Theories, Concepts and Contexts in Family Meanings - Essay Example

Exploring Theories, Concepts and Contexts in Family Meanings Introduction There are several theories put forward to explain the meaning of a family. The family discourse theory speculates that a family is a set of ideologies that are performed by the family members or the community as a whole. The members make the meaning of family come to reality in their living by performing these ideologies. Family as Discourse Discourse theory is broadly used and it's well fitted to study the meaning of family with emphasis on the elemental importance of language and representation, in wording, speech and image in managing and structuring the world. Discourses are not only words but are closely related traditions like talking, reading speech and viewing images al of which include social practises. The other family theory is the family practise which is closely interdependent with the family discourse theory (Finch 2006, p 296). Discourse focuses on the formation of a family depending on the language whereas family practise explains the family or human activities included in making the family. Discourse has several meanings depending on the context or methodological structure in which it is used by social scientists. In this context of family meaning, discourse can be described as the structure of meaning that categorize the societal world and make a difference. Discourse as used in the definition of family discourse can be individualized so that the specific understanding fit in to an individual or they can be ethnically standardized so that the meaning is common to all members of a social group (Finch 2006, p 296). Family discourse and Social Power; In this perspective, the individual investments in the family make them consistently perform for the family, for example the wish for to being a better parent may tie a person in to discourse and so contributes to wider method of managing and controlling, a system commonly referred to as "governance". Theorists have ascertained that most people in the general society are not forced to do what is right as regarded by the society but contrastingly many of them would want to do something that appears to be right and their personal ambitions are connected in significant ways to discourses. An example of discourse in parenting, with concerns for education and parenting, most parents tend to act in a way that would depict them as good parents who are giving the best to their children (Finch 2006, p 295). For this reason, the parental identity shapes against backdrop of discourses of family and this is referred to as familial discourses. Individual dedications and ambitions shape in familial discourses and have societal effects plus some individual's feeling of importance; they are a significant connection between family and systems of governance. The critical connection that makes the people strive to stop backdrop of institutionalized power and as a result people will aim to and enjoy doing thing in a way considered correct an would suffer from anxiety and guilt when they do not meet individual aspirations. Competing Discourses; Since discourses are not determining, the consequences cannot be foreseen basically because of two reasons; there are competing discourses though some dominate; and individuals do not submissively agree to the strictures of discourses. They may choose to appeal to a specific discourse to represent on its ethical or emotional influence. People can create discourses too, as they socialize on daily basis. But these new discourses are not likely to be extensively recognised or dominate institutionally unless they also symbolize the meaning of influential groups (Finch 2006, p 297). For example, working men's groups may convey and devise certain types of discourse (e.g. about masculinity), but these might not become extensively recognized nor entrenched into policy or professional proficiency, unless via trade union manipulation. Some other drawback include the two competing discourses; legal discourses that represent a biological perspective of parenthood and the competing daily discourse of step parents that stresses as an alternative social relationship in the formation of a family unit. The legal discourse is dominant since it is supported by the power of law which can force or impose restrictions (Finch 2006, p 296). Social discourses could be concealed by the legal ones which concentrate on the biological parenting. On the contrary, daily discourses call up more of a perception of a family as a social unit in which parents and siblings alike all belong. Both the legal and daily discourses of step parenthood call for competing versions of family; a family might be unspoken but on the other hand present. The legal discourse uses the term parenthood and removes family from focus while 'family' is more central although not implied in daily discourses (Finch 2006, p 296). The disadvantage is that there are times when people are faced with a discourse that is not in agreement with their personal understanding and wish or aspirations. In such circumstances, parents resist the dominant discourse or change it to fit their description. Hence a family is not frankly transformed created in discourse rather it is a consequence of complicated negotiations and individuals can and in most cases do, challenge the dominance of discourse. Gender is one example of a variety of aspects that are maintained, repeated or braved or opposed by discourses of family (Doolittle 1996). There are other inequalities likely to be faced in discourses of the family including sexuality (gay, lesbianism), ethnicity (stereotyping some families as superior or minority), and social status. In the UK, the upholding of social class inequality policy discourses and practise has been consistent in the research results. Most studies indicate that though the ideas could be intended to apply equally, strict scrutiny revealed that some people were isolated on class basis as disadvantaged (Finch 2006, p 297). Intimacy Concept of Family There are two concepts used to explain the meaning of family; intimacy and personal life. Researchers describe the intimacy as an important relationship of family members as being very close till it can be described as colonized. Theorists and sociologist Val Gilles describe intimate relationship as being very broad that can explain different relation between friends, family, sexual partners and others (Doolittle 1996). Intimacy is a form of close association, familiarity and knowledge of each other with very close, strong positive emotional relationship usually with a lot of trust. Familial intimacy is a key concept of the conventional family discourse and functions in accordance with the traditional regulations and is based in other oriented action. The idea of family intimacy is that which is dedicated, unrestricted, self-sacrificing, expressively full and fully returned by the other (Doolittle 1996). The main aspect of the dominant discourse as applied to family intimacy should be to address the interests of the siblings first. This is because the children's welfare is the main focus in judicial rulings in cases which disputes exist between separated parents. (Doolittle 1996) In most cases, a discourse is difficult to challenge since it powerful and backed by common sense thinking in the social setting plus it is supported by child welfare science. This perspective of family discourse and intimacy is complex in that, domestic life is controlled not by force from external customs but by orientation to personal emotions and internal circumstances; desire, ambition, enjoyment, concern and guilt (Finch 2006, p 296). These feelings are stimulated by involvement with discourses of family and controlled in family practises. This is the power of discourses causing individuals to struggle to maximise enjoyment and reduce anxiety and guilt. 2.0 "Practitioner" and "Client" Meanings of Family Introduction Day to day activities have seen different definitions of family due to the diversity in family structures and professional practices. Applying to daily living and in practise, the definitions of family take diverse meanings depending on the context in which it has to be applied for example social workers, benefit officers, healthcare providers, lawyers and the entire vocation industry of service providers is filled with people who their own meanings to family depending on the perspective either as practitioner or client (Doolittle 1996). Practitioners and other professionals would want to give their definitions in terms of practise and legal senses. In some instances, these practitioners tend to put more emphasis on the complex and fluid meaning of family and to clearly define the boundaries. Many people usually have a clear understanding of what family is but in some cases, people tend to manipulate the way they define their families to fit in the perception of other people the are dealing with simply for the reason that they cannot defend their definition of what a family is. This is why so many individuals stick to the meanings and practises that are considered reasonable and normal, (Doolittle 1996). Government's family policies have insisted on the definitions which fend for the children's welfare so as to enhance responsibility and shape the children's character and development. In this way of thinking, the parents support to a family is conditional with the aim of attaining a certain form of manners of which failure to do so may result in law enforcement. In the past years, the society has defined family in certain ways that emphasized on marriage and parenting in a particular legal recognition with moral sanctions (Doolittle 1996). Family policies are meant to benefit the society. However these definitions have since then become difficult to maintain bearing in mind the changes in family lives and structure of the 21st century. There are other instances when family meaning is flouted by the policy makers and practitioners; the two distinct ways in which the family meaning has been changed or affected by the policies that are meant to protect the welfare of the citizens and more so the children; when ecological model establishes the needs of welfare services and use of law courts to describe the right to family life. 'In such conditions it is expected that the law and public policies would not gladly be able to enforce definitions of who "should" or "shouldn't" be accountable for supporting the family. ' (Finch 2006, p 296). The definition as used here is not explicit rather the practitioner assigns a task to asses the family situation of the individuals they work with and this gives very limited allowance of what counts as family. In law, what the practitioners and policy makers aim to do is to attain a status that can be described a stable family (Finch 2006, p 296). The client's perspective may disagree with this, and rather base his/her argument on fluid relationship between family members. The second definition of family, the meaning of family is described explicitly via the process of law making that covers very important aspects of society like the human rights; right to family life, right to inheritance, right to education among others. When cases of violation of family status arise, some people move to court to assert the definitions and practises of family, through this process, the meanings are clearly explained through human rights discourses and the law making and implementation language. Understanding the way professionals define family is very important since it's from such definitions that intervention to certain family disputes are settled or support is given to some families (Finch 2006, p 297) Based on the ecological model of family definition, the meaning of family is described in the context of work as professionals. The understanding of family by professionals has a direct connection on the type of public service reaction the family would receive, there has been always been a tense moment when general policy and specific situations when it has to apply to certain individuals and their relationships. For example, Rachael Morgan, when asked to say who her family is she says "My husband and children. But I would involve my parents and my brother and sister, but I quite happily leave out my in-laws." Rachael Morgan as quoted in Becker & Charles 2006 p 108).The ecological model defines a family as a social level which is different from the individual and also from wider society and social levels. The social model offers a way of attaining an all perspective of what is taking place in relation to the person who is positioned in the middle of a situation, at four levels; at personal biological and psychological level; in the circumstance of close association in the immediate household/family; in the broader society and social system in which the family is entrenched; and in overstepping traditional beliefs which manipulate others (Finch 2006, p 297). This model is considered to be rigid as it divides a family into levels that are fixed rather than accommodating the fluid meaning which covers different contexts in which the real life occurs. For instance, the perspective of neighbourhood should not be viewed only in the perspective of physical closeness; it should cover the relationship that exists between family member, friends and even those not known to the individual at personal level (Doolittle 1996). This model opens up the perceived source of problems to individual child or parent and proposing solutions that centre on the perceived needs of the family, parents and children. Lawyers and law practice overrides the family meaning in some occasions; particularly the use of human rights enforcement by law. This usually comes to terms in law suits where lawyers discuss the key terminology and phrases. This is usually ascertained by a set of discourses and practises which define the family, some definitions can be changed through practise, the family is given some defining requirements in terms of human right e.g. right to respect for family life and family life, prohibition of discrimination (Doolittle 1996). School is one other place where family is interfered, apparent being interviewed on what she though about his son's homework and family life she said "sometimes if he's forgotten something and he's in tears at none o'clock at night and he hasn't done it I just think well, what the hell are we doing here" I find homework a complete pain..." (Ribbens & Kirkpatrick 2005, p 78). Most parents would want to be seen as supportive while on the other hand the teachers want the parents to assist students in doing the homework on their on using their own ideas. For these reason parent may get the anxiety to antagonize the teachers. Parents usually feel that the family boundaries are crossed by teachers in making them do school job for them (Ribbens & Kirkpatrick 2005, p 79). Parents may be defenceless to teachers' comments in some cases. The other aspect of policy making that ignore the meaning of family is the law of immigration. This is clear evidence that in the effort by the state to regulate individual's lives from crime through policy implementation or law making, personal and other relationships are affected either directly or indirectly. In the United Kingdom, family law and government policy are strictly defined with specific terms like parenting, partnering well highlighted (Doolittle 1996). There is argument that the broader definition of family applies to the way people live their lives. The use of fluid is advocated for rather than the individualized conception. The argument is a threat to the government's regulation since it sees the necessity of government intervention based on biological relationship and contractual relationship (wife-husband). These associations indicate some clear degree of responsibility. Social care is a situation where every one has a degree of responsibility to care for children, old people and those with disability. However the story may not be true in reality living hence the law may seek to enforce the responsibility of the biological parents who could no longer be living with the child but does nothing to improve the more significant living association between the child and the step parent. It's clear that the relationship of the family is simplified and there is a mis-match between public interference and lived reality (Doolittle 1996). The issue of single parenting (lone parents) and minority is another concern. There has been a very dramatic social change in the current society especially the family settings and marriage. The old people are not an exception to the effects of policy and family ties. The public regulations and policies do not require other family members to offer support though there is close association. Long distance migration, the support for the older members is interfered with by the distance. This is regulated or addressed by the government by the use of migration law (Doolittle 1996). This harmonizes the efforts of those who want to make things easier and assist their family members while the government accomplishes the policy of protecting the citizens. The consequences of Disputes in Family meaning The consequences of such rigid family meanings could de resistance to comply, individuals challenging the practitioners or total opposition. Since the welfare of the child is a public concern and government regulation to ensure parent obligation on the child is bound to be enforced (Finch 2006, p 298) The normal family is considered to that one which fits in the definition as the correct type of family where the roles of all the members are fulfilled according to t he societal expectations, this is clearly not the case in reality as it takes the assumptions of what ought to be. "mothers were acknowledging the dominance of welfare discourse while they simultaneously challenged it while they subscribed to these general tenets of welfare, these mothers conceived of their particular children's welfare in ways that precluded contact. Their resistance to contact was achieved by invoking the welfare discourse but making their own interpretations of it" (Kaganas and Day Sclater, 2004 pp 16-20) People will resist, challenge or oppose the meaning even if it is intended for benefit like in resource allocations, to assist the families to take care of their needs have restrictions on what kind of family to benefit hence implying that the laws take the assumption of what family should mean (Doolittle 1996). The government usually carries out its duties of policy making to serve its citizens and protect the children and other disadvantaged members of the family. For some other reasons this case is not true and the policies may affect the families which they are otherwise supposed to protect. The policies should be shaped in a way that they accomplish their aim and not infringe the meaning of family (Doolittle 1996). According to Finch, the flexibility and dynamic association of family and kinship are very critical for the definition of family as being fluid to encompass a lot of aspects of social life and individual perspective (Finch 2006). Conclusion Meaning of family has constantly received challenge directly or indirectly in terms of social policies and practise. Professional who interpret the law and practitioners who also help to interpret policies and execute them while the clients conform, dispute or refuse to accept the norms, values and practises that are entrenched whether implicitly or clearly. Practitioners aim to defend the family, society and individual's rights to family and privacy, at times the rigid framework of implementing such objectives cannot solve the underlying difference between and within families that the practitioners come across in line of duty, since these differences are entrenched in the family meaning. It is therefore very important to encompass the fluidity of family meaning since even the legal judgement covers some assumption of what good and bad is without considering real life. References Doolittle M (1996) Missing fathers. Assembling a History of Fatherhood in Mid-Nineteenth Century England Unpublished PhD Thesis University of Essex. Finch J (2006) kinship as Family in Contemporary Britain in Ebtehaj, F Lindley B. Richards M (Eds). Kinship Matters. Oxford and Portland Oregon Hart Publishing pp 295-306 Kaganas F & Day Slater S. (2004) Contact disputes. Narrative Constructions of good parents. Feminist Legal studies, Vol. 12 no. 1 pp 1-27 Ribbens M & Kirkpatrick (2005) Negotiating Public and Private. Maternal mediations of home-school boundaries in Crozier, G and Reay D (Eds) Activating Participation. Parents and Teachers working Towards Partnership, Stoke on Trent, Tentham Books pp 59-82 Note: hallo client.. "Maybe I did not get the 2nd Question Clearly but I believe this is a Better attempt according to my understanding.the content is so much but little time is available so pliz bare with me. Thank you" Read More