‘Family Ideology’: Identification and Exploration

Abstract

The issue of ‘family ideology’ has been systematically ignored by a majority of ‘family1 scholars whilst it has been taken for granted by a minority. The following study arises from the author's attempts to explore the issue of alternative theoretical approaches to the analysis of family life’.2 Increasing numbers of contemporary researchers concur in recognising the diversity of ‘family forms’ and the inappropriateness of speaking of ‘The Family’.3 Despite these recognitions many researchers find themselves re‐adopting the term ‘The Family’ in their discussions and especially in the titles of their work. For example. Segal clearly recognises that the ‘traditional family model’ no longer reflects the reality of our lives (1983, 11) and yet the title of her book is What is to he done about THE FAMILY? (emphasis added). One reason for the re‐importation of the idea of ‘The Family’ may be found in the rather limited nature of previous conceptualisations of ‘family ideology’. With the exception of Barrett (1980), recognitions of ‘family ideology’ tend to be conceptualised in terms of sets of partisan beliefs supporting a particular ‘family form’. Thus the concept of ‘The Family’ is rarely regarded as being problematic in itself, rather attention is paid to the presumed virtues or deficiencies of the particular form of ‘The Family’ which is assumed to be prevalent. Notwithstanding the recognition of ‘family diversity’ or the inappropriateness of the term ‘The Family’, nearly all discussion becomes a straightforward attack upon, or defence of. ‘The Family’.4 Only very rarely does analysis avoid this trap and question whether ‘The Family’ really exists to be attacked or defended; thus Collier et al. have asked ‘Is there a Family?’ (1982) and the present author has asked ‘Do we really know what “The Family” is?’(Bernardes, 1948a). The objective here is to identify and explore a specific conceptualisation of ‘family ideology’. The aim is to avoid engaging in attacks upon, or defences of, ‘The Family’ but rather to address the ideological context of such debates themselves, especially in respect of the assumed existence of ‘The Family’. It is hoped that this approach will stimulate a much more critical examination of ‘family ideology’ and the concept of ‘The Family’. More generally, the attempt to conceptualise ‘family ideology’ in this much broader sense is seen as a pre‐requisite for the development of an alternative theoretical approach to the analysis of ‘family life’.

“The Normal American Family” as an Interpretive Structure of Family Life Among Grown Children of Korean and Vietnamese Immigrants

“…They are found in the discourse of politicians, social commentators, and moral leaders; in the talk of everyday interactions; and in movies, television shows, and books. Smith (1993, p. 63) describes these ubiquitous images as an “ideological code” that subtly “inserts an implicit evaluation into accounts of ways of living together.” Such images serve as instruments of control, prescribing how families ought to look and behave (Bernades, 1985). Most scholarly concern centers on how this ideology glorifies and presents as normative that family headed by a breadwinning husband with a wife who, even if she works for pay, is devoted primarily to the care of the home and children.…”

We Must Not Define “The Family”!

“…Moreover, the image of universality encourages many people to try to make their own family life like the image of ''The Family'' and imitate what may be uncomfortable and unworkable images of personal behavior and gender. It is astonishing the impact sociology has had on society in glorifying and continually extolling ''The Family,'' in the oppression of huge numbers of individuals and the creation of suffering and misery on a truly grand scale (Bernardes, 1985b(Bernardes, , 1986a(Bernardes, , 1986b(Bernardes, , 1987(Bernardes, , 1988.…”

“…Family ideology allows us all to deceive ourselves into believing in our own Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 14:00 01 December 2014 normality by creating and sustaining an image of ''The Family.'' This vagueness means we can each believe that all families are much the same, they are all ''normal,'' and therefore we do not need to explore everyday family living (Bernardes, 1985b).…”

“…In structuring our most basic relationships with parents, siblings, lovers, children and kin, family living serves to instruct us in the conduct of personal relationships. Family ideology structures human relationships in age and gender and the wider dimensions of power, authority, deference and respect (Bernardes, 1985b). In establishing the pattern of parental authority, ''The Family'' serves as a basic instruction for many later relationships in education, work, dealings with bureaucracies and citizenship more widely.…”

“…Third, family ideology facilitates and sustains major forms of differentiation in contemporary society. Fourth, and perhaps most contentiously, family ideology constitutes an idolistic mystification of human social life; that is to say that family ideology creates and venerates an idol of ''The Family'' which mystifies the reality of so-called ''family life'' (Bernardes, 1985b).…”