Given all the different kinds of family forms outlined by Wood in the course textbook, how do you believe she would define family? How do you define it and why? How does faith shape how family is defined? Is it appropriate to advocate views of family shap

Given all the different kinds of family forms outlined by Wood in the course textbook, how do you believe she would define family? How do you define it and why? How does faith shape how family is defined? Is it appropriate to advocate views of family shaped by a Biblical Worldview or one’s faith?

What’s a Family, Anyway? Julia T. Wood
I chose this selection because it offers a realistic description of what
“family” now means, especially in the United States. These realities are
different from the cultural ideal of the past and from what some Christian
and Jewish people believe is the model prescribed in the Bible. So you may
or may not believe that some contemporary forms of “family” are
appropriate or desirable. There’s room for a wide variety of opinions on this
issue. But it’s very likely that as you move through your life, you will
encounter people in many different kinds of families, and Wood’s
comments can help your communication with these people go more
smoothly. Wood begins by contrasting the actual status of U.S. families
with the myth of the traditional nuclear family—children living with a married
mother and father. As she points out, the traditional picture excludes the
majority of people living in the United States and much of the rest of the
world. Wood describes, for example, how the notion of “immediate family”
is more expanded for many African Americans than for many whites. She
also describes how lesbian and gay families are frequently misunderstood.
She discusses some of the communication challenges faced by interracial
families. And she outlines some ways members of divorced and blended
families are often stereotyped. As a member of a childless couple, Wood
also talks briefly about misunderstandings that occur around families
without children. She often has to field the question “Why don’t you have a
family?” responding with something like, “I do have a family—I have a
husband, a sister, three nephews, and a niece.” The final section in this
part of the reading talks about families of choice. These are the family
circles created by many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other persons “bound
together by commitment, regardless of whether there are biological or legal
ties.” The second major part of this reading directly addresses the
discomfort some people have about discussions of family diversity
because, for example, “My church says that homosexuality is immoral [and]
I can’t approve of that,” or “It’s wrong for members of one race to adopt
children of a different race.” Wood argues that you can respect a family
form as a legitimate choice for others without embracing the choice for
yourself. She also describes how family forms change over time in any
culture, and she underscores the reality of family diversity today. Wood
concludes by suggesting that you can learn from observing and interacting
with families different from your own. She gives an example of her own
experience of learning about the relative lack of playfulness in her
relationship with her partner by experiencing a family with young children.
Some of Wood’s ideas are provocative. You may find yourself or some
classmates resisting what she says. I hope that the group you’re in will be
able to discuss these responses as openly and productively as possible. I
believe that the perspective on families that is offered here can provide a
starting place for some fruitful thinking and talking about family
communication.
MAIN IDEAS
• “Family” does not mean what it used to.• For African Americans, families
are more “extended” than for Caucasian.
• Lesbian and gay families and interracial families are frequently
misunderstood.
• Divorced and blended families are challenging, and many families are
childless, often by choice.
• To communicate effectively with and about 21st-century families,
distinguish between personal choice and respect for others’ choices.
• Recognize also that views of family change over time.
• Recognize diversity in family forms.
• Learn from differences between your family and other families.
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF WHAT FAMILY MEANS . . .
One of the students I advise is an African American man who is preparing
for a career in marketing. Franklin is an ideal student—smart, curious about
ideas, responsible in getting his work done, and serious about his studies.
Not long ago, Franklin came to me visibly upset, so I invited him to sit down
and tell me what was bothering him. “My grandmother had to go in the
hospital for heart surgery, so I went home to be with her.” I nodded. “I
missed an exam in my history class. When I got back to school, I went to
see Dr. Raymond to schedule a make-up and he says he won’t excuse my
absence.” “Why not?” I asked. “Did he want some assurance that your
grandmother really was in the hospital?” Franklin shook his head. “No, I
brought a copy of her admission form as proof. That’s not the problem. He
says he only excuses absences for medical problems in the student’s
immediate family.” Dr. Don Raymond, like many middle-class white people,
thought of family as a mother, father (or stepmother or stepfather), and
children. After all, when he was growing up, Don lived with his parents and
two sisters. His other rela-tives did not live nearby and he saw them only
once or twice a year, if that often. Now 48 years old, Don lives with his
second wife and their two children, ages 12 and 15. He seldom sees his
sisters and visits with his parents and in-laws only over Christmas. Aunts,
uncles, and grandparents are not part of the immediate family that Don
Raymond knows. It wasn’t difficult to resolve Franklin’s situation. I simply
called Don Raymond and talked with him about some of the typical
differences between white and black family structures, and I emphasized
that many African American families are more extended than those of most
European Americans. Large, extended families are also common among
second-generation Americans of many ethnic origins. Once Don
understood that grandparents were immediate family to Franklin, he was
more than willing to schedule a make-up examination. “What’s a Family,
Anyway?” from But I Thought You Meant . . . Misunderstandings in Human
Com-munication by Julia T. Wood. Copyright © 1998 by Mayfield
Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of The McGraw-Hill
Companies. 236 Part 3 Relationships There was nothing mean spirited or
intentionally discriminatory in Don’s initial refusal to schedule a make-up
exam for Franklin. The problem was that he assumed—without even
knowing he was making an assumption—that his definition of family was
everyone’s definition of family. He simply didn’t un-derstand that Franklin
considered his grandmother immediate family. After all, she had raised him
for the first seven years of his life, a situation not uncommon in African
American families. She was more like a mother (in white terms) than a
grandmother to him.
Lesbian and Gay Families
Lesbian and gay families are also frequently misunderstood. Not long ago I
was having lunch with Jean and Arlene, who have been in a committed
relationship for 15 years. With us were their two children, Michael and
Arthur, age 6 and 8, respectively. A colleague of mine saw us in the
restaurant and came over to our table to engage in small talk for a few
minutes. I offered the standard introduction: “Chuck Morris, I’d like you to
meet Jean Thompson and Arlene Ross. And these are their sons, Michael
and Arthur.” “Good to meet you,” Chuck said. “Do you live here?” “Yes, our
home is just off Lystra Road,” Arlene said. “And what about you?” Chuck
asked Jean. “Same place. The four of us are a family,” she replied. Chuck
had made the mistake of assuming that the two women and the two sons
constituted separate families. Once Jean clarified the relationship, Chuck
understood and was not taken aback by the fact that Jean and Arlene were
lesbians. Yet he was confused about the boys. “So how old were they
when you got them?” he asked, assuming the boys were adopted.
“Depends on whether you count the gestation period,” Jean said with a
smile. She had run into this assumption before. “I carried Michael and
Arlene carried Arthur.” “Oh, so they’re your biological children?” he asked.
Arlene and Jean nodded. Chuck made the mistake of assuming that
lesbians (and gay men, too) can’t be biological parents. Obviously they
can, because sexual orientation has no bearing on a man’s ability to
produce viable sperm or a woman’s ability to produce fertile eggs and carry
a child in her womb. When we assume gay men and lesbians cannot have
biological children, we conflate sexual orientation with reproductive ability.
Interracial Families
Misunderstandings also surround many interracial families. Matt and Vicky
had been married for six years when they realized they weren’t able to
have biological children. They decided to adopt, first, James, and three
years later, Sheryl. They love their son and daughter and consider
themselves a close family. But, whenever they go out as a family, others
subject them to stares and sometimes thoughtless comments. Chapter 7
Communicating with Family and Friends 237 “Are you baby-sitting?”
“Whose children are these?” If you guessed that James and Sheryl are not
the same race as Matt and Vicky, you’re correct. The children are African
American, and Matt and Vicky are European American. In recent years, two
of my white friends have adopted children of other races—a young girl from
China for one and a Native American girl for another. Like Matt and Vicky,
they are hurt when people assume their children are not their children.
Comments such as “Are you baby-sitting?” deny the families they have
created.
Divorced and Blended Families
You have probably read the statistic that half of first marriages end in
divorce. In addition, even more than half of second and subsequent
marriages end in divorce. Divorce may end a marriage, but it doesn’t end
family. Instead, it changes the character and dynamics of family life. If the
former spouses had children, they are still parents, but how they parent
changes. In some cases, one parent has sole custody of children and the
other parent may have visiting rights. In other cases, parents agree to joint
custody with each parent providing a home to children part of the time.
Children experience two homes and two sets of rules, which may be
inconsistent. One parent may have rigid requirements about dating,
curfews, and household chores while the other parent is more relaxed. If
one or both parents remarry, families combine to create what are called
blended families. Years ago The Brady Bunch was a popular television
situation comedy. In it, two parents, each with several children, married and
became a blended family. Among the Bradys, liking and comfort seemed
effortless. Unlike the Bradys, many blended families find it difficult to
reorganize into a functional, comfortable unit. Children may have to
accommodate other children, from both former marriages and the current
one, so jealousy and conflict often surface. New household rules may
cause confusion, resentment, and resistance. Parents may have to accept
the children’s other parents and grandparents. And people outside the
family may have to recognize multiple parents of children and both former
and current spouses of parents. Some children in blended families call their
stepparent mother or father; other children reject that term. Similarly, some
children in blended families consider their step-siblings and half-siblings
brothers and sisters whereas other children don’t accept those labels.
When communicating with people who belong to divorced or blended
families, we should be sensitive to how they perceive and name their family
ties.
Families without Children
My partner and I have been married for 23 years, and we have no children.
We are a family without children. I am annoyed and hurt when people ask
me, as they frequently do, “Why don’t you have a family?” Sometimes I
reply with a “Are you baby-sitting?” “Whose children are these?” If you
guessed that James and Sheryl are not the same race as Matt and Vicky,
you’re correct. The children are African American, and Matt and Vicky are
European American. In recent years, two of my white friends have adopted
children of other races—a young girl from China for one and a Native
American girl for another. Like Matt and Vicky, they are hurt when people
assume their children are not their children. Comments such as “Are you
baby-sitting?” deny the families they have created. Divorced and Blended
Families You have probably read the statistic that half of first marriages end
in divorce. In addition, even more than half of second and subsequent
marriages end in divorce. Divorce may end a marriage, but it doesn’t end
family. Instead, it changes the character and dynamics of family life. If the
former spouses had children, they are still parents, but how they parent
changes. In some cases, one parent has sole custody of children and the
other parent may have visiting rights. In other cases, parents agree to joint
custody with each parent providing a home to children part of the time.
Children experience two homes and two sets of rules, which may be
inconsistent. One parent may have rigid requirements about dating,
curfews, and household chores while the other parent is more relaxed. If
one or both parents remarry, families combine to create what are called
blended families. Years ago The Brady Bunch was a popular television
situation comedy. In it, two parents, each with several children, married and
became a blended family. Among the Bradys, liking and comfort seemed
effortless. Unlike the Bradys, many blended families find it difficult to
reorganize into a functional, comfortable unit. Children may have to
accommodate other children, from both former marriages and the current
one, so jealousy and conflict often surface. New household rules may
cause confusion, resentment, and resistance. Parents may have to accept
the children’s other parents and grandparents. And people outside the
family may have to recognize multiple parents of children and both former
and current spouses of parents. Some children in blended families call their
stepparent mother or father; other children reject that term. Similarly, some
children in blended families consider their step-siblings and half-siblings
brothers and sisters whereas other children don’t accept those labels.
When communicating with people who belong to divorced or blended
families, we should be sensitive to how they perceive and name their family
ties. Families without Children My partner and I have been married for 23
years, and we have no children. We are a family without children. I am
annoyed and hurt when people ask me, as they frequently do, “Why don’t
you have a family?” Sometimes I reply with a Relationshipsquestion: “What
do you mean by family?” On other occasions, I respond by saying, “I do
have a family—I have a husband, a sister, three nephews, and a niece.” I
consider all six of these people my immediate family. Like other people who
don’t have children, I resent it when others assume that I don’t have a
family just because Robbie and I don’t have children.
What’s a Family, Anyway?
Yet another kind of family was introduced by Kathy Weston in her book,
Families We Choose. Weston describes close friendship circles of gays
and lesbians as the families they choose. For Weston, families are people
who are bound together by commitment, regardless of whether there are
biological or legal ties. Some biologically related people may have no
commitment to each other and may refuse to interact. Siblings sometimes
feel such animosity toward each other that they decide not to visit, write,
call, or otherwise have contact. Some parents and children are estranged,
and in extreme cases parents sometimes disown children. Biology, then,
doesn’t guarantee commitment. Legal and religious procedures are also
insufficient to ensure the level of com-mitment and caring most of us
consider the crux of what a good family is. As noted earlier, current
statistics indicate that approximately one-half of marriages in the United
States will end in divorce. Laws that define marriage can be negated by
laws that grant divorce. In a 1993 poll of the baby boom generation, only
58% of respondents said they considered it likely they would stay married
to the same person for life. Pledging “until death do us part” before a
magistrate or member of the clergy may create a legal marriage. It does
not, however, guarantee that the people making the pledge will, in fact, be
able or willing to stay together for life. These statistics show that the nature
of family is neither as fixed nor as uniform as Dan Quayle suggested. Thus,
concludes Weston, it’s reasonable to define family as people who elect to
commit to each other in a sustained way—to have a family we choose.
Their commitments may or may not be recognized by current laws or
religious practices; but they are families, if by family we mean people who
care about one another, organize their lives together, take care of one
another, and intend to continue being together and caring for one another.
This enlarged view of family pivots on the idea that people can commit to
casting their fates together.
IMPROVING COMMUNICATION
When I teach about family diversity at my university, some of my students
are uncomfortable. “I understand what you’re saying,” they often tell me,
“but my church says that homosexuality is immoral. I can’t approve of that.”
Others say, “It’s wrong for members of one race to adopt children of a
different race. The children will never understand their ethnic heritage. I just
can’t agree with interracial adoptions.” Chapter 7 Communicating with
Family and Friends 239
Distinguish between Personal Choice and Respect for Others’ Choices
What I try to show my students is that they don’t have to embrace various
family forms for themselves in order to respect them as legitimate choices
for other people. In other words, there’s a big difference between deciding
what you personally want in a family (or career or spiritual practice or
education or home life) and deciding to honor the choices that others make.
We already recognize and respect varied choices in many aspects of family
life. For example, some parents believe that physically punishing children is
wrong; other parents believe that if you spare the rod, you spoil the child.
Some parents bring up children within strong religious traditions; other
parents don’t introduce children to any religious or spiritual path. In some
families, children have to do chores and sometimes take on jobs outside
the home to earn money; children in other families get automatic
allowances. Few of us would label any of these choices wrong, deviant, or
antifamily. Yet we sometimes find it difficult to accept other variations
among families.
Recognize That Views of Family Change
Recently I collaborated with Steve Duck, who conducts research on
communica-tion and personal relationships, to co-edit a book. It includes
chapters on different kinds of families, such as cohabiting couples, longdistance relationships, gay and lesbian commitments, and African
American and Hispanic families. The chapters in this book document the
diversity of family forms in the United States today. Family historian
Stephanie Coontz points out that during the 300 years since Columbus
landed in this hemisphere, families in the United States have taken many
forms. The Iroquois lived with extended and matriarchal families, whereas
the more nomadic Indian groups had small families. African American
slaves saw their nuclear families wrenched apart, so they developed
extended communal networks, routinely engaged in co-parenting, and took
orphaned children into their homes and raised them as their own, usually
without for-mally adopting them. The family form idealized by Dan Quayle
came late in U.S. history and sus-tained its status as the dominant family
form for only a short period. According to Coontz, only beginning in the
1920s did the majority of working-class white people in the United States
live in families that had male breadwinners and female homemakers.
Today, by contrast, the majority of women work outside the home, and
approximately one-half of wives who work outside the home have salaries
equal to or greater than those of their husbands. The male
breadwinner/female homemaker model simply doesn’t describe the
majority of U.S. families today. Intact families, also part of Quayle’s model,
are more the exception than the rule in this country. . . . Nearly half of first
marriages (and an even greater percentage of second marriages) end in
divorce. Only 50% of children live with both their biological parents, and
nearly one-quarter live with single parents, usually their mothers. 240 Part
3 Relationships The Census Bureau’s 1996 survey of 60,000 U.S.
households noted several trends in families. The greatest shift is in the
number of single-parent house-holds. Between 1990 and 1995, the number
of single-parent families rose by a scant 3%. In the single year 1995–1996,
families headed by single mothers rose 12% as did families headed by
single fathers. Some single-parent households, such as Murphy Brown’s,
represent choices. In other cases, single parenting is not desired or
anticipated, but it becomes the only or the most acceptable option.
Recognize Diversity in Family Forms Demographic trends in the United
States clearly challenge the accuracy of any singular view of what a family
is. Effective participation in current society re-quires us to understand that
people have diverse ideas about what counts as a family and they have
equally diverse ways of structuring family life. As one gay man said to me,
“I don’t care if straights like me and my partner or not, but I do care that
they recognize I have rights to love a person and have a family just like
they do.” Understanding this point can help us interact effectively in two
ways. First, when we recognize the normal diversity of family forms, we can
com-municate more respectfully with people who have varying family
structures. No longer is there a universal definition of family. Dan Quayle
says single mothers are an affront to family values, but single mothers are
no more or less successful in parenting than married women. Just like
mothers who are married, some single mothers are devoted and effective
parents, and some are not. Just like married mothers, single mothers’
effectiveness depends on a variety of factors including support networks,
income, education, and employment. Most states do not recognize gay and
lesbian commitments, yet the evi-dence suggests they can be as healthy,
stable, and enduring as heterosexual unions. Even if gay and lesbian
families do break up, that doesn’t mean they weren’t families at one time.
After all, if a heterosexual couple divorces, we don’t assume they were
never married. Like heterosexuals, gays and lesbians can pledge a lifetime
of love and loyalty; like some heterosexuals, some gays and lesbians will
not realize that promise. And what about the children of lesbian and gay
parents? Child development specialist Charlotte Patterson reports that
there are currently between 1 million and 5 million lesbian mothers and 1
million and 3 million gay fathers in the United States and between 6 million
and 14 million children who have a gay or lesbian parent. Many states don’t
allow gay or lesbian partners to be legal par-ents, even if one partner is the
biological parent. These states argue that lesbians and gays cannot raise
healthy children, but this argument isn’t justified, accord-ing to New York
Times columnist Jane Gross. Based on reviewing 35 studies of children
who have gay or lesbian parents, Gross concluded that these children are
as well adjusted as children of heterosexual parents and that they are no
more or less likely to become gay or lesbian than the children of
heterosexual parents. In a separate review of research, Charlotte Patterson
found that children of gay and lesbian parents and children of heterosexual
parents are no different in terms
The Census Bureau’s 1996 survey of 60,000 U.S. households noted
several trends in families. The greatest shift is in the number of singleparent house-holds. Between 1990 and 1995, the number of single-parent
families rose by a scant 3%. In the single year 1995–1996, families headed
by single mothers rose 12% as did families headed by single fathers. Some
single-parent households, such as Murphy Brown’s, represent choices. In
other cases, single parenting is not desired or anticipated, but it becomes
the only or the most acceptable option.
Recognize Diversity in Family Forms
Demographic trends in the United States clearly challenge the accuracy of
any singular view of what a family is. Effective participation in current
society re-quires us to understand that people have diverse ideas about
what counts as a family and they have equally diverse ways of structuring
family life. As one gay man said to me, “I don’t care if straights like me and
my partner or not, but I do care that they recognize I have rights to love a
person and have a family just like they do.” Understanding this point can
help us interact effectively in two ways. First, when we recognize the
normal diversity of family forms, we can com-municate more respectfully
with people who have varying family structures. No longer is there a
universal definition of family. Dan Quayle says single mothers are an
affront to family values, but single mothers are no more or less successful
in parenting than married women. Just like mothers who are married, some
single mothers are devoted and effective parents, and some are not. Just
like married mothers, single mothers’ effectiveness depends on a variety of
factors including support networks, income, education, and employment.
Most states do not recognize gay and lesbian commitments, yet the evidence suggests they can be as healthy, stable, and enduring as
heterosexual unions. Even if gay and lesbian families do break up, that
doesn’t mean they weren’t families at one time. After all, if a heterosexual
couple divorces, we don’t assume they were never married. Like
heterosexuals, gays and lesbians can pledge a lifetime of love and loyalty;
like some heterosexuals, some gays and lesbians will not realize that
promise. And what about the children of lesbian and gay parents? Child
development specialist Charlotte Patterson reports that there are currently
between 1 million and 5 million lesbian mothers and 1 million and 3 million
gay fathers in the United States and between 6 million and 14 million
children who have a gay or lesbian parent. Many states don’t allow gay or
lesbian partners to be legal par-ents, even if one partner is the biological
parent. These states argue that lesbians and gays cannot raise healthy
children, but this argument isn’t justified, accord-ing to New York Times
columnist Jane Gross. Based on reviewing 35 studies of children who have
gay or lesbian parents, Gross concluded that these children are as well
adjusted as children of heterosexual parents and that they are no more or
less likely to become gay or lesbian than the children of heterosexual
parents. In a separate review of research, Charlotte Patterson found that
children of gay and lesbian parents and children of heterosexual parents
are no different in terms Chapter 7 Communicating with Family and Friends
241of intelligence, self-concept, and moral judgment. Existing evidence
shows that both heterosexuals and gays and lesbians can raise children
who are healthy and happy—and both can raise poorly adjusted children
who have low self-concepts.
Learn from Differences
Diverse family forms also offer an opportunity for us to consider how we
form our own families and live in them. Martha Barrett interviewed samesex couples and concluded that they tend to relate to each other on equal
terms more than do heterosexual couples. Barrett suggests that gays and
lesbians have something to teach the heterosexual community about
equality in rights and responsibilities in intimate relationships. Similarly,
interracial families may discourage us from overemphasizing race in our
thinking about personal identity and family. And families in which there are
children may learn from child-free families about ways to keep couple
communication alive and intimate. We can learn about others and
ourselves if we are open to differences in how people form and live in
families. As long as we interact only with people whose families are like
ours, it’s hard for us to see some of the patterns and choices we’ve made
in our own relationships. The particular ways that we charter our families
remain invisible, unseen and unseeable because they seem “normal,” “the
only way to be a family.” Yet when we consider some of the contrasts provided by interacting with people who have families different from ours, what
was invisible and taken for granted in our own relationships becomes more
vis-ible. This realization allows us to reflect on the way we’ve created our
families. In turn, this knowledge enables us to make more informed, more
thoughtful choices about the kind of family we want to have. In other words,
heterosexuals don’t have to change their sexual orientation to gain insight
into their own relationships by observing gay and lesbian families. A
heterosexual friend of mine once told me that only through her friendship
with a lesbian couple had she realized how fully she centered her life
around her male partner. She chose to stay married, but she and her
husband communicated about ways they could be less centered on each
other and enlarge their circle of friends. A child-free family doesn’t need to
have children to learn something about their own relationship from
interacting with families in which children are present, I’ve learned a lot
about my relationship with Robbie by spending time with my sister Carolyn
and her husband, Leigh, and their children, Michelle and Daniel. One of the
insights I’ve gained from visiting them is that Robbie and I didn’t include
much play and frolic in our relationship. Notice I used the past tense
(didn’t). Watching Carolyn and Leigh play with Michelle and Daniel and
then blend into playfulness with each other allowed Robbie and me to
notice that the playful dimension of relating was largely missing in our
interaction. When Robbie and I played with Michelle and Daniel and then
with them and their parents, we revived our dormant sense of how to be
playful. Since learning this, Robbie and I have become more playful, even
silly at times, with each other, and this enriches our marriage. Op 242 Part
3 Relationshipsways of being a family allows us to enlarge our personal
identities and our relationships, including our own families.