Disbanding the Normative Nuclear Family

The concept of “The Family” unanimously pervades cultures and communities, albeit without remaining universal in its meaning, despite stereotyped understandings of what a ‘family’ is. This essay will consider whether the concept of the family is exactified or dissembled through anthropological study in exploring differing understandings and examples of “The Family”, and how these representations help us understand if a concrete notion of family can be established and, if, so, how that notion may be defined. In order to conduct this consideration, the more stereotypical understanding of the nuclear family will be observed through considering a Malinowskian viewpoint, which will then be questioned in relation to more ethnographically-sourced observations of “The Family”. The overarching message of this essay will be to evoke the sentiment that “families- like religions, economies, governments, or courts of law- are not unchanging but the product of various social forms, that the relationship of spouses and parents to their young are apt to be different things in different social orders.” (Collier et al, 76) From this understanding, this essay will hopefully succeed in articulating how the anthropological study of “The Family” gives meaning to the term, and how that meaning effectively develops a conceptualization of familial structures.

Malinowski presents the family as an entity that requires clear boundaries in order to appropriately define what “The Family” is, and who belongs within it. He asserts three main points. First, that families must be recognizable units, with members being individually and exclusively recognized by other members of the family, and outsiders being recognized as excluded from that familial membership. Second, that family members require a specific place within which they can convene and interact as a family exclusively in itself. Third, that family members must feel an affection for one another generated from years of care.

However, Malinowski’s understanding stems from the normative concept of the nuclear family, resulting in his conclusions deriving from assumptions of what societies consider to be familial values, structures and behaviours, rather than from subjective ethnographic examples of what those values, structures and behaviours actually may be. “The Malinowskian view of The Family as a universal institution” (Collier et al, 74) does not ethnographically consider “The Family” cross-culturally, and as a result develops a stereotyped concept of “The Family” that strips the concept of its multiple definitions. “The Family” is subjective at its core, and the nuclear family is simply a stereotyped misnomer of a much more complex concept that shifts in structure and meaning cross-culturally. For example, in the case of the Mundurucu society (Collier et al, 73), men live amongst themselves, and women and children live together, with the two parties only ever meeting to engage in intercourse, or for women to deliver food to the men’s house. In this case, which considers “The Family” through ethnographic observation rather than stereotyped generalization of the concept, it is demonstrated that a familial structure may not represent the westernized idealization of the nuclear family. Rather, culture and social behaviour act as the driving forces of what family is, and, effectively, who is to be considered as a part of that family. Effectively, the understanding of family is subject to change.

Representative of the subjectivity of “The Family” is the consideration of Korean adoptees in the U.S., and how it further develops our understanding of “The Family” as well as how individuals develop the sentiment of feeling a part of a family. The way in which these adopted children are given a family can be characterized by dichotomy, for in order to gain a family, they must first lose one. Adopted children are “permitted entry into the U.S. as ‘immediate relatives’ of the adopting parents under the very clause of family unification… Thus, immigration law for adoptees mirrors adoption law, which also effectively negates the existence of natal parents by creating new birth certificated and instantiating new beginnings (Yngvesson and Coutin 2006)” (Kim, 499). Therefore, in order to lend a family structure to an adopted child, that child must first be stripped of any existing natal familial connection only to have that structure of a family reconstructed within the boundaries of another culture. Further, “adult adoptees are now discovering that they were primarily victims of poverty, familial dissolution, or the stigma of illegitimacy.” (Kim, 503) Family can therefore paradoxically redefine itself; if unstable, it ultimately dissembles its initial structure, while indirectly rebuilding another familial structure through facilitating the adoption of a child. This effectively presents “’kinship’ as a set of discourses, practices and imaginaries, rather than as a refined category” (Kim, 499). However, despite this deconstruction, followed by reconstruction, of a familial structure, the notion of “The Family” exemplified within adopting families still strives to mimic the idealized image of the nuclear family.

Nevertheless, the example of Korean adoptees does help redefine the subjective notion of “The Family” not through their immediate adoptive, or biological, families, but through the social connections they develop in feeling neither a part of one nor the other. In the ethnographic consideration of Korean adoptees, we can observe a community of diaspora characterized by the notion of not fully belonging in their adopted or original environment. The latter is expressed in the sentiment of the “’remarkable feeling of being unremarkable’ (Weimer 2006), marvelling at their ability to blend into the homogenous racial landscape… accompanied by the unavoidable acknowledgement that gaps in language and culture created moats of miscommunication and incomprehension that rendered them ‘foreigners’ in their birth country.” (Kim, 510) This notion perpetuates a battle between trying to fit into the adopted community all while feeling out-of-place when reconnecting with biological ties, and the resulting feeling of misplacement. However, from this misplacement arises a new form of “The Family”. Rather than successfully mirroring the nuclear family, “Family” becomes more closely linked to social ties, and the intimate connections made through them, regardless of biological or adopted connection. Nafzger explains this sentiment in articulating, “It’s like another family… you don’t really have a place in Korea, you don’t really have a place here, but you have a place with each other, when meet each other—your own community, your own unique society.” (Kim, 505) This demonstrates that the community established amongst adopted children ultimately replaces the stereotypical concept of “The Family” with a unique structure that provides a real sense of family. Again, the nuclear family structure proves idealistic, and ultimately unrealistic, in determining what “The Family” really is.

Therefore, in studying the concept of “The Family” through an anthropological lens, the term is both muddled and more easily understood. Studying the way in which families are understood and represented cross-culturally, and even inter-culturally, allow us to recognize that “The Family” can be understood so long as one acknowledges that it is dichotomous, self-challenging, and complicated. That does not, however, imply that “The Family” is impossible to understand. Rather, it must be acknowledged as subjective, and contingent on ethnographic consideration of what family means on a case-by-case basis rather than through generalization. By rejecting the concept of the nuclear family as the primary way in which family is to be understood, we can more clearly understand the complexity of family, and thus better understand it all together. However, a Malinowskian framework should not be rejected altogether. Rather, if it is applied on the condition that the subjectivity of “The Family” is considered, it can actually help clarify what family means within specific cultures or communities.

In the examples of both the Mundurucu and Korean adoptees communities, the relationships between members of the community can be considered within Malinowsky’s framework in order to better understand how the perception of family differs. Using the framework, one can look at the Mundurucu community and determine, first, who the ‘insiders’ and who the ‘outsiders’ are within the family based upon who is considered family in the first place. Similarly, with the case of the Korean adoptees, one can observe the ‘insiders’ only as those who were adopted, and the ‘outsiders’ as both their biological and adopted family members and communities. Keeping in mind that the structure of the nuclear family does not universally apply, one can thus determine who different actors are within a family regardless of the presence of lack of natal connection. Second, considering the space where family interacts exclusively gives further meaning to what is understood as “The Family”. Again, straying from the nuclear family, one can observe two culturally subjective cases. In the example of the Mundurucu, of men living separate from the women and children, one can observe a more fluid notion of family based upon the social structure of the community. Similarly, the Korean adoptees find their sense of family not in a home mirroring the structure of the nuclear family, but rather in settings of reunion with fellow adoptees. In both cases, Malinowski’s proposed ‘space’ for the family persists as being indicative of what “The Family” is, although differently from how he may have intended. Lastly, the demonstration of affection can be observed to understand how family interacts and how those interactions may differ cross-culturally. In the case of the Mundurucu, where the women bring food to the men, a relationship of care is established, albeit quite differently from the examples put forth by the nuclear family. In turn, this demonstrates the way in which affection is exhibited. In the case of the Korean adoptees, care over an extended amount of time is difficult to observe. This, however, does not imply a lack of care amongst family members, but rather an inevitable disconnect due to long-term misplacement. Conversely, one must also consider the long-term care devoted to the adoptees by their adopting parents.

The cases of the Mundurucu and the Korean adoptees pose two starkly different examples of family. The Mundurucu represent a more structural representation of “The Family”, despite its straying from the stereotyped familial structure. The Korean adoptees, however, present a self-conflicting case of individuals existing within multiple establishments of “The Family”. They are legally a part of one family, while emotionally apart of multiple, although oftentimes only partially within each. The characterisation of diaspora present the adoptees as unassimilated into all families apart from that they develop amongst themselves- a family established through solidarity in not belonging to a structure that strives to mimic the idealized nuclear family model. Again, the concept of “The Family” redefines itself through the recognition of subjectivity.

In conclusion, the anthropological study of kinship is dichotomous at heart. It dissembles the normative concept of the nuclear family in contesting it through the consideration of differing familial structures. However, in doing so, it redefines the concept of “The Family” through disproving the universality of the nuclear family. Further, by pairing seemingly outdated anthropological theories with the contemporary recognition of subjectivity, a clearer understanding of “The Family” may be facilitated. Applying the Malinowskian framework to the two considered ethnographic examples demonstrates the importance of anthropology in understanding what family really means. It allows us to consider a concrete, although obsolete, notion of “The Family” in relation to our modern understanding of its relativity. In turn, we can more accurately explore what it means to be family across a variety of cultures, rather than only within those that fit the model of the nuclear family. Therefore, the anthropological study of “The Family” ultimately clarifies our understanding of the concept. It disproves the model of the nuclear family in a way that develops a more considerate understanding of what family is, and how family differs across cultures, communities, and even individual situations. Therefore, anthropological study cannot establish a single, concrete understanding of “The Family”, but, in failing to do so, it actually allows us to discover what family means within specific cultures and communities. Ultimately, it is this lack of universality that so accurately establishes kinship as unrefined, contradictory, relative, and ever-changing.

Sources:

Collier, Jane, et al. “Is There a Family? New Anthropological Views.” The Gender/Sexuality Reader: Culture, History, Political Economy, Routeledge, 1997, pp. 71–81.

Kim, Eleana. “Our Adoptee, Our Alien: Transnational Adoptees as Specters of Foreignness and Family in South Korea.” Anthropological Quarterly , vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 497–531. JSTOR.