doc daimler only

Theoriesforunderstandingfamiles.pdf

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >doc daimler only

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 23

CHAPTER PREVIEW

In this chapter we offer an overview of family theories and research methods. Exchange (or rational choice) theory and symbolic interaction theory focus on the individual or micro-social level of fami- lies. Family systems theory helps us understand associations among different family subsystems. Family life course development theory examines how families move through stages of the family life cycle. Three additional theories— family ecology, structural functional , and confl ict —operate at the macro-social level. We also discuss how feminist theory and exciting new developments can stretch our understanding of families in the twenty-fi rst century.

Family researchers can choose from a range of research methods, including experiment, obser- vation, survey, case study , and archival techniques. Some methods are best suited to certain research questions and each method has strengths and weaknesses, but multiple methods often yield the richest results. Longitudinal and comparative studies are challenging techniques to implement, but are essential to viewing families across time and space. Finally, evaluation research provides family studies scholars with ways to assess programs and policies.

In charging our readers to consider ethics in research, we close this chapter with a question: How will you study families in meaningful, realistic, and ethical ways?

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES

In Promises I Can Keep , Edin and Kefalas (2005) explore why poor women put motherhood before marriage. Are the women in their study consciously weighing life choices, or does the association between motherhood and marriage have a different meaning to them than to other women? Are their family arrangements less mature, are these women out of sync with the usual stages of family life, or are their parental and spousal conjugal relationships simply different from other families’? Do these women’s families refl ect oppressive forces beyond their control, are they harbingers of family forms that pose imminent danger for society as a whole, or are they enmeshed in peculiar economic and social environments?

Are you curious? If so, then family theories can open doors to deeper understanding of the women and families like those in Edin and Kefalas’ study. At its best, family theory goes beyond description of family life to yield explanation of family relationships and systems. The most sophis- ticated theories may even lead us to predictions about the future of families.

This chapter is by no means a comprehensive survey of family theories. To pique your interest and encourage you to explore your own theoretical mindset, we have invited specialists (both scholars and practitioners) to illustrate how each of the eight foundational theories could be applied. When you fi nd a theory that speaks to you, we encourage you to seek out more in-depth discussion. To start, we recommend Sourcebook in Family Theories and Methods edited by Bengtson et al. (2005) and Family Theories by White and Klein (2007). For the newest, cutting-edge work in family theory, as well as syntheses of the fi eld, we recommend Journal of Family Theory and Review , published by the National Council on Family Relations.

In this section we offer an introduction to principles and concepts of eight foundational the- ories used by family studies scholars in the twenty-fi rst century. At the very root, families are composed of individuals living in a relationship with other individuals. Hence, we open with two theories that enable us to refl ect on the microsocial aspects of family dynamics.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

Al l ri gh ts r es er ve d. M ay n ot b e re pr od uc ed i n an y fo rm w it ho ut p er mi ss io n fr om t he p ub li sh er , ex ce pt f ai r us es p er mi tt ed u nd er U .S . or a pp li ca bl e co py ri gh t la w.

EBSCO : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 5/15/2019 10:57 AM via MONTCLAIR STATE UNIV AN: 441361 ; Karraker, Meg Wilkes, Grochowski, Janet R..; Families with Futures : Family Studies Into the 21st Century, Second Edition Account: montclair.main.eds

24 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

Exchange or Rational Choice Theory Exchange theory assumes that in families, as in other social situations, individuals choose to enter into and continue in relationships in which they can maximize their rewards and minimize their costs. Exchange theorists refer to this as the calculus of exchange. Furthermore, exchange theory posits that we seek equity; that is, relationships in which the exchange of goods, services, status, and other resources will be fair. Thus, exchange theorists may explain the attraction between pretty young women and wealthy older men through a seemingly cold-hearted calculus in which physical beauty and sex appeal are exchanged for economic security and status. Conversely, exchange the- ory provides insight into the rationale that battered women may apply in deciding to stay in an abusive relationship in which they bear the cost of physical or emotional abuse in exchange for physical and social security for themselves and their children.

Critics of exchange theory argue that human relationships are not really so predictable (and mercenary). Can the decisions families and their members make really be called rational? In Box 2.1 , Hofmeister and Moen, sociologists on the faculties of a German and an American univer- sity respectively, argue that, instead of seeing family decisions like whether or not to take a job with a long commute as a rational choice, such decisions are more accurately seen as pragmatic or stra- tegic choices.

Table 2.1 Principles and Concepts for Family Studies Theories

Theory Principle Concepts

Exchange or rational choice Individuals seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs in relationships

Rewards, costs, equity

Symbolic interaction Individuals construct selves through and meanings around family relationships

Meanings, defi nition of situation, self

Family developmental life course

Families move through normative stages, responding to historical and other changes

Stages, developmental tasks, life course

Family systems Families are systems composed of subsystems striving toward equilibrium

Systems, subsystems, boundaries

Family ecology Families are embedded in physical, social, and other environments

Ecosystem, adaptation, niche

Confl ict Families replicate social relations, including exploitation, from society

Confl ict, exploitation, privilege

Structural functional Families serve important social functions for society

Equilibrium, structures, functions

Feminist Gender, especially patriarchy, undermines women, relationships, and families

Patriarchy, gender, sexism

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 25

Box 2.1 Commuting: Pragmatic Choice in Dual-Earner Households

Heather Hofmeister, PhD and Phyllis Moen, PhD

The average worker in the United States spends 50 minutes a day in transit to work (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008). Morning commute time is traded for time spent sleeping, jogging, or get- ting children dressed and fed; evening commute time is exchanged for time spent in dinner prepa- ration, interacting with other family members, leisure, and sleep. To arrive at a livable solution, individuals and families consider the sacrifi ces and benefi ts of long commutes in light of spouses’ jobs, housing availability, school systems, social networks, and neighborhood desirability.

Time is a scarce and fi nite resource, and it seems particularly scarce in dual-earner house- holds where the demands of work hours compete with family time and household responsibilities. Rational choice theory suggests that couples make tradeoffs with each other, with their time, and with the location of work and home to maximize benefi t to the household. Extrapolating from Becker (1981), the partner who is earning the most should be “specializing” in the work domain and is best able to “afford” a longer commute. This earner’s overall investment in work, even considering the commute time, makes it worthwhile to the household to lose that spouse/parent to the road for those hours a day. A long commute may be part of the price paid for a higher salary at work. In a sense, the higher salary justifi es the long drive, and so high earners are will- ing to go farther, literally, for the money. Research confi rms this theory by showing that workers with higher earnings, longer hours, or greater job prestige tend to have longer commutes than their spouses.

Commutes are not only a demand on individual workers’ time, but also a time and resource commitment borne by workplaces, households, and neighborhoods. A longer commute may refl ect a sacrifi ce on the part of the commuter so that the family can live in a more desirable neighborhood or the other spouse can be closer to his or her workplace. One solution to reduce the cost of this time sacrifi ce, or to compensate for the commute time, is to distribute commute time as if it is part of the broader household division of labor, like paid work, washing the dishes, or preparing dinner. The spouse with the longer commute may substitute that commute time for other household responsibilities by doing less around the house.

Our life course, role context perspective is more one of pragmatic rather than rational choice; our data (Hofmeister 2002; Moen 2003) from the Cornell Couples and Careers Study (funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation) shows that working couples often choose their home locations based on husbands’ jobs. These decisions, in turn, tend to limit the job options of wives. Parent- hood also is a key context in which working couples make choices about where to live, where to work, and, correspondingly, how long to commute. Given women’s socially ascribed caregiving role, employed mothers, not fathers, tend to be the parents who pick up and drop off their chil- dren from childcare. A consequence of this extra work is that, although women tend to work closer to home than do men, mothers’ commutes may be longer than fathers’ commutes when travel time to childcare is considered.

Other key contexts affecting commute times are policies and practices around telecommut- ing, working fl exible (especially off-peak) hours, carpools, and public transportation. Thus we see individual “choices” as embedded in a web of social relations and social structures related to work, family, gender, and organizational as well as community and policy constraints and sup- ports. Rational choice theory focuses on making optimal decisions. A life course, role context approach focuses on the limited number of options actually available as people are constrained

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

26 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

Symbolic Interaction Theory Where exchange theorists assume that people are predictably inclined to pursue their self-interest even in intimate relationships, symbolic interactionists see human beings as more creative and capa- ble of constructing complex meanings around social life. In her aptly titled work You Just Don’t Understand on [mis]communication between men and women, linguist Deborah Tannen (1990) writes of how the genders are socialized, behave, and communicate in such different ways that they are really trying to communicate across different cultures. Men and women inhabit social worlds and their language refl ects different defi nitions of the situation.

Symbolic interactionists also argue that individuals acquire a sense of self through language, gestures, and other social interaction with signifi cant others, all the while measuring themselves against relevant reference groups. In Box 2.2 , Moore and Davidson, Professors Emeriti of child and family studies and sociology respectively, reveal how unmarried teen mothers’ decisions to carry their pregnancy to term and to place their babies up for adoption can be tied to the mothers’ iden- tifi cation with and socialization into reference groups.

by prior choices (buying a home, taking one job over another, marrying, having a child) and the multi-layered circumstances that call for pragmatic, rather than optimal, strategic actions.

Heather Hofmeister , PhD is Professor of Sociology and Vice-Rector for Human Resources at RWTH Aachen University, Germany. Her doctorate from Cornell University in 2002 focused on couples’ commuting. Her research considers work, family, and community dynamics in international com- parative and life course perspective. Phyllis Moen , PhD is McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Sociology, Professor of Sociology, and Co-Principal Investigator and Co-Director of the Flexible Work and Well-Being Center at the University of Minnesota. Her research includes gender, careers, work, family and retirement.

Box 2.2 To Place or To Keep: Life-changing Decisions for Unmarried Teen Birth Mothers

Nelwyn B. Moore, PhD and J. Kenneth Davidson, Sr., PhD

In 2008, 1.75 million births in the United States were to unmarried birth mothers, of which 22 percent were teenagers (Hamilton, Martin, and Ventura 2010). In spite of severe health, educa- tional, psychological, and economic consequences, the vast majority of unmarried teen mothers keep their babies (Moore and Davidson 2002). In 2006, disregarding age or marital status of birth mothers, there were only 50,705 documented adoptions (Child Welfare League of America 2008).

Although adoption as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy is an ancient practice, the scien- tifi c study of adoption is relatively new (Davidson and Moore, 1996). Adoption data are limited because no federal agency has responsibility to collect data on all domestic adoptions, and agen- cies that do have access to select data sources have no incentive or mandate to create better adoption statistics (Flango and Caskey 2006). Other research limitations include small numbers

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 27

Family Life Course Development Theory Critics of symbolic interaction theory argue that human interaction is not really so creative as that theory contends. In contrast, family life course development theory views families as moving through a series of stages marked by the addition or subtraction of members, the phases of chil- dren’s lives in the family, and changes in contacts between the family and other institutions (Smith et al. 2009). These stages correspond to different developmental tasks for families (not to be con- fused with developmental tasks for individuals). Taken together, the cycles of families viewed in this way constitute the family life course.

Different theorists offer different numbers of and names for these stages. Duvall’s (1957) classic model consists of eight stages. Aldous (1996) offers a more concise model of four stages: (1) formation: the couple’s early years, (2) childbearing: childrearing years, (3) children leaving home: the middle

of cases and self-selected samples of birth mothers, both making generalizations problematic (Fisher 2003). Theoretical perspectives used to study adoption include psychoanalytic; cognitive; expectancy values; and reference group theory (Shibutani 1955).

Reference group theory, focusing on perspectives of social groups when interpreting social behavior, was selected for the study of adoption decision-making conducted at a large residential facility for pregnant, unmarried teens. To identify signifi cant factors associated with choosing adoption, an anonymous questionnaire was administered to volunteer respondents at eight-month gestation, paralleling the process of decision-making about placing or keeping their babies. The sample included 178 subjects with no prior pregnancy who placed their babies for adoption.

Contextual factors, such as family, religious values, and peer infl uence, emerged as impor- tant variables in the process of making adoption decisions, supporting reference group theory as a viable framework for studying this topic. Several reference group socialization experiences related to unintended pregnancies had occurred in the lives of these Placers. One-fourth of them had sisters and two-thirds had at least one close friend who had been premaritally pregnant, almost two-thirds of whom chose to carry to term rather than to abort. That the behavior of the Placers in this study was a phenomenon of psychological identifi cation with their peers was sus- pected when data revealed that one-third of their close friends had placed their baby for adop- tion. This fi gure remarkably compares to 1 percent of unmarried, pregnant teens, in general, who do so. That so many Placers themselves were adopted and/or had an immediate family member who was adopted underscores the signifi cance of familial factors. Ostensibly, because of earlier socialization experiences with adoption, these teens perceived adoption as the preferred solution to their unintended pregnancy.

Based on the premise that adoption can help solve both personal and societal problems, implications from this research suggest the wisdom of educational programs and research using reference group theory. By further exploring the decision-making process of teens that choose to keep or place their babies for adoption, social scientists may better discern how behavior is shaped by culture and how culture is shaped by behavior, thus contributing to personal and soci- etal well-being.

Nelwyn B. Moore , PhD is Professor Emerita of Child and Family Studies at Texas State University– San Marcos. J. Kenneth Davidson, Sr. , PhD is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

28 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

years, and (4) elderly couple: the fi nal years. Both Duvall’s and Aldous’ models are grounded on the assumption that a couple who marry will raise their children together and grow old together. Thus Laszloffy (2002) has charged that family development theory is fl awed by an assumption of universal- ity and an over-emphasis on single generational issues. Aldous (1996) has reworked her model of the family life career to be applicable to a wider variety of families, including people who have children but never marry, who have children before they marry, who marry and divorce but do not remarry, or who divorce and remarry. However, just as we might ask of the women in Edlin and Kefalas’s study, does variation from the norm (i.e., placing parenting ahead of marriage) represent deviance or just a different way of managing the challenges some women and their families face in everyday life?

Rites of passage often mark not only the individual’s movement but also the family’s journey across life stages. For example, in Box 2.3 Father Craig Albrecht, a Catholic priest, describes how

Box 2.3 The Sacred Life Cycle of Families

Father Craig Albrecht

A primary function of organized religion is ministering to family throughout the life cycle. In the Catholic Church, sacraments mark sacred points in family life, moments of grace that recall before the larger community the individual’s relationship to family and others and to God. Ministry around the sacred cycle of families is a part of what has been called “the theology of the hatched, matched, and dispatched.” Three of the most critical sacraments for Catholics occur at pivotal stages in the family life cycle: birth (baptism), marriage (matrimony), and death (anointing of the sick and recon- ciliation). Two more sacraments, holy communion (eucharist) and profession of faith (confi rmation) signify the individual’s entry into adulthood and connection to the greater human family.

Just as each family is uniquely defi ned by its history and lived experience, so each of these sacred rites marking transitions in the family life cycle uniquely refl ects family development. Since at least the early Christian Church, infant baptism soon after birth has been the norm in the Roman Catholic Church. A child would live, grow, and be catechized in the life of the parish faith com- munity until receiving fi rst communion, and then, in the teen years, confi rmation. Some years later the adult would perhaps celebrate marriage, reconciliation, or occasionally anointing of the sick.

Today, these norms are as different as families themselves. Baptism is as likely to occur any- time throughout the life cycle as in infancy. More couples than ever before live together prior to marriage. The Church discourages this practice as being detrimental to both the freedom to enter a sacramental relationship and the future stability of the marriage. Couples are marrying later in life and the incidence of divorce is almost as high for those who enter marriage as a Christian sacrament as for those who enter marriage as a purely civil union. Couples who continue regular family worship do, however, have lower rates of divorce than couples who do not.

Finally, regardless of faith practice—frequent worshipper or occasional practitioner—at the time of death, individuals and families want clergy present to anoint, for confession, or to cele- brate the full funeral rites of the Church. From birth to death, the sacraments defi ne in a most public way Christians’ relationship to God and to family as we pass through the stages of family life and experience growth and development, change and transition.

Father Craig Albrecht is pastor of the Church of St. Mary of the Assumption in Bay City in the Diocese of Saginaw, Michigan.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 29

rituals associated with the Catholic faith not only mark life transitions for the individual and the family, but also bond the same with the broader community.

Bengtson and Allen (1993) make a powerful argument that life course theory is a distinct theo- retical school, while others (e.g., Smith et al. 2009) see life course theory as a variant of family development theory. Still others, including White and Klein (2007) and your authors, see family life course development theory as a distinct theory. In pioneer work on what he called family develop- ment, Elder related human development to changing environments, especially socialization and educational processes. Beginning with his classic Children of the Great Depression (1974), Elder’s work illuminated how the directions of individuals’ lives are formed by social and historical con- text. Such is surely the case for the women in Edlin and Kefalas’ research, who choose to keep promises regarding parenting even when social circumstances do not enable them to keep other promises, like marriage.

Family Systems Theory Family systems theory views the family as a unit, a system composed of subsystems striving to maintain equilibrium. Family systems theory helps us understand family boundaries, both those between the family and other institutions and those between family members.

Some criticize family systems theory for viewing families primarily as operational systems (White and Klein 2007). However, family therapists have found family systems theory useful for understanding why patterns of family life, even negative patterns, persist, sometimes even across generations. Others, such as Sarah Beman, a nurse, and Nan Beman, a social worker, writing in Box 2.4 , use family systems theory to describe how the success of adoption placement hinges on understanding complex parental and other family systems.

Box 2.4 Systems Serving the Multi-problem Family

Sarah Beman, BSN, RN and Nan Beman, MSW

In this case, medical and social service systems collaborate on behalf of a seriously ill mother and her children, ages 12 and 14. Ellen has diabetes mellitus and has had fi ve hospital admissions in the past seven months with life-threatening blood glucose levels. During hospitalizations, her two children are left alone to care for themselves. During Ellen’s last hospitalization, the children ran out of food and a report was fi led with child protection services.

The primary nurse and endocrinologist learn that Ellen struggles with maintaining her diet and affording medications. Ellen’s poorly controlled diabetes has led to peripheral neuropathy, causing severe, chronic pain. Ellen expresses concern for her children left alone during her hos- pitalizations, as well as their ability to cope with her illness. She also reveals that she uses drugs and alcohol to help control her pain. Ellen worries (but has not shared with her family) what will happen to her children when she dies.

While in the hospital the diabetes nurse specialist, dietician, and pharmacist help Ellen make a better plan for controlling her blood sugar levels and refer her to a pain clinic and a substance abuse program. The social worker’s assessment reveals several strengths in this family: a maternal aunt committed to the children and willing to provide support; children performing well in school and reliant on each other for support; a mother caring deeply about her children’s welfare.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

30 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

Exchange and rational choice, symbolic interaction, and family life course development theory address the inner life of families, along with change and stability of families over time. However, anthropologists and sociologists focus on the family as a social institution and how individual fami- lies are shaped by economics, history, society, and other forces. These macro-social theories include family ecology, structural functional, and confl ict theory.

Family Ecology Theory Family ecology theory views families as embedded in ecosystems, the collection of human-built, social–cultural, and natural physical–biological environments that shape families (Bubloz and Sontag 1993). Early ecologists such as Bronfenbrenner (1979) emphasized the impact of these eco- systems on individual, especially child, development. Family ecology theory emphasizes that at the most basic level families are embedded in greater kinship and broader social systems. Ecologists see families occupying a niche in the societal ecosystem—acting upon, as well as being acted upon by, schools, workplaces, and other parts of the social system.

Ecosystems represent both constraints and opportunities for families. Such is the ecosystem experienced by the youth and families MADDADS seeks to protect. In Box 2.5 Zimmerman, a future teacher, recognizes that organization’s battles against drugs, gangs, and violence, while

The medical team, social worker, and family including the aunt are invited to a care confer- ence at the hospital. The goals of this conference are: 1) put a plan in place to stabilize Ellen’s multiple medical diagnoses, 2) ensure stability for the children in their own home, 3) engage the maternal aunt in a routine role in family functioning, and 4) establish regular family meetings with a counselor for long-term issues.

Ellen’s physician was very direct about the risks of her current lifestyle and unhealthy choices. Ellen responded initially with anger, then sadness. The social worker framed Ellen’s feelings as intense worry for her children and herself. Ellen’s daughter talked about how scared she and her brother had been. The plan developed included the children participating in diabetic education so they would be aware of Ellen’s care plan and ready to help her stay on track. The social worker assisted Ellen in enrolling in a medical assistance program to ensure funding for her required medications and clinic visits, arranged a fi rst visit with the hospital substance abuse program, and scheduled a follow-up visit. The maternal aunt agreed to stop in at the family home every day after work and the social worker committed to referring to an in-home therapist and a food shelf.

Without coordination among the different care systems, no plan would succeed and the outcome for this family could be serious. Together the medical team, social worker, and family drove home the severity of this parent’s situation and engaged systems of support to offer this family a strategy for insuring stability.

Sarah Beman , BSN, RN is a clinical instructor for the nursing department at St. Catherine Univer- sity in St. Paul, Minnesota. Sarah is completing work for a Master of Arts in Nursing Education. Nan Beman , MSW has over three and a half decades of experience in the fi eld of child protec- tion. Nan is currently providing policy consultation and technical assistance to child welfare agencies for the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 31

attempting to reclaim communities for families and their members and promoting positive images of fathers, especially African American fathers.

An ecological approach suggests that policy makers should consider developing family impact statements, much like environmental impact statements, when contemplating legislation or social action that might compromise or enrich the potential for families to succeed. We will return to this thought in the fi nal chapter when we discuss policy implications of family studies.

Box 2.5 MADDADS Reclaiming Communities for Families

Sarah Zimmerman

MADDADS—Men Against Destruction Defending Against Drugs and Social-disorders—is a nationwide organization dedicated to mentoring at-risk youth. With 60-plus chapters in 17 states, MADDADS reaches out to youth, while attempting to counter the effects of drugs, gangs, home- lessness, and addictions. V. J. Smith, founder in 1998 of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul) chapter, explains the purpose of MADDADS this way: “We change lives, give people hope, and show youth and women there are good men out there.”

MADDADS is part of an ecological approach to addressing the problems of troubled fami- lies. In the Twin Cities, MADDADS reaches out to the community through 18 different programs, events and support groups. Nicknamed “Murderopolis” in 1995, Minneapolis appeared headed for another record in 2010 when 32 homicides occurred in the fi rst eight months alone—during the entire year of 2009, Minneapolis experienced only 19 homicides (Rosario 2010). Twenty- four of the 32 people killed were youth or young adults and nearly a quarter were in their teens. All but three of those killed were males, 22 were African-Americans, and most of the murders were believed to be gang-related. When a youth homicide or another tragedy occurs in the com- munity, MADDADS immediately steps forward to support the families. In particular, MADDADS collaborates with local and state police departments, earning the organization the respect of law enforcement agencies.

Smith believes that the most pressing problems facing families in the Twin Cities area today are lack of effective parenting skills and positive parental role models for children. According to Smith, MADDADS gives “the love, encouragement, consistency, and power that God gives us to show compassion for the future and the belief that they can turn their lives around.” By connecting families to community resources, MADDADS provides youth and their families with skills to fi ght for their right to live in a safe, nurturing community. Without education and resources within the disadvantaged community, Smith predicts that “more homicides, more destruction to families, more violence, and more mothers raising their children by themselves will occur.”

Smith’s vision of MADDADS is to “touch as many people on the street as they can, ease them out of trouble, as well as help them see the value in their lives. MADDADS gives people the con- fi dence to reach their dreams.” Smith speaks of collaboration as the key to uniting communities. By partnering with churches, law enforcement, neighborhood groups, and other non-profi t organ- izations, MADDADS hopes to “reclaim the neighborhoods” for families.

Sarah Zimmerman holds a Bachelor of Arts degree with majors in elementary education and sociology from the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

32 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

Structural Functional Theory Similar to family ecology theory, structural functional theory considers how equilibrium results from interdependence among fundamental institutions of society. Functionalists emphasize how the American family continues to function as the primary institution responsible for child socializa- tion, economic support, and emotional security. Writing in the 1950s, functionalists such as Talcott Parsons (Parsons and Bales 1955) were concerned that eroding value consensus regarding norms ascribing instrumental roles to men and expressive roles to women would be dysfunctional for fami- lies and would create disequilibrium in society.

Structural functional theory often provokes considerable criticism from those who argue that the theory confuses description of how families operate in society with prescription for how families should operate in society. Teasing out functions and dysfunctions—especially if one asks “func- tional for whom?”—can be useful. We might ask, for example, who benefi ts from the persistence of the romantic love ethic.

A successful application of structural functional theory depends on understanding how very complicated structures and their associated functions can be. For example, as Intrater, a psycholo- gist, writes in Box 2.6 , even in the legal battlefi eld of family court, the function of fathers is so much more complicated than that of mere breadwinner.

Box 2.6 The Imperative of Fathers

Leon C. Intrater, PhD

The strength of paternal relevance is witnessed by the statement “I have a father who loves me,” even among children who have not seen or heard from their fathers for many years. I have also witnessed numerous child custody hearings during which fathers’ parenting weaknesses are infl ated and strengths minimized in the legal battlefi eld, leaving children and other family mem- bers with erroneous, frustrated, and hateful perceptions of men who may be well-meaning and capable fathers.

I recall the case of a 17-year old homeless teen I accompanied to court to establish no-fault dependency status. These proceedings would allow her to live in an independent living program and to benefi t from state-funded educational, social and other youth services. At a legal hearing regarding the guardianship status of a minor child, the proceedings required the presence of the girl’s father. This man had been incarcerated for 13 years for the murder of her sibling. At the hearing to establish the state of Illinois as her legal guardian, the father was brought to court, ankles shackled and accompanied by two correctional offi cers, each holding a rifl e. The father had a swastika tattooed on his forehead and maintained a look of anger during the entire pro- cess. However, in the courtroom this 17-year-old girl (who had not seen her father since she was four years old) ran to him crying, “Daddy! Daddy!” with (as she later verbally verifi ed) no thought of personal fear or danger.

In this, and in so many other instances, the child’s perception of father is so much more com- plicated than his role as mere breadwinner. Father is not the less important parent who, in time, will not matter to children. Certainly some fathers abandon or otherwise fail their children, but even absent or seriously fl awed fathers will not be “gotten over.” Through my work in psycho- therapy with “fatherless” children and fathers who have been, for one or more various reasons,

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 33

Confl ict Theory While structural functional theory views society as a place where structures such as the family play a part in insuring social equilibrium, confl ict theory views society as in a constant state of fl ux, and confl ict in society and in the family as ubiquitous. Confl ict theory depicts the family as a replication of social relations in the broader society, relations that too often result in the exploitation of one category of people (e.g., children) over another (e.g., adults). On the societal level, confl ict theorists may speak of the “haves” and “have nots,” the former with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, the current state of affairs, in social relations.

In their text subtitled Gender, Love, and Property , Collins and Coltrane (1991) argued that a macro-social theory such as confl ict can shed light on confl ict within families, as in the confl ict between husbands and wives. As a macro-social theory, confl ict theory focuses less on individuals as the source of oppression and more on the power of ideology to serve as a justifi cation for sexist, racist, homophobic, or other social structural systems that keep some groups from sharing the advantage and privilege of other groups. Confl ict theory may also help understand religious and other sources of opposition to extending family entitlements to gay and lesbian family unions such as the one described in Box 2.7 by sociologist and attorney Embser-Herbert.

blocked from having full or any infl uence on the development of their children, I am convinced that fathers are not “options” but rather are imperatives in children’s and families’ development.

Leon C. Intrater , PhD, a psychologist, is founder of Neon Street Center for Homeless Youth, and serves as a member of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. He has over 20 years of experience in direct service and management in public and private mental health programs.

Box 2.7 On Being a (Lesbian) Family in North American Society

Melissa Sheridan Embser-Herbert, PhD, JD

In 2001, compared to many other lesbian families, we were fortunate in that we lived in Minne- sota. While expecting our son, we were blessed with health-care personnel who were supportive and non-judgmental. We were able to work with a lesbian attorney on the paperwork, not required of married couples, to insure that each of us had at least some legal protections should something happen to the other. Even with these steps in place, however, had my partner died while giving birth, I would have had no legal relationship with our surviving infant. Had I been the husband of a woman who had become pregnant via donor insemination I would automati- cally have had parental rights. But we were fortunate in that we lived in a place that permitted second-parent adoptions; so I was, at least, able to adopt our son within weeks of his birth.

We continued to face additional challenges as well as concerns about the future. For exam- ple, my partner and I cannot fi le taxes together. Only one of us can take the dependent deduction. The implications of having to fi le taxes separately are far too complex to address here, but now that there are signifi cant fi nancial consequences for not being considered a family, or even a household, in terms of tax law. Then there was the psychological stress of knowing that people were, increasingly, spending a great deal of time and money working actively to deny equality

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

34 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

Feminist Theory No description of family theories in the twenty-fi rst century would be complete without inclusion of feminist theory. Baber and Allen (1992:1) argue that

families, particularly those based on traditional ideologies and practices, are tension-fi lled arenas, loci of struggle and domination between genders and across generations . . . women’s lives are constrained by even their most intimate and caring relationships.

Baber and Allen contend that feminist families require economic autonomy, relational equality and choice, reproductive freedom, and lifelong education for a critical consciousness. Contemporary feminist theorists reject patriarchal assumptions that accord position, power, and privilege to men. Further, feminist theorists argue that male dominance and sexism damage not only women, but also families, children, and men, as well as men’s relationships with women. In Box 2.8 , women’s studies scholar and sociologist Alison Moss supports our call for a more inclusive defi nition of family, one that includes consideration of the intersectionalities of gender, race/ethnicity, class, and sexualities.

to same-sex families. Did we have it better than most lesbian families in the United States? Yes. But, we had to ask ourselves, “Is this the kind of place in which we really want to raise our son?”

In 2005 we traveled to Canada to marry and then we applied for permanent residency. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “green card” in the US? Same idea. Permanent residency allows us to live and work in Canada, just like a Canadian citizen. We received our visas and in 2008 we moved. Our son is thriving in a community where having two moms might be different, but it’s no more different than the fact that, among his classmates, one is from the Netherlands, one has lived in El Salvador with her missionary parents, one is disabled, and another is being raised by his grandmother. The range of diversity isn’t greater, but the range of acceptance certainly is.

Are there things we miss about the United States? Yes. Is it worth it to live in a place where, both legally and socially, our family is treated just like any other? Absolutely. The question many of our friends in the US ask is, “Will you come back?” As long as same-sex couples and their fami- lies are denied equality under the law, it will be hard to leave a place that has been so welcom- ing. But we don’t know what the future holds. We hope that it includes a United States that appreciates all families and treats them equally.

Melissa Sheridan Embser-Herbert , PhD, JD currently lives with her family in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada where she teaches sociology at the University of New Brunswick and online for Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Box 2.8 Hearing Voices and Seeing Margins: Why Families Studies Needs Feminist Theory

Alison R. Moss, MA

Hegemony refers to exclusionary practices by those in power. While hegemony has character- ized much research on families, this hierarchy is not refl ected in the examples offered in this

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 35

Family studies that employ feminist theories typically include fi ve themes: (1) the social con- struction of gender as a central concept, (2) the centrality of women’s lives and experiences, (3) a critical approach to the family and other traditional institutions, (4) a commitment to gender equal- ity and social change, and (5) extension of scholarship into practice and social change. A decade and a half ago, Thompson and Walker (1995:847) argued that feminist theory had found a place in the discipline, albeit “often at the margins of family scholarship rather than at the center.”

chapter. From adoption, to dads, to lesbian families, the essays offered here show the benefi t of inclusive approaches to studying families. Only by seeing differences in society can we make visible the variety of factors that construct the experiences of individuals and potentially oppress them and their relationships. I call for an even broader incorporation of feminist theory, particu- larly the concept of intersectionality, into family studies.

To respond to the real-world problems that happen to real-world families, two changes under- way around family scholarship need to continue. First, as the title Families with Futures suggests, studies on families must refl ect multiple defi nitions of family. The concept of family has too often been synonymous with a traditional, nuclear family structure, a problem being addressed by the Inclusion and Diversity Committee of the National Council on Family Relations (Lewis, Henderson, and Strand 2010). Without a more expansive, inclusive conceptualization, too many families are either taken for granted as deviant or left invisible. As we fail to give those families a voice in family studies, such families are marginalized in society.

Second, family studies needs to embrace not only feminist theory, but the concept of intersec- tionalities. Grounded in Collins’ (1990) revolutionary black feminist standpoint theory (discussed in Chapter 1 ), the concept of intersectionality emphasizes not only patriarchy and sexism, but also intersections among racism, classism, and other structural systems of oppression. Intersectionality can alert us to the nexus among race, class, and gender, as well as that among sexualities, nationalities, abilities, and other systems. In the words of Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw (1995:377), Through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us .

Family studies has begun to give voice to single motherhood, children of divorced parents, and more recently multiracial and gay and lesbian families. However, where are the voices of those who are bisexual or transgender? My research (Moss, forthcoming) speaks to the need for more attention to another group on the margins, families that do not center on marriage and monogamy. These families have alternate trajectories from their traditional and nuclear family counterparts. I place bisexuality and polyamory at the center of analysis to address this particular exclusion.

By neglecting diversity among families and the intersections among their places in the social order, a discipline contributes to omitting those families from not only scholarly but also public discourse, effectively defi ning such families out of existence. Family studies professionals must speak up when, for example, immigration policy, while endorsing family reunifi cation, oppresses queer families because of the legality attached to the terms “husband” and “wife.” In family stud- ies, feminist theory can honor the lived experiences of families on the margins and give voice to the complexities of intersectionality, while producing equality-focused scholarship and making visible the lived experiences of families.

Alison R. Moss , MA trained in both women’s studies and sociology. She is completing her doctor- ate in sociology at the University of Illinois–Chicago.

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

36 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

Today feminist theory is no longer at the margins of family studies. The family theory volumes cited earlier all include sections on feminist theory. Feminist theories feature promin- ently in the best-selling undergraduate textbooks in psychology and sociology. Further, we eagerly anticipate the publication of more volumes like the Handbook of Feminist Family Studies. There Lloyd, Few, and Allen (2009) offer both a feminist critique of family studies and a “(re)visioning of ‘the family’ ” from feminist perspectives. They cast a wide net, encompassing racial–ethnic feminisms, queer theory, and transnationalism. Further, they discuss novel ways of thinking about families and aging, communities, disability, violence, and other issues that will challenge and expand family studies.

Family Theories into the Twenty-fi rst Century Toward the last decades of the twentieth century, some economists, philosophers, political scien- tists, and sociologists recognized that changes in the approaching millennium called for radically new theoretical visions. One such approach is postmodernism , which family scientists and many others have been slow to endorse. In dramatic contrast to the eight theories presented earlier in this section, postmodernists contend that the search for unifying principles to understand societal arrangements, including families, is futile and biases scholarly inquiry. Instead, postmodernists view all reality as infi nitely subjective (Winton 1995).

Social theories have tended to represent social change—modernization—as progress and improvement in the human condition. Instead, postmodern theorists speak of a new postmodern era in which familiar institutions such as the family undergo transformation or deconstruction (Silverstein and Auerback 2005). Postmodernists such as Giddens (1992) challenge conventional assumptions about intimacy, coining such concepts as experiments in living. For example, Weeks, Heaphy, and Donovan (2001) have studied how same-sex and other families of choice challenge heterosexual assumptions about intimacy in a postmodern world.

Furthermore, Browning (2003), Giddens (2000), Karraker (2008), and others see family rela- tionships at increasing risk, a key feature of postmodern society. Writing of the postmodern family, Ritzer (2000:141–142) describes the kitchen as fi lling station

The [family] meal is probably not what it once was. Following the fast food model, people have even more options to “graze,” “refuel,” nibble on this, or snack on that rather than sit down at a formal meal. Also, because it may seem ineffi cient to do nothing but just eat, families are likely to watch television or play computer games while they are eating. The din, to say nothing of the lure, of dinnertime TV programs such as Wheel of Fortune and of the “bings” and “whines” associated with computer games is likely to make it diffi cult for family members to interact with one another. We need to decide if we can afford the loss.

Postmodernists often analyze contemporary life through narratives, patterns of language and other forms of communication. Some family practitioners, such as a program in Minneapolis for run- away youth, have even applied those techniques in a clinical setting, using youth’s narratives to fathom the sources of family disunity while seeking to assist the youth to move to a healthier living situation, perhaps united with, perhaps disconnected from the family.

Table 2.2 offers a key to where you can fi nd these eight theories referenced throughout Families with Futures . However, keep in mind that these theories are not mutually exclusive explanations for family life. No one theory effectively provides a complete framework that can capture the

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

THEORIES FOR UNDERSTANDING FAMILIES 37

Table 2.2 Selected Applications of Family Studies Theories in Families with Futures

Family Studies Theory Applications Chapter

Exchange or rational choice Pushes/pulls of being single 6 Prenuptial agreements 7 Decision to remain child-free 8 Family power; Decision to stay with abuser 9 Divorce; Community property; Widowhood 10

Symbolic interaction Symbolic use of language for intimacy, sex, sexuality 5 Meaning of kinship bonds 6 Marriage rituals 7 Child abuse as backstage behavior 9 Symbolic meaning of housework 11

Family life course development Family coping and adaptation 3 Health and aging over the life course; Alzheimer’s disease 4 Sexuality over the life course; Menopause 5 Parent education 8 Family power 9

Family systems Family resilience 3 Family health behaviors 4 Sexuality education 5 Family power 9 Marriage dissolution, divorce; Stepfamilies 10

Family ecology Interactive model 4 Sexuality education 5 Law and religion effects on marriage 7 Parent education 8 Sociocultural factors in family confl ict and violence 9

Structural functional Risk and resilience in families 3 Effects of religion and politics on marriage law 7 Incest taboos; Kinship bonds 8 Why victims remain with abusers 9 Effects of economic hardship 11

Confl ict Norms regarding singles and marrieds 6 Norms prohibiting LGBT marriage 7 Family confl ict and violence 9 Divorce 10 Work–family confl ict 11

Feminist Gender context of dating 6 Paternity 8 Intersectionality of power inequalities 9 Separation and divorce 10

Gender stratifi cation in work 11

complicated nature of families. To remedy this, some family scholars and practitioners have attempted to synthesize different theories. For example, a postmodern feminist approach to teach- ing human sexuality assumes not only that sexual experience varies widely but that self-reports of sexual experiences can be contradictory. Nonetheless, such an approach might lead to a greater

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

38 2/FAMILY SCHOLARSHIP IN ACTION: THEORIES, METHODS, AND ETHICS

emphasis on human resiliency around sexual health and less sexual exploitation for both men and women in this riskier, postmodern world (Baber 2009; Baber and Murray 2001).

Finally, some family scholars (e.g., White 2005) write of the deep gap between empirical research and family theory. Perhaps even more troubling, in “Family Theory versus the Theories Families Live by,” Daly (2003) criticizes the irrelevance of family theories to real family life. He argues that many everyday family concerns, such as emotions, myths, spirituality, are inade- quately addressed by family theories. Family scholars are increasingly seeking to explore and apply emerging theoretical frameworks grounded in the pressing challenges facing families of the twenty-fi rst century. These new approaches focus on topics such as ambiguous loss; genetics, hor- mones, and other biosocial concerns; intergenerational solidarity; social relations; and stress and coping.

One example of such new directions is the resiliency or strengths-based model (e.g., DeFrain and Asay 2007), which serves as the centerpiece of the next chapter. Clearly, the next generation of family scholars has much work to do.

RESEARCH METHODS: GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT FAMILIES

How would you attempt to answer the question posed at the start of this chapter: why do poor women put motherhood ahead of marriage? In Promises I Can Keep, Edin and Kefalas gathered information from existing sources such as the United States Bureau of the Census, face-to-face interviews with the women themselves as well as with a variety of local informants, and participant observation in eight Philadelphia neighborhoods.

In the last section we presented an introduction to family theories as a way of inspiring you to pose interesting questions. Likewise, in this section we present an overview of research methods as a way of encouraging you to think of creative ways to answer those questions. Further, we argue that even a little knowledge of research methodology goes a long way to empowering novice family studies scholars to be more critical in evaluating not only research, but also social policy and espe- cially public opinion.

Family studies scholars have a rich array of techniques from which to choose. In this section we describe fi ve of these research techniques, noting the advantages along with the hazards of each. We conclude by recommending the consideration of multiple methods, as well as longitudinal and comparative studies.

Experiments Experiments rarely come fi rst to mind when we think of studying families. After all, how do you bring a family into a laboratory? Yet the experiment is the sine qua non for determining causal rela- tionships between variables. Family scientists have applied experimental methods to the study of families with encouraging results. For example, Fagan and Stevenson (2002) recruited African American fathers in a Head Start agency, randomly assigning them to either a control group who viewed a videotape series on parenting or to an experimental group who participated in a program called “Men as Teachers.” Fagan and Stevenson found signifi cant improvement in fathers’ atti- tudes about their ability to teach their preschool age children, as well as signifi cant gains in self- esteem and parenting satisfaction.

A classic experiment involves:

Co py ri gh t @ 20 12 . Ro ut le dg e.

EBSCO : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 5/15/2019 11:11 AM via MONTCLAIR STATE UNIV AN: 441361 ; Karraker, Meg Wilkes, Grochowski, Janet R..; Families with Futures : Family Studies Into the 21st Century, Second Edition Account: montclair.main.eds

KarrakerMegWilk_2012_TheoriesForUnderstand_FamiliesWithFuturesFa
KarrakerMegWilk_2012_Experiments_FamiliesWithFuturesFa.pdf