Family is an element of the human experience that everyone has a connection to; cross-culturally, “family” in some form or another has remained one of the “great universals” the world over. As such a strong element of culture, family has stood as a long-contentious, often politicized issue as individual families attempt to contend with the high standards established by dominant culture. Though the Western model of “ideal family” is only emulated through twelve percent of American families, the cost of deviating from the ideal remains high; mothers and fathers are considered unfit, relationships—both between parents and children and spouses (hetero-and homosexual)—are strained, and far-too-long-lasting prejudices stand in the way of functioning “dysfunctional” families. As is found in this week’s readings, the ideal of “family” cannot be considered “ideal” any longer; these readings help to expose the enrichment redefining “family” provides for North American culture, providing mothers, fathers, and children with far greater agency in defining their own ideal “family.”
In considering this week’s readings, a very clear-cut definition of the North American ideal family is made apparent. Just as we find individuals losing agency of their bodies in considering embodiment, “family” is taken away from the individual unit and measured up against impossible standards. Parents—mothers especially—must always desire their children, fathers provide for the family financially while mothers provide emotionally, parents shall be unconditionally in love and married, and all members of the nuclear family must live under one roof. Oh yea, and families are always white (apparently).
Of course, this ideal is rarely realized, and this is often for the better. There are mothers who do not feel comfortable “mothering” their children. There are fathers who don’t want to bear the financial burden alone and who would much rather spend time at home, just as there are mothers who find themselves emotionally drained after balancing the first and second shifts. Men and women of all ethnicities make responsible, loving, and attentive parents whether or not they are emotionally involved with the other parent. Furthermore, “family” doesn’t always have to include children just as it doesn’t have to exclude individuals who have been rejected by other family members (as was the case for Sharon Kowalksi and her lover, Karen Thompson). In this sense, “family” is not always something that one is “stuck” with, but something with which one has agency to change, challenge, and define.
Perhaps most crucially, examining family reveals the ways in which the classism, sexism, and racism inherent in the ideal image of family not only still “reigns supreme,” but hurts more than women alone. It is clear that North American society clings to the “Leave it to Beaver” definition of family, denying millions of North Americans for whom the reality makes it no further than their television screens. Even in contemporary television sitcoms that fiercely satire everything that the squeaky-clean “Leave it to Beaver” held most dear—“The Simpsons” and “Family Guy” included—feature white families with a breadwinner and homemaker, the ideal 2.4 (or whatever the statistic is these days…) children, and hours of ridiculous antics that end in familial bliss (neatly within a 30-minute time slot). Likewise, television sitcoms that have attempted to feature “ethnic” families have scarcely deviated from the Androcentric ideal; “Family Matters” of the early 1990’s featured a black family in suburban Chicago that focused on familial problem solving that would have made June proud. Similarly, the more recent “George Lopez” features the Hispanic comedian traversing fatherhood with wit, humor, and a daily dose of genre-demanding wisdom. Though shows like “Desperate Housewives” sometimes work to break the mold by featuring (gasp!) middle-aged, good-looking divorcees, many primetime television programs are a far-cry away from the reality of “family.”
Though it seems that television reflects a society that no longer exists, it can only be a matter of time before art begins to imitate life. As the definition of ideal family becomes more fluid and transitory to one’s personal proclamation by acknowledging the existence of less-than-“ideal” (though completely functional, caring) families, the collapse of long-standing oppressors such as racism, sexism, and classism (and their culturally-installed reinforcements) are certain to at least weaken, if not perish entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment