CLAN CAUSES of marital CONFLICTS The article raises the problem of one of the most acute conflict zones in the system of family relations - the problem of relations between son-in-law and mother-in-law. Exploring the psychological reasons for the tension between these family members, the author turns to the topic of clan conflicts. He substantiates the idea that the institution of marriage has always experienced pressure from families uniting through marriage and was used to ensure their interests. The discrepancy between these interests often became the cause of confrontations, that is, clan conflicts. In a modern family, according to the author, clan conflicts are most vividly embodied in the relationship between son-in-law and mother-in-law. To prove his point of view, he uses a wide range of psychological, anthropological, historical information, as well as classical fiction. Conflict is an inevitable accompaniment of any form of interpersonal relationships. As A. Dixon argued, if there are no confrontations in a person’s life, he should check for a pulse. Performing a function similar to painful sensations, conflict signals that the existing nature of the relationship has ceased to suit at least one of the interacting parties, and that it is time to change something in the relationship. Therefore, conflictology has long ceased to look for conditions for conflict-free coexistence of people and has focused its efforts on finding ways to manage clashes of interests. The family, being a complex multi-level system of interpersonal relationships, is also subject to confrontational shocks. And just like in any other case, it is important for family members that the conflict is resolved constructively, taking the relationship to a new, more productive level of organization. Family conflicts should not turn into a chronic, hopeless source of negative emotional stress, exhausting and morally devastating to all household members. If we are based on existing social stereotypes, we have to admit that there are several similar “pain points” in the system of family relations. Such problematic dyads as son-in-law - mother-in-law and mother-in-law - daughter-in-law have become the talk of the town. A huge number of everyday jokes, proverbs and sayings, many traditions and rituals indicate the unfriendly nature of the relationships that develop within these dyads. This is also evidenced by the caustic remarks of many public figures. Consider A. Ellis’s statement alone that not many of us have the good fortune to marry an orphan. In this work, we made an attempt to find out the psychological foundations that gave rise to this social stereotype. Why, after all, are the relationships between sons-in-law and mother-in-law, as well as daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law traditionally considered sources of tension in the family? Despite the apparent irony of this question, the realities of life require an answer. This answer, in our opinion, should be sought in the history of the origin and development of the family. Here it is appropriate to recall several well-known facts. Firstly, the family initially emerged as a social institution focused on the targeted socialization of children. In different cultures, in different eras, the family performed other functions. Some of them disappeared over time (for example, educational), others acquired (for example, psychotherapeutic). However, the function of education has been and remains the quintessence of the family. Any attempts to transfer this function to other hands (as was the case, say, in Ancient Sparta) invariably failed. Secondly, the family has always had a rather contradictory relationship with society. After all, on the one hand, the family, being a social invention (social institution), is obliged to be guided by public interests. On the other hand, in order to remain a unit of society with its own boundaries, the family needs some autonomy, the ability to independently determine its goals (equifinality). It is difficult to imagine how, without a certain amount of independence, a family canto cultivate in the child initiative, the ability to withstand group pressure and social aggression, responsibility for loved ones and other qualities necessary for life and development. The interests of the family and society do not always coincide. Perhaps the most striking example of such a discrepancy in modern society is the mafia, its confrontation with the existing state legal order. This refers to the mafia in its classic version of a large family. The realities of life indicate that the mafia family is an impressive force that can have a decisive influence on the course of social and economic processes in states. The Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Middle East provide us with a number of additional examples that clans (essentially large families) can play a significant role in the political life of their countries. This state of affairs should not be surprising. After all, as K. Lévi-Strauss noted, “kinship is an organization, and organization gives power” [1, p. 104]. As you know, the first method of social organization was not the state, but the clan community, that is, a large family. It was communal interests that determined the course of social development. The fate of an individual was derived from the dynamics of relations in the clan community. Later, as production relations developed, the community began to be divided into separate families. At first they were very numerous, including several generations and lateral branches of relatives. Subsequently, the composition of the family became smaller and smaller until it reached the size we are accustomed to [2]. Modern psychology operates mainly with the concept of “nuclear family,” which includes parents and their children living together. If one of the parents, for one reason or another, does not take part in raising children, such a family is considered incomplete. The term "extended family" is used in several cases. Either when there are other relatives living with the nuclear family, or when there is a need to remember the existence of these other relatives. In any case, it has become a tradition in psychology, focusing on the specifics of Western European culture, to consider the family as a small social group. We have already given examples above that indicate the narrowness of this approach. Despite the spatial distance, family ties between people can remain very, very strong. Such a family already has the characteristics of not a small, but a large social group, a clan. Speaking about a clan, both previously and now, we must mean a fairly large community of people who descended from one ancestor and, accordingly, are relatives. There is no need to prove that mutual responsibility within the clan makes it a powerful, powerful, well-organized structure. There is also no need to prove that a sense of group identity with such a social structure gives a person self-confidence, a sense of self-worth and invulnerability. In turn, in order not to lose these privileges, the individual must actively defend the interests of the family-clan. Especially in a situation of conflict. The aspirations of a large family may contradict not only the intentions of an individual or the interests of an entire state, but also the aspirations of other clans. In such cases, it is appropriate to talk about clan conflicts. Although this term is used very widely in journalism, in psychological literature, to our surprise, it is practically not used, nor is the corresponding phenomenon subjected to scientific analysis. This forces us to offer our own definition. Clan conflict, in our opinion, can be defined as intergroup relations based on a clash of opposing positions, opinions and expectations of representatives of different families (clans), expressed in open or closed confrontation. Clan conflicts have found and are finding different expressions. These were the first wars. Such were the relations of the reigning dynasties withfamilies vying for the throne. Such were and remain political intrigues in the power structures of many states and armed “showdowns” of mafia families. It should be noted that both clan interests and clan conflicts at all times left their mark on the nature of marriage relations. To avoid confusion, we would like to note that we do not consider family and marriage to be identical phenomena. Marriage comes down to the relationship between spouses. The family, although based on marriage, implies a wider range of family ties, the “epicenter” of which is the relationship between parents and children. When discussing the influence of clan interests on marriage, we primarily mean exogamous marriage. Here it is appropriate to remember that depending on the framework of which social community the marriage is organized, it is considered either endogamous or exogamous. The first is created within a certain social group (initially this was a tribal community), the second is concluded by representatives of different social communities. From the point of view of K. Lévi-Strauss, exogamy owes its very origin to clan interests. Trying to reproduce the train of thought of an ancient man, he writes with some irony: “What, would you like to marry your sister? What happened to you? Don't you want to have a brother-in-law? Don't you understand that if you marry another man's sister, and another man marries your sister, then you will have both a brother-in-law and a brother-in-law, and if you marry your sister, then you will have no one at all? Who will you hunt with, who will you plant a garden with, who will you date?” [1, p. 104].Over time, the nature of the social structure changed. However, the meaning of family and the role of consanguinity changed little. Even during the period of formation and flourishing of the state form of social structure, family relations continued to play an extremely important role in society. Suffice it to remember the purpose of royal marriage. These marriages were created not on the basis of emotional preferences, but in the name of the prosperity and well-being of the state. At the same time, many monarchs, following the famous king of France, sincerely believed that “the state is me.” There was another side to these marriages. When conflict flared up in families in power, entire countries suffered from wars and clashes. A similar state of affairs was present in other sectors of society. In the relationships between the Montague and Capulet families described by V. Shakespeare, the influence of clan conflict on matrimonial norms of behavior can be traced especially thoroughly and clearly [3]. In his study of the evolution of marriage and family relations, V.N. Druzhinin identifies the pagan family as an intermediate link between matriarchy and patriarchy. Characterizing such a family as exogamous, dual power and extremely conflicting, he gives his explanation of the last of the listed features: “Since the clans were at enmity with each other, the relationship between husband and wife retained a tinge of enmity and conflict” [2, p. 50]. Recently, the importance of family ties in the government structure of many countries has been decreasing, but has not lost its strength completely. Moreover, new forms of family identity and new manifestations of clan conflicts are emerging. An example of this is the mafia already mentioned above. This phenomenon originated in the 18th century, but perhaps reached its peak in the era of globalization. Now the mafia is a clan that is in conflict not only with other clans, not only with the state, but also with society as a whole. Marital relations here are under close attention and clear guidance of the Family and its interests. And the higher the hierarchical position of a Family member (according to M. Puzo [4]), the greater pressure from her side he experiences when choosing a partner and arranging marriage. Summarizing the information presented above and at first glance, heterogeneous, we can draw a certain conclusion. Throughout the development of human history, the clash of clan interests took on a variety of forms. Whereinany form of clan conflict was reflected in matrimonial traditions, rituals and norms. For thousands of years, marriage was a form of property and status transaction between families, in which the needs and preferences of future spouses were least taken into account. In psychology, this idea is most productively developed by the psychoanalytic school and, first of all, by K. Whitaker. With all the frankness characteristic of psychoanalysts, he declares, characterizing the intentions of the parties: “He thinks that he married this woman. In fact, he married into another family. He must conquer and take this woman away from them because her biological connection to her family is much stronger than her psychosocial connection to him. The same can be said about the other side. She thinks that she has taken possession of him, but in fact she has simply become a second-class daughter for his parents, who want to use her to continue their family" [5, p. 82]. Based on this idea, K. Whitaker examines the types of marriage, the stages of its development, and its influence on the spouses, as well as on the families behind them. Such an interpretation of the issue seems to us overly pessimistic and tendentious. The fact is that the past century has made significant adjustments to the institution of marriage. More precisely, the beginning of these changes is associated with the Victorian era. It is with the ascension to the English throne of Queen Victoria that the formation of the tradition is associated with taking into account the aspirations and aspirations of future newlyweds when concluding a marriage. We find the presence of this idea in public opinion already in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina", rightly considered a classic literary work that is dedicated to family problems [6]. In the middle of the 20th century, marriage based on love became the norm of matrimonial relations. And yet, despite all the progress of recent decades, the thought expressed by K. Whitaker contains a certain amount of life truth. If you look at modern families, you can see hundreds of examples of relatives interfering in the affairs of a married couple. Moreover, in most cases, these relatives are parents, and among them, most often, mothers. Manifestations of such interference can be varied: from intrusive advice and imitation of naive helplessness to blackmail and direct threats. And how often the offered help is not essentially that, but turns out to be a kind of means of exchange, presuming the right to interfere in decisions made by spouses! It can be argued that in all such cases, the essence of what is happening cannot be explained solely by manifestations of the banal problem of fathers and children. Parents conflict not so much with their own children, but with their chosen ones and chosen ones. And the “distribution of responsibilities” is different here. Fathers, as a rule, take a more detached position in a conflict of interests with the family of their own child. The role of the main conflictant is “taken on” by mothers. Again, trying to organize the lifestyle of married children in the image and likeness of their family, parents enter into confrontation not only with their child’s partner. To a much greater extent, negative and aggressive attitudes arise towards the partner’s parental family. How can we not remember K. Whitaker again: “Marriage is an organism, a couple born of two families, the expression of these families to reproduce themselves” [7, p. 9]. Of course, the degree of tension that arises between families of parents and children varies and depends on a number of factors. These are the individual psychological characteristics of all participants in the relationship, and the level of their psychological culture, and the degree of consistency within married couples, and the communicative competence of the conflictants, and their ability to manage the conflict, and much more. The fact that young people live together or separate from their parents is also of no small importance. As you know, a common joke states that the warmth of relations between relatives is proportional to the square of the distance between them. Our effortsTheoretical research has not yet made it possible to understand exactly why the greatest tension arises in the dyads of mother-in-law - son-in-law and mother-in-law - daughter-in-law. In other words, why are mothers prone to confrontation with the “halves” of their children? The answer, in our opinion, lies in the specifics of the roles of men and women in the family, as well as in the peculiarities of how boys and girls master these roles. According to many psychologists, the gender (sex) role of a woman is expressive. It involves, first of all, regulating relationships within the family. The instrumental role of a man is to maintain the connection between the family and the outside world. Based on this traditionally established “division of responsibilities,” it is the woman-mother who considers herself responsible for everything that happens under her roof [8]. There is another reason that contributes to this attitude. As noted above, it is associated with the process of gender-role socialization, that is, with the child’s mastery of a behavior model corresponding to his gender. Psychoanalyst N. Chodorow notes [1] that children of both sexes always carry out primary identification with their mother. This means that both boys and girls are initially emotionally closer to their mothers than to their fathers. Despite the subsequent maturation of their children, mothers tend to maintain the closeness of this connection, taking a variety of tricks to achieve this. Such efforts turn out to be more effective in relation to the daughter. After all, a daughter, reading the content of the female gender role from her mother’s behavior, is also not inclined to break this primary connection. A boy growing into a man is a different matter. In order to become like his father and adopt his male model of behavior, he must break the primary connection that connected him with his mother. By doing this, he discovers the possibility of mastering the instrumental male gender role. The course of our reasoning leads to the idea that it is mothers-in-law and mothers-in-law who are “doomed” to try to “inspire” young spouses to build their marital relations, focusing on clan interests. Moreover, this is more typical for mothers-in-law. After all, it is daughters who find themselves at the center of competitive triangular relationships, where connections with husband and mother turn out to be comparable both in the degree of emotional closeness and in significance. Accordingly, the tension in the relationship between son-in-law and mother-in-law is caused not only by the clash of clan interests and the problem of fathers and children, but also by competition for a loved one, who, in turn, finds it difficult to make a choice between two equal people. What are the results of our theoretical research? Spouses have always experienced and to some extent continue to experience pressure from the families from which they come. If there is a real or perceived discrepancy between the interests of both families, confrontation arises between one of the spouses and the family of the other. Such a conflict can rightfully be considered as a type of clan conflict. By the way, the only mention of the term “clan conflict” in the psychological literature that we know of is by A. Kempinski [9], and it has exactly the meaning that is presented above. If we talk about which of the representatives of parental families is predisposed to make the greatest “contribution” to such a confrontation, then these are mothers-in-law and mothers-in-law. This, as noted above, is due to both the role characteristics of the eldest woman in the family and the specifics of mastering gender roles by sons and daughters. Conclusions: Conflicts are an inevitable “companion” of any form of relationship (including marriage and family). Therefore, the ability of partners to resolve conflicts and draw from them “lessons” useful for the development of relationships is of particular importance in marriage. No matter how strange it may seem, marriage is not just a matter for two spouses. Both parent families, to a greater or lesser extent, try to influence the marriage of their children, because they see their continuation in them. Moreover, parents (not necessarily consciously) through this marriage are trying to realize.