Is Blood Thicker Than Water?
Ever since watching the movie “Instant Family” on a cool winter day sometime in 2018, I had always been fascinated with the idea of adoption. The simple notion of nurturing an innocent soul left defenseless to the horrors of the world called out to me as I sat in the empty auditorium of the five dollar movie theater in the middle of day. This phenomenon that I had no exposure to piqued my interest about the complexities of intricate systems that I hear about everyday such as the foster system. I remember sitting in the car after watching the movie, proudly telling my mother how I planned to adopt a child when I became an adult, and hearing a stifled laugh escaping her lips. I wondered what was so funny that could arise such a response, but she simply brushed off the question and headed towards the realities of her life.
Ever since then, I have carefully questioned instances of disposition that I have come across ever since leaving that movie theater. I noticed how characters in shows would treat others differently until they realized that they were related through biological dissent, and somehow, they would become closer than before. In some odd instances, sharing the same DNA patterns automatically makes people compatible, and if there is no similarity found in genetic inheritance, then there is no question regarding the emotional intimacy of family. No amount of friends, foster children, or adopted kids could ever make up for the dream of biological kids. That’s what I was taught, but is that really true?
Why have we been indoctrinated with the principle that in order to truly have a binding relationship with someone, we must be directly related to them? Is it not that some of the friends that we make outside of our homes hold a closer value than some of the distant family we are more closely related to? Who branded us as people bound to the confines of permanent love to people we have never chosen? I have observed a great deal of children whose parents are wary of their character, but still support their actions due to the anchoring blood bond that binds them. Blood is thicker than water. Thick enough to excuse inexcusable actions? Thick enough to penetrate walls of trust set up by the relationships between parents and their children? Does the age-old expression blood is thicker than water ring true, or is it an outdated concept that needs to be reevaluated in the changing premise of today’s society?
I learnt in biology last year that the influences of an environment are a major factor for development of character rather than simple inheritance. The way our brains are wired of course comes with prerequisites, but the way it molds is a result of what we observe in real time. This could be seen in fraternal twins separated at birth living in completely different households having individual knowledge levels, values, and outlooks on life. Regardless of the wiring of their brains, their unique experiences build up to their current character based on the actions they have taken everyday leading up to this current moment, and every action they will take in the future.
Taking the time to cultivate skills and give children access to proper knowledge will definitely allow them to become the best version of themselves. This is applicable to every single child, regardless of whether they are blood related or not to their parents. I personally think that blood is not thicker than water, and if we look more closely at what we think we are comparing, they are essentially the same thing.
