Discourses represent subjectivity, knowledge and power; they are a set of ideas, images, stories or statements that produce a particular version of events, provide a particular view of organisations or groups and make it a truth (Burr, 1995). Discourses change over time and throughout different cultures (Hall, 2001). There are social identities which also run through discourses such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, lifestyle, class, disability, and religion (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2006). Some dominant discourses such as family structure, motherhood, race, heterosexuality, masculinity, femininity and monolingualism are socially constructed which are heavily influenced by the media (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2006). The discourse of family structure, that is represented by media, is the nuclear family that is a mum, dad and children it is considered to be the normal family, it tends to encompass western, heterosexual, white, middle-class, Christian values and morals (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2006). These views, discourses and images impact on non-nuclear and other families and the way they are perceived and judged within society. In this essay I will identify the dominant discourse of family structure operating in the media and deconstruct three media samples (see attached appendix). I will look at the issues raised by the media samples and link them to research. I will then look at the impact these constructions have on the early childhood field and the community.
The nuclear family that is portrayed in media is represented as the most common family structure that provides safety and stability. The families are always respectful, healthy, loving, playful and friendly (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2006). Image 1 (please refer to appendix) shows a mum, a dad and two children frolicking happily on the beach; they all seem healthy and loving. The parents are portrayed as having an indulgent, care free attitude spending time playing and communicating with their children, their facial expressions emit happiness, interest and fun. In image 2 (please refer to appendix) once again family structure is represented by the nuclear family. In this picture they are all laughing and splashing around the pool their facial expressions are relaxed and happy. The clever use of mum and dad in the background watching over the children gives the feel of protection and safety. It also implies a certain amount of socioeconomic status, being able to afford a pool. Image 3 (please refer to appendix) is powerfully constructed to represent the family structure, the nuclear family, as desired and exclusive this is shown by the parental indulgence of one to one bonding. The whole family is attending a sporting activity, wearing designer clothes. Dad is heavily involved in the sons sport giving orders and clutching at the fence while the mum and her daughter spend time talking together, they are smiling and happy. Due to the clothes, the venue and the type of recreation, this picture creates the nuclear family as the elite of families. All these images serve the purpose of re-enforcing the dominant discourse of the nuclear family and the cultural binary of rich/poor. These images pose some very real issues about the impact this has on nuclear families as the most safe and stable environment for children and the stereotyping and biases on non-nuclear and other families.
The impact on nuclear families as the most safest and stable environment for children and the stereotyping and biases on non-nuclear and other families are the two main issues in these images. The impact on stereotyping of non-nuclear and other families, particularly gay and lesbian families and single parents are that they are frequently viewed as social problems destabilising the foundations of strong and moral family life and social values (Carrington, 2002). A great example of this is seen in the article Broken Britain it states that "I think it's time we recognised that family breakdown is the central factor in the social breakdown we see in our country today," (www.psfk.com), the article attributes high crime rates, drug abuse, gang warfare and spiralling teenage pregnancies, on the breakdown of marriage as an institution. Rather than embracing diverse family structures these images lead to strengthen the dominant discourse of the nuclear family as normal, safe, moral and superior (Carrington, 2002). Unless you come from a standard mum, dad and children family, the inference from media as well as society is that you are irreparably disadvantaged and born to fail (www.sundayherald.com). Society has the knowledge about the differing family units; however the power of media to impose the discourse of the nuclear family as normal overshadows the logic that all families including the nuclear families are structured differently. We no longer live in the era of the nuclear family; we do not all have a Ford in the driveway and a mom in an apron with dinner on the stove waiting for her husband to return from his hard day at work (www.drizzle.com).
The traditional nuclear family is often mythically linked to false expectations of stability and safety (Carrington, 2002). Research suggests that children in single parent families do as well as those living in similar two parent families. It appears that the family structure or living arrangements are not as important to children’s well-being as the access to income (www.thetimes.co.za). Foster (2007) as cited in www.thetimes.co states “When we match families based on poverty status and other family disadvantages, kids fare the same regardless of their family structure.” There was as much diversity of children’s social/emotional and intellectual development in low socioeconomic single parent families as across families of different types (www.thetimes.co.za). Dr Lauren Wild family psychologist agreed that income had a major effect. Wild found that how well the family interacted and bonded were much more important for the children’s well-being than family structure. Wild (2007) as cited in www.thetimes.co.za states comments “On average, children with sufficient love and limits do better.” She highlights the need for children to feel love, affection, acceptance and respect, as well as fair limits and boundaries. Wild’s research included same sex families and her research showed that the children living with same sex parents are doing as well as those with heterosexual parents (www.thetimes.co.za). Our families are diverse and complex. Our interactions in public should reflect this reality (www.drizzle.com).
The impact of these constructions on the early childhood field and the community are considerable. Children are not born with any prejudice, however impressions and ideas are formed between the ages 2 and 4, they will acquire stereotypes or negative attitudes toward those that they perceive as different (The Peaceful Solution, 2003) therefore diversity and anti-discrimination training are essential when children are young. Children receive most of their stereotypes and prejudices from their environments, it is crucial for early childhood educators to respond openly and honestly to young children’s questions and misperceptions about color, gender, race, various family structures, disabilities and other forms of difference (http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/families/children.html). It is also important to fill children’s lives with positive experiences with diversity (Villares, 2006). To ensure dominant discourses are not filtering into early childhood settings, anti-discrimination training provided to educators ensures that they obtain the skills necessary to address scenarios relating to gender issues, diversity of families, physical/mental abilities and economic status (www.adl.org/educattion/miller). Educators are then able to explore their own biases and the ways they may affect the children in their care (www.adl.org/educattion/miller). A great way to reinforce the training and to re-educate the children is to have multicultural and anti-discrimination lessons embedded into the existing curriculum, this makes an anti-discrimination approach part of everyday thinking (www.adl.org/educattion/miller). Education can then spill into the local community via the children and the centre through what they learn and are exposed to within the setting. The best way to combat discrimination of any kind is education and policies that promote inclusion. Such policies as those implemented by the Australian government on inclusion, it reads “Encouraging all Australians to participate in public life and the community. To be socially included, all Australians must be given the opportunity to: secure a job; access services; connect with family, friends, work, personal interests and local community; deal with personal crisis; and have their voices heard. Promoting social inclusion requires a new approach to developing and implementing policy and programs. This new approach requires strong partnerships between all levels of government, business and community organisations to address economic and social disadvantage in Australia.” (http://apo.org.au/website/social-inclusion)
The word family is powerful; its ideas, strengths and weaknesses will be different for each person, they will have their own personal discourses of politics, culture, social groups, economics and religious influences. Media will display families in a way to promote their messages; however such is the dominance of the traditional nuclear family that this is the image always used to represent families. Being able to critically analyse and deconstruct images of families can be useful in seeing the discourses and constructions that are formed or made truthful through media. Even though society appears to accept the dominant discourse formed through media we should be aware that it will conflict with many differing families and needs to be challenged. Challenging social frameworks and norms will hopefully abolish stereotypes and biases.
Reference List
Babycakes: Deconstructing the Nuclear Family Paradigm
www.drizzle.com/~mdavis/2008/03/deconstructing-nuclear-family-paradigm.html - Accessed 1/9/2013.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Contructionism. Routledge: London.
Carrington, V. (2002). New Times: New Families. Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht.
Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse, In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S. J. (eds). Discourse theory and practice. Sage: London.
How to Talk to Your Children about Bias and Prejudice http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/families/children.html - Accessed 1/9/2013.
Nuclear Family Has Exploded (from Sunday Herald)
www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2466637.0.nuclear_family_has_exploded.php - Accessed 31/8/2013.
Nuclear family isn’t always best for kids
www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=614760 – Accessed 31/8/2013.
Robinson, K. H., & Jones Diaz, C. (2006). Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education. Open university press: London.
Social Inclusion | Australian Policy Online
apo.org.au/website/social-inclusion – Accessed 2/9/2013.
Terminology: “Broken Britain” (from Sunday Herald)
www.psfk.com/2008/07/terminology-broken-britain.html - Accessed 30/8/2013.
The Miller Early Childhood Initiative of A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE ...
www.adl.org/education/miller/q_a/answer2.asp?sectionvar... – Accessed 30/8/2013.
The Peaceful Solution Character Education Program... www.peacefulsolution.org/curriculum/.../sample_lessons.html - accessed 31/8/2013.
Villares, E. (2006). From family deficit to family strength: viewing family contributions to children’s learning from a family resilience perspective. Professional School Counseling. Gale Group: New York.
The nuclear family that is portrayed in media is represented as the most common family structure that provides safety and stability. The families are always respectful, healthy, loving, playful and friendly (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2006). Image 1 (please refer to appendix) shows a mum, a dad and two children frolicking happily on the beach; they all seem healthy and loving. The parents are portrayed as having an indulgent, care free attitude spending time playing and communicating with their children, their facial expressions emit happiness, interest and fun. In image 2 (please refer to appendix) once again family structure is represented by the nuclear family. In this picture they are all laughing and splashing around the pool their facial expressions are relaxed and happy. The clever use of mum and dad in the background watching over the children gives the feel of protection and safety. It also implies a certain amount of socioeconomic status, being able to afford a pool. Image 3 (please refer to appendix) is powerfully constructed to represent the family structure, the nuclear family, as desired and exclusive this is shown by the parental indulgence of one to one bonding. The whole family is attending a sporting activity, wearing designer clothes. Dad is heavily involved in the sons sport giving orders and clutching at the fence while the mum and her daughter spend time talking together, they are smiling and happy. Due to the clothes, the venue and the type of recreation, this picture creates the nuclear family as the elite of families. All these images serve the purpose of re-enforcing the dominant discourse of the nuclear family and the cultural binary of rich/poor. These images pose some very real issues about the impact this has on nuclear families as the most safe and stable environment for children and the stereotyping and biases on non-nuclear and other families.
The impact on nuclear families as the most safest and stable environment for children and the stereotyping and biases on non-nuclear and other families are the two main issues in these images. The impact on stereotyping of non-nuclear and other families, particularly gay and lesbian families and single parents are that they are frequently viewed as social problems destabilising the foundations of strong and moral family life and social values (Carrington, 2002). A great example of this is seen in the article Broken Britain it states that "I think it's time we recognised that family breakdown is the central factor in the social breakdown we see in our country today," (www.psfk.com), the article attributes high crime rates, drug abuse, gang warfare and spiralling teenage pregnancies, on the breakdown of marriage as an institution. Rather than embracing diverse family structures these images lead to strengthen the dominant discourse of the nuclear family as normal, safe, moral and superior (Carrington, 2002). Unless you come from a standard mum, dad and children family, the inference from media as well as society is that you are irreparably disadvantaged and born to fail (www.sundayherald.com). Society has the knowledge about the differing family units; however the power of media to impose the discourse of the nuclear family as normal overshadows the logic that all families including the nuclear families are structured differently. We no longer live in the era of the nuclear family; we do not all have a Ford in the driveway and a mom in an apron with dinner on the stove waiting for her husband to return from his hard day at work (www.drizzle.com).
The traditional nuclear family is often mythically linked to false expectations of stability and safety (Carrington, 2002). Research suggests that children in single parent families do as well as those living in similar two parent families. It appears that the family structure or living arrangements are not as important to children’s well-being as the access to income (www.thetimes.co.za). Foster (2007) as cited in www.thetimes.co states “When we match families based on poverty status and other family disadvantages, kids fare the same regardless of their family structure.” There was as much diversity of children’s social/emotional and intellectual development in low socioeconomic single parent families as across families of different types (www.thetimes.co.za). Dr Lauren Wild family psychologist agreed that income had a major effect. Wild found that how well the family interacted and bonded were much more important for the children’s well-being than family structure. Wild (2007) as cited in www.thetimes.co.za states comments “On average, children with sufficient love and limits do better.” She highlights the need for children to feel love, affection, acceptance and respect, as well as fair limits and boundaries. Wild’s research included same sex families and her research showed that the children living with same sex parents are doing as well as those with heterosexual parents (www.thetimes.co.za). Our families are diverse and complex. Our interactions in public should reflect this reality (www.drizzle.com).
The impact of these constructions on the early childhood field and the community are considerable. Children are not born with any prejudice, however impressions and ideas are formed between the ages 2 and 4, they will acquire stereotypes or negative attitudes toward those that they perceive as different (The Peaceful Solution, 2003) therefore diversity and anti-discrimination training are essential when children are young. Children receive most of their stereotypes and prejudices from their environments, it is crucial for early childhood educators to respond openly and honestly to young children’s questions and misperceptions about color, gender, race, various family structures, disabilities and other forms of difference (http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/families/children.html). It is also important to fill children’s lives with positive experiences with diversity (Villares, 2006). To ensure dominant discourses are not filtering into early childhood settings, anti-discrimination training provided to educators ensures that they obtain the skills necessary to address scenarios relating to gender issues, diversity of families, physical/mental abilities and economic status (www.adl.org/educattion/miller). Educators are then able to explore their own biases and the ways they may affect the children in their care (www.adl.org/educattion/miller). A great way to reinforce the training and to re-educate the children is to have multicultural and anti-discrimination lessons embedded into the existing curriculum, this makes an anti-discrimination approach part of everyday thinking (www.adl.org/educattion/miller). Education can then spill into the local community via the children and the centre through what they learn and are exposed to within the setting. The best way to combat discrimination of any kind is education and policies that promote inclusion. Such policies as those implemented by the Australian government on inclusion, it reads “Encouraging all Australians to participate in public life and the community. To be socially included, all Australians must be given the opportunity to: secure a job; access services; connect with family, friends, work, personal interests and local community; deal with personal crisis; and have their voices heard. Promoting social inclusion requires a new approach to developing and implementing policy and programs. This new approach requires strong partnerships between all levels of government, business and community organisations to address economic and social disadvantage in Australia.” (http://apo.org.au/website/social-inclusion)
The word family is powerful; its ideas, strengths and weaknesses will be different for each person, they will have their own personal discourses of politics, culture, social groups, economics and religious influences. Media will display families in a way to promote their messages; however such is the dominance of the traditional nuclear family that this is the image always used to represent families. Being able to critically analyse and deconstruct images of families can be useful in seeing the discourses and constructions that are formed or made truthful through media. Even though society appears to accept the dominant discourse formed through media we should be aware that it will conflict with many differing families and needs to be challenged. Challenging social frameworks and norms will hopefully abolish stereotypes and biases.
Reference List
Babycakes: Deconstructing the Nuclear Family Paradigm
www.drizzle.com/~mdavis/2008/03/deconstructing-nuclear-family-paradigm.html - Accessed 1/9/2013.
Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to Social Contructionism. Routledge: London.
Carrington, V. (2002). New Times: New Families. Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht.
Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse, In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. & Yates, S. J. (eds). Discourse theory and practice. Sage: London.
How to Talk to Your Children about Bias and Prejudice http://www.partnersagainsthate.org/families/children.html - Accessed 1/9/2013.
Nuclear Family Has Exploded (from Sunday Herald)
www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2466637.0.nuclear_family_has_exploded.php - Accessed 31/8/2013.
Nuclear family isn’t always best for kids
www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=614760 – Accessed 31/8/2013.
Robinson, K. H., & Jones Diaz, C. (2006). Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood Education. Open university press: London.
Social Inclusion | Australian Policy Online
apo.org.au/website/social-inclusion – Accessed 2/9/2013.
Terminology: “Broken Britain” (from Sunday Herald)
www.psfk.com/2008/07/terminology-broken-britain.html - Accessed 30/8/2013.
The Miller Early Childhood Initiative of A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE ...
www.adl.org/education/miller/q_a/answer2.asp?sectionvar... – Accessed 30/8/2013.
The Peaceful Solution Character Education Program... www.peacefulsolution.org/curriculum/.../sample_lessons.html - accessed 31/8/2013.
Villares, E. (2006). From family deficit to family strength: viewing family contributions to children’s learning from a family resilience perspective. Professional School Counseling. Gale Group: New York.
RSS Feed