emotional Safety: The guilt-driven expectations are constructed as creating emotional stress for the child, compromising their sense of safety.
Case Study 4: Public Denial of Conflict
A parent publicly denies any issues within the family, portraying the child’s estrangement as “overreacting” or a result of the child’s “mental health struggles.”
The adult child interprets this as gaslighting and an attempt to shift blame onto them while maintaining the parent’s public image.
“They told mutual friends I was ‘just having a phase,’ completely ignoring everything I’ve said to them.”
Analysis of Violations:
Public Accountability: The parent’s post avoids addressing the real issues and shifts blame, refusing to engage in honest public discourse.
Validation of Lived Experiences: The child’s perspective is dismissed as invalid or exaggerated.
Cultural and Normative Transformation: By denying the conflict, the parent resists evolving norms that emphasise emotional transparency and accountability.
Case Study 5: Dismissal of Therapy
A parent refuses to attend therapy, stating it is unnecessary and dismissing it as “a waste of time” despite the child’s request for joint sessions to improve their relationship.
The adult child sees this refusal as a lack of effort or willingness to engage in the work necessary for reconciliation.
“They said, ‘If you have issues, that’s your problem to solve,’ but isn’t a relationship supposed to involve both people?”
Analysis of Violations:
Accountability as a Prerequisite: The refusal to attend therapy is taken as proof that there is no true desire to do what is required to reconcile, undermining efforts to address and repair relational harm.
Cultural and Normative Transformation: The dismissal of therapy resists modern relational norms that emphasise mutual accountability and emotional growth.
Boundaries as Moral Imperatives: Ignoring the child’s request for therapy disregards the boundary they have set for meaningful engagement, which under the terms of Estrangement Ideology often necessitates the parent committing to therapy to address their relational deficits and “emotional immaturity”.
Moral Certitude and Traditional Values
The above case studies reveal a stark moral certitude in the reactions of estranged adult children, which is grounded in Estrangement Ideology’s principles of emotional safety, autonomy and accountability. This moral certitude often directly conflicts with the traditional family values exhibited by parents, such as unconditional loyalty, hierarchical respect and collective family responsibility.
Adult child moral certitude often leads to:
Unilateral Standards: Moral certitude often leads to the imposition of one-sided standards for accountability and reconciliation.
Inflexibility: The emphasis on individual autonomy and validation can create rigidity in relationships, leaving little room for compromise or alternative interpretations of events.
Empowerment and Validation: For the adult child, this certitude provides a sense of control and justification for their decisions, particularly in the face of historical invalidation.
Traditional values—such as an attitude that family relationships is a parental responsibility for which there is a moral imperative to fight to preserve which supersedes other considerations like “autonomy” and “boundaries”—place parents’ beliefs in stark contrast to Estrangement Ideology, which prioritises autonomy, boundaries and self-preservation over traditional notions of relational persistence. Examining the parents’ behaviours in this context often reveals both the sincerity of their efforts and the ideological disconnect between their worldview and that of their children.
Implications of traditional values include:
Resistance to Change: Parents adhering to traditional values may struggle to adapt to contemporary relational norms inherent in Estrangement Ideology that emphasise boundaries and individual autonomy.
Perceived Invalidity of Grievances: Traditional frameworks often de-emphasise emotional harm, leading parents to dismiss grievances as overreactions or challenges to their authority.
Emphasis on Forgiveness: Parents may prioritise reconciliation without fully addressing the underlying issues, creating tension with the adult child’s need for accountability.
Conclusion
The intersection of transgressions, moral certitude and traditional values highlights the deep-rooted tension between contemporary Estrangement Ideology and traditional familial norms.
Adult estranged children—often operating with a sense of moral certitude grounded in the prioritisation of emotional safety and individual autonomy—view perceived transgressions as non-negotiable violations demanding accountability.
In contrast, parents—shaped by traditional values of hierarchical respect, unconditional loyalty and collective familial responsibility—often struggle to recognise these transgressions within their own frameworks, leading to dismissive or defensive responses.
This clash fosters a relational dynamic where each party interprets the other’s actions as invalidating or harmful, creating a cycle of estrangement that resists reconciliation.
As evidenced in the case studies above, adult children’s misconceptions and tendency to disparage or condemn their parents’ actions as inadequate or emotionally immature and the fixed nature of reconciliation they demand—the terms of which parents are all too often completely oblivious of—contributes to a one-sided dynamic of responsibility for remediation.
This will be the subject of Part 3. The One-Sided Path to Redemption.
Note: This article was developed with assistance of ChatGPT, used as a structured analysis and writing tool. All ideas, interpretations and final outputs were authored, verified and edited by me. The model was conditioned to reflect my reasoning, not to generate content independently.
Steve, thanks again for teasing out and delineating the multiple complex factors that go into adult-child estrangement.
Steve, thank you for clear, enlightening interpretation and wise input on those common case scenarios.