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?

Architecture and Gender

Kenneth Burke explains in his definition of (hu)man that we are, “the symbol-using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing) animal, inventor of the negative, separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy, and rotten with perfection."  On February 27, we will take an in-depth look at one part of that list—“separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making.” Architecture and design play a role in determining what we consider “natural” or “unnatural.”  How we communicate about gender influences the way in which architecture is utilized, and in turn, those physical structures influence how we communicate about gender. 

Isaac West’s article, “PISSAR’s Critically Queer and Disabled Politics” provides an example of how architecture plays a role in public bathrooms.  West argues that the rhetoricity of place, space, and identity should be taken more seriously and turns to the group People in Search of Safe and Accessible Restrooms (PISSAR) to expand on this notion.  Born out of a coincidental merging of the transgender and disability caucuses at the 2003 University of California Students of Color Conference, PISSAR combines the concerns of transgender students and disabled students in the public bathroom.  West explores, “how these seemingly disparate groups have articulated, negotiated and managed their differences while practicing a coalition politics that questions the safety and accessibility of public bathrooms” (157).

Public bathrooms become a significant concern to the members of PISSAR, because they serve as an explicit indicator for how bodies supposedly should be utilized. Additionally,  the lack of accessible public bathrooms is correlated to smaller amounts of time that the members of these identity groups can remain in a public location.  In short, nonaccessible public bathrooms create and maintain, “able-bodied and bi-gendered normativities.”

First, West explores how space and place can be used to enforce or challenge dominant normativities. Although women’s bathrooms and men’s bathrooms are designed to fulfill the same function at face value, West reminds us that symbolically they often perform different functions.    What is more, individuals who violate those norms are often the subject of shaming, ridicule, or at times, even physical violence.  In other words, deviation from gendered and abled expectations result in a form of disciplining.  The disciplining that takes place in public bathrooms reflects John Sloop’s argument that, “the meaning of gender in dominant remains fairly constraining”. 

Second, West uses PISSAR Patrols and Politics to examine the rhetoricity of place, space, and identity.  For PISSAR members, three interdependent levels of shame needed to be negotiated, the first level coming from the need to label public bathrooms as a political issue.  Additionally, the members needed to challenge their own feelings or “internalized shame” that came from having a body that did not align with the physical boundaries created by a bi-gendered and able-bodied public bathroom.  Although this shame was not necessarily tied to self-objectification, it was tied to internalized sexism and internalized ableism that was derived by the pressure to adapt to the dominant normativities. The third level of shame that needed to be overcome was the division created between queer and disabled communities. 

Nevertheless, through struggling against the “architectural privileging” of the “normal body,” the members “effectively addressed both the shame and the stigma directed at their bodies to bolster their coalition” (167).  The coalition that was formed through this struggle fulfilled what West believed was a key aspect of Judith Butler’s definition of queer.  That is, the identity of queer must continually take on new meanings, never be fully owned, and remain at the forefront of radical democratization. 

Through his analysis, West draws attention to three key issues. To begin with, he encourages his readers to reexamine their “pee privilege” and “support efforts like PISSAR’s” (171).  Next, he urges us to remember that place, space, and identities are rhetorically constructed and therefore can serve as a place where meaning is contested.  Lastly, West argues the PISSAR coalition can serve as an example for other groups who want to build broad radical coalitions. 

Although West examines public bathrooms, they are not the only place where architecture is influence by conversations of gender.  Clare Foran discusses in The Atlantic, how city planners in Vienna, Austria decided to implement “gender mainstreaming;” i.e., redesign the city in a way that provided women with the same access to city resources as men.  However, as Foran points out, this practice is not without criticism.  Some critics have argued that Vienna already provided an equal access to resources. Other critics have asserted that the change in policy runs the risk of enforcing bi-gendered stereotypes.  To respond to the later claim,  Foran reported that, “city officials have begun to shy away from the term gender mainstreaming, opting instead for the label 'Fair Shared City'” (para 23). 

Regardless of whether you are examining the use of space in a city or the use of a room in a building, architecture plays a role in how we communicate about gender and other identities.  Yet, this is not a new idea. McSorley’s Old Ale House, for example, only allowed men until a court order in 1970.

 Thus, consider the following: 

1.  What are other examples of how gender and identity are rhetorically constructed through place and space?
2.  What other aspects of Burke’s definition of (hu)man are reflected in West’s article?
3.   What can we gain as communication scholars when we explore, “How our communication about gender in influences the way in which architecture is utilized, and how those physical structures influence how we communicate about gender”?