Family and Myths

Family is a difficult institution to define. There are multiple kinds of family structures that exist. A more generic definition is that a family is “Any group of people united by ties of marriage, blood, or adoption, or any sexually expressive relationship, in which (1) the adults cooperate financially for their mutual support, (2) the people are committed to one another in an intimate interpersonal relationship, (3) the members see their individual identities as importantly attached to the group, and (4) the group has an identity of its own. (DeGenova, Stinnett, & Stinnett, 2011, p. 5)” (DeFrancisco, Palczewski, & McGeough, 2013). Regardless of what family structure one is raised in the family institution plays a prominent role in creating, and maintaining gender/sex, sexual orientation, class, etc. norms. To clarify, “’Families and gender are so intertwined that it is impossible to understand one without reference to the other. Families are not merely influenced by gender; rather, families are organized by gender’ (Haddock, Zimmerman, & Lyness, 2003, p. 304) (DeFrancisco, Palczewski, & McGeough, 2013).”

One way that families help create and sustain gender norms in particular is through myths. The first myth that Chapter Seven discusses is the myth that there is only one normal family. This normal family is assumed to be a nuclear family. A nuclear family “presumes a self-supporting, independent unit (excluding extended family) composed of two heterosexual parents legally married performing separate masculine and feminine family roles. For nuclear families, the male is the primary wage earner and the female is the primary homemaker”(DeFrancisco, Palczewski, & McGeough, 2013).  Despite the fact that this is societally regarded as the most healthy form of family, there is no historical evidence to support that theory. In fact, it was not until the Industrial Revolution that strict notions of masculinity and femininity became prominent.  Further, the book writes that, “The assumption that heterosexual romantic love should be the basis of marriage and family is a prominent U.S. value, but it is not universally shared and was never the basis of all marriages. Into the 1800s, marriage was based on financial need, control of reproduction, political concerns, and family arrangements, not love” (DeFrancisco, Palczewski, & McGeough, 2013).

In this way, the myth that the only normal family is the nuclear family helps inculcate notions of heteronormativity. Chapter Seven defines heteronormativity as a system that “encompasses legal, cultural, organizational, and interpersonal practices that reinforce unquestioned assumptions about gender/sex. These include the presumptions that there are only two sexes; that it is ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ for people of different sexes to be attracted to one another; that these attractions may be publicly displayed and celebrated; that social institutions such as marriage and family are appropriately organized around different-sex pairings; that same-sex couples are (if not ‘deviant’) a ‘variation on’ or an ‘alternative to’ the heterosexual couple” (DeFrancisco, Palczewski, & McGeough, 2013). Heteronormativity can be reinforced in simple communicative events that take place within families. For example, when parents stress marriage as the ultimate goal of dating, or posit heterosexual relationships as the ideal relationships, they are rhetorically contributing to a heteronormative ideology.

The second myth related to family institutions is that because of variations from [nuclear] family values, the well-being of family and society is threatened. However, in contrast to this myth, the book argues that the family institution is in transition. Additionally, the authors of the chapter note that evidence used to support the second myth are not neutral, or objective observations. Rather, this evidence is rhetorically gerrymandered to support a particular conclusion to advance heteronormativity.

Although Western communicative research has often focused on heterosexual family and dating relationships, there is a recent trend to discuss the ways that such rigid, heteronormative family communication affects LGBTQ individuals.  In the article titled, “Transitioning Meanings? Family Members’ Communicative Struggles Surrounding Transgender Identity”, author Kristen Noorwood presents her research about family communication as it relates to transgendered children. In this article she uses relational dialectics to analyze the different family responses to children coming out as transgendered.  As Kristen Noorwood explains, “The problematic nature of transgender identity for families may be a result of cultural conceptions of gender, sex, and family identity. U.S. culture maintains deeply rooted ideas about sex and gender, legitimizing only two sex categories and characterizing variants as abnormal” (Noorwood, pg. 76, 2012).  For example, labeling terms, seemingly benign, reinforces strict sex/gender binaries. Noorwood recognizes this phenomena when she writes that, “Many family relationship labels are gendered, such as daughter, uncle, grandfather, or niece. These relationship categories are strictly associated with one sex or another making it difficult to imagine a man being called ‘aunt’ or a woman being referred to as ‘father.’ These labels serve as indications that family relationships are steeped in stable gender/sex identities” (Noorwood, pg. 76, 2012). This sentiment is contiguous with bell hooks’ observation that language as a system of communication is problematic because of its origins.

Scholars additionally note that when children come out as being transgendered there are varying family reactions. Some families view their child coming out as “A disruption…[that] may compromise traditional notions of family” (Noorwood, pg. 76, 2012). Drawing on work from other scholars Noorwood suggests that, “once a person has disclosed a ‘deviant’ sexual or gender identity to family members, any continued family relations after that point are considered voluntary” (Noorwood, pg. 76, 2012). This phenomena is of particular interest to scholars because it, “…runs contrary to our cultural conception of family as a system of nonvoluntary or obligatory relationships” (Noorwood, pg. 76, 2012). Further research is needed to better understand what takes place in families when sex/gender norms are transgressed.

Based on the reading I would now like to pose three questions:

1.                    What is the point/benefit of studying family communication as it relates to gender?

2.                    What are other ways that the family institution functions to maintain heteronormativity?

3.                    In what ways do you think that the family as an institution is in transition?