How Political Polarization is Fuelling Family Estrangement

Estrangement, the act of distancing oneself or fully cutting ties with loved ones, was once a sad, shameful word uttered in the privacy of homes and therapists’ offices. But if social media is any indication, lately, the term has become undeniably trendy: on TikTok, videos hashtagged #toxicfamily have garnered nearly two billion views, while throngs of therapist-influencers, self-styled life coaches and regular users champion the choice to “break generational curses” and go “no contact,” both relatively new additions to our emotional vocabulary.

A recent American poll conducted by experts with the Council on Contemporary Families found that as many as half of adults were estranged from a close relative. A whopping fifth of estranged respondents pointed to “political differences” as the trigger. Saunia Ahmad, a clinical psychologist and director of the Toronto Psychology Clinic, confirms that more and more, polarizing topics like vaccines, Donald Trump and pronouns are becoming fodder for family drama—even if they didn’t start it in the first place. Here, Ahmad talks about the estrangement epidemic, how to bridge gaps and why, in some cases, it might be better to embrace them.

For a long time, estrangement was considered a silent epidemic—extremely common but too taboo to discuss. Now it seems like the number of people who are talking about limiting or cutting contact with their families is absolutely snowballing. Have you found this to be true in your practice?

Estrangement is definitely spoken about much more now. A lot of recent social trends—like COVID, politics and the spread of social media—have helped people talk about it, as well as the importance of boundaries. They’re questioning whether blood really is thicker than water, the idea that we have to stay with our families no matter what, even at the expense of our own personal wellbeing. Estrangement isn’t black-and-white, either; it’s a continuum. I see people—typically adult children—who are contemplating or are in the process of distancing themselves. Others are completely out of touch.

There’s no such thing as a family without issues, but what kinds of dynamics typically predict full-blown estrangement?

I notice that people are often surprised when they get cut off, but these conflicts grow over a long period of time. Abuse and neglect are two reasons why people would (and should) cut contact. Others just don’t want to put up with rigid personalities or relatives who refuse to take care of their own mental health. A clash of values is a big reason, too. That used to mean differing expectations around schooling or career or a choice of partner, but more recently, I’ve seen political polarization come into play. That’s only amplified by social media. Online, you can find communities that agree with you sometimes more than your own family, whether that’s about vaccines, Trump or what’s happening in the Middle East. 

There’s no question we’re all living more individualistic lives. Honour thy mother and father seems to have been replaced with Honour thy personal boundaries. 

In many, many communities, family is no longer the primary social unit. We’re raised to believe it’s a priority, but over time, that may not make sense—especially if you can find people who more easily validate your identity. I think it all connects to that: validation. 

The events of the last few years have generated an enormous  amount of potential conversational land mines. Many people who otherwise considered themselves to be from “happy families” have come to grips with the fact that, Wow, my parents are anti-maskers, or, I didn’t know Uncle Jim leaned that far right! How are identity politics—and politics in general—transforming how we relate to our relatives?

After Trump’s first election, we definitely saw an increase in people coming in to talk about polarization in their families. Often, issues like COVID were major accelerators for existing differences, and many of these topics trigger huge emotions, which impacts how constructive we are when communicating. When they’re not able to see eye-to-eye or find common ground, some people can “agree to disagree” and maintain a certain level of cognitive dissonance. Others just stop interacting altogether, which can cause a lot of distress.

Is the era of keeping the political and personal separate—or, at least, away from the holiday dinner table—over?

What’s happening politically can’t be ignored, whether that relates to health care, the economy or something else. It’s hard to be at ease with people whose views differ so much from yours on major matters, especially ones that have led to long-term or serious emotional, economic and social turmoil for you. For one person, abortion might be a huge issue; another person might be happy with how Trump’s decisions are helping them economically and see abortion as less of an issue. I will say: change does happen, even in adulthood. People stop supporting politicians they used to support. But it depends on how open they are to understanding and questioning their views. To me, what repairing an estrangement really hinges on is people’s ability to appreciate complexity—to see where someone’s coming from, without judgment. But often, these conversations come with a lot of anger and pain.

I’m sensing an opportunity for a new therapeutic specialty: Trump-related trauma. (It sounds like I’m kidding, but I’m not.)

Interesting that you say that! A lot of the therapists in our clinic are socially and racially diverse, so we end up getting a lot of similar clients who seek us out. After Trump’s election, a lot of them were so upset that they were having panic attacks. It was quite chaotic. 

Society as a whole is still missing a sensitivity chip when it comes to estrangement. Here’s one example: when applying for financial aid, some Canadian post-secondary students are asked to provide supporting documentation of a family breakdown in order to qualify for student loans. What are you supposed to do? Say, “Here are my dad’s unhinged emails?”

I haven’t dealt with schools, specifically, but overall, I’d say we need to be more mindful of how social policies are harming the wellbeing of families. Just recently, I got a call from someone asking about services. They were extremely distraught about their business declining because of the economy—a family business. They said, “We’re such a loving family, but all of a sudden, one of our adult children is very angry and stopped talking to us.” They were shocked. That got me thinking about people who can’t afford to start a family, or who can’t afford to buy a house close to their families, or at all. All of these things add a level of stress, which can lead to family breakdown.

We’re really struggling to solve polarization at the societal level. How do you resolve it at the level of the family? I would think it starts there.

It starts with practising empathy. That gets confused with simply agreeing or feeling sorry for each other, when in fact it’s about listening to someone else’s perspective from a deep, experiential, emotional perspective, rather than a logical one—and even if the person’s opinion is so different from yours that it seems ridiculous. It’s a fundamental skill that brings people together everywhere (in families, at work), yet no one teaches us how to do it.

So how do we do it?
First, it’s important to understand that, often, polarization is fed by high levels of stress. Research showed that people who had really polarized views around vaccines were already experiencing a lot of economic and social stressors, which can lead some to latch strongly onto certain viewpoints to provide a sense of certainty. It’s important to understand what people are going through. Also: be open to alternative perspectives. Initially, you could seek out different sources of information, like news channels you wouldn’t normally watch, in order to look at the issues with fresh eyes. Lastly, I’ll say that—and this is applicable especially during the holidays—you don’t have to have those hot-button conversations right away. 

In the U.K., research shows one in five families are affected by estrangement; we have no comparable statistics for Canada. What other kinds of support are we lacking beyond data? 

There is professional help out there, but it might not always be feasible from a financial perspective. The key will be spreading awareness—making research on estrangement more publicly available, and creating more online tools to help people name what they’re going through. Support groups are helpful too, ones that are moderated by a trained professional. Speaking of the U.K., a researcher named Becca Bland founded a non-profit organization named Stand Alone that had its own podcast, an online training platform and resources that supported adults who are estranged. It shut down earlier this year, but it was an interesting model—and the first of its kind in Europe. We also need more people in political leadership who aren’t fanning the flames of polarization for the sake of winning elections.

It’s worth saying that some family fences stay unmended, try as we might… 

Estrangement has this automatic negative connotation, but a lot of people have benefited from it. In some cases, it’s been the best thing for them. They’ve created other communities and thrived. 

What’s the power of “chosen family” in those circumstances?
It’s absolutely necessary. As humans, our mental wellbeing isn’t independent from our relationships. A lot of my clients really struggle with recognizing that they can’t change their blood families. How do I spend the holidays with them? How do I still be a part of certain milestones? But if they’re lowering your energy, your confidence, making you doubt yourself, seeking out chosen family instead makes sense. It may not be the family they wish to have, or the kind we see on television, but it gives them a sense of belonging. And it’s better than being alone.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.