The Dark Side of Family Communication

Loreen N. Olson, Elizabeth A. Baiocchi-Wagner, Jessica M. Wilson-Kratzer, Sarah E. Symonds

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780745680866
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This text provides for the first time in book form an exploration of the communicative aspects of the darker side of family life, ranging from, for example, severe acts of violence to more subtle forms of conflict. In addition to offering a working definition of the concept of the "dark side" in the family context, the authors propose the Darkness Model of Family Communication that integrates relevant literature in new and significant ways. Researchers, teachers and advanced students alike will benefit from the holistic and theoretical approach to the topic advanced through this volume. Readers are also encouraged to process the material by reviewing discussion questions and the case study of the Moore family at the end of each chapter.

Chapter topics include:

• an overview of the "dark side" of family communication
• individual influences on the darkness of family communication
• the dark side of dyadic family life
• familial interaction structure and the dark side
• dark family communication in a context of darkness - socio-cultural influences on family life
• concluding reflections on the study of dark family communication

The Dark Side of Family Communication offers an integrative understanding of the dark side of family communication and a theoretical mechanism for understanding related scholarship. It will be essential reading for all students and scholars of family communication.

1

Conceptualizing the “Dark Side” of Family Communication

with Wanjiru Mbure

Author Alex Haley once said, “In every conceivable manner, the family is our link to our past, our bridge to our future” (“Great Inspirational Quotes,” 2010). These words reveal what so many individuals know –our families provide the glue that connects all the parts of our lives –for better and for worse. For some of us, the bonds are strong, enduring, and constant. For others, the connections are fractured and non-existent. For still others, the linkages are both inconsistent and resilient.

Regardless of the strength of our familial bond, most would concur that our families play a significant role in the construction of our identities. Families are primary socializing agents (Burleson & Kunkel, 2002; Kunkel, Hummert, & Dennis, 2006; Medved, Brogan, McClanahan, & Morris, 2006), teaching children, for instance, the difference between right and wrong, the (im)proper ways to communicate, and the best ways to show love and respect. Families also teach us how to communicate hate and prejudice (Bonilla-Silva, 2006), to communicate anger and hostility (Vangelisti, Maguire, Alexander, & Clark, 2007), and to behave deleteriously (Prescott & Le Poire, 2002). Importantly, the family is a living organism, constantly changing and growing. The socialization that takes place is equally dynamic and enduring. Thus, one is constantly impacted by the family as an organic system –adults and youth alike. As such, the social unit known as the family becomes an important site to focus scholarly attention because of its tenacious, yet shifting ability to impact individuals across their lifespans.

One cannot ignore that an element of families’ enduring nature is their darker moments. Writers, poets, comics, and therapists alike have spoken of the challenges and struggles of family life. The textbox below contains a sampling of such philosophizing.

In each family a story is playing itself out, and each family’s story embodies its hope and despair. Auguste Napier (“Wisdom Quotes,” 2010a)

If you cannot get rid of the family skeleton, you may as well make it dance. George Bernard Shaw (as cited in Peters, 1996)

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Leo Tolstoy (1873/2004)

Family quarrels are bitter things. They don’t go by any rules. They’re not like aches or wounds; they’re more like splits in the skin that won’t heal because there’s not enough material. F. Scott Fitzgerald (“Wisdom Quotes,” 2010b)

The family. We were a strange little band of characters trudging through life sharing diseases and toothpaste, coveting one another’s desserts, hiding shampoo, borrowing money, locking each other out of our rooms, inflicting pain and kissing to heal it in the same instant, loving, laughing, defending, and trying to figure out the common thread that bound us all together. Erma Bombeck (“Conquering Stressful Family Hurdles,” 2010)

Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family in another city. George Burns (“Quote DB,” 2010)

Family aches, wounds, struggles, and strife are the focus of this book –not because we are voyeuristic and enjoy looking at others’ pain and suffering –but because, in varying degrees, all families experience darker moments. For some, the darkness is more a light shade of gray, while, for others, it is as dark as a moonless sky –and countless others are somewhere in between. We contend that all families, in fact, experience some darkness, and that darkness, as also acknowledged by Duck (1994), is an integral part of family life. Thereby, darkness within the family unit becomes a matter of gradation rather than an issue of presence or absence. This non-discriminatory nature of dark communicative dynamics begs further exploration because of its expansive impact on family functioning. Moreover, as Duck noted,

when it is recognized that real lives are richly entwined with begrudging, vengeful, hostile, conflictive tensions and struggles, it will perhaps begin to be realized that one must also start to look at the ways in which people cope with them in life and then to theorize about them. (p. 6)

The fundamental goal of this book is to examine these struggles and to shed light on how such darkness is embedded in an interdependent system of individuals, dyads, family processes, and social institutions. Thus, this book focuses primarily on dark family interactions and is intended to supplement more general readings on family communication by advanced undergraduates, graduate students, and other professionals interested in this specific aspect of family life. It is important to note that, at times, we will explore theories or processes that may not necessarily be dark in and of themselves, but we find them illustrative of dark family life as well and, therefore, include them in our review. Moreover, our discussion of family communication processes will capture shades of darkness, ranging from tones of gray to hues that are clearly dark. We do so in order to capture the range of darkness that exists in family life. There are clearly some processes that are very dark, such as family incest or intimate partner violence, but there are also interaction patterns that are less dark, yet unhealthy nonetheless. Examples of these latter, grayer interaction patterns include parent–child conflict or the impact of narcissism on a family member’s communicative abilities. Categorizing such a range of behaviors as dark may be controversial to some readers. However, as stated earlier, we believe it is important to recognize that family life is filled with happiness and strife, with struggles and joy. As such, we argue that to understand its fullness, family communication scholarship needs to capture such diversity in its theorizing. Again, we recognize that some may disagree with our categorization of particular behaviors as dark or with our co-mingling of black with gray interaction patterns. Some readers may be offended that we have classified particular behaviors as dark, while others may not. For readers at both of these extremes, we hope that you will read on with an open mind, knowing that our intention is not to offend but instead to provide a way of seeing family communication scholarship through a dark-colored lens.

Before beginning our discussion of the dark side of family communication, it is important to clarify several key terms that are the focus of this book –namely, what is family? What is family communication? And, finally, what is dark family communication? To answer these questions, we first will review various definitions of family, identifying the one definition that we will use to ground our discussion of family throughout the book. From there, we will articulate a definition of family communication, explaining various perspectives about communication embedded within the definition. The chapter concludes with discussion questions intended to generate further conversation about the material as well as an introduction to our fictional family, the Moores, whose experiences will help readers apply and process material presented in each of the subsequent chapters.

Key Definitions and Fundamental Assumptions

Family. As others have similarly observed (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006b; Floyd, Mikkelson, & Judd, 2006; Vangelisti, 2004), defining the term family is almost as elusive as finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Just when you think you have it in sight, it slips out of your reach. Or, just as we think we have identified the best working definition of family, we encounter a family unit that is not captured by the definition. The reason for this, as described by Coontz (2000) and others (e.g., Floyd et al., 2006; Galvin, 2006) is that the American family is constantly evolving, and so too are our definitions. Table 1.1 presents a sampling of definitions of family, revealing the diversity of how scholars have conceptualized this institution across time. The definitions range from a more traditional emphasis on heterosexual unions with “owned” or adopted children (Murdock, 1949) or on biological/legal kin (e.g., Popenoe, 1993) to a more post-modern stance based primarily upon intimacy (e.g., Turner & West, 2006/2002). More specifically, as noted by Fitzpatrick and Caughlin (2002), family definitions can be classified in three primary ways: (a) family structure definitions (how the family is comprised; e.g., Bedford & Blieszner, 1997); (b) psychosocial task definitions (functions of the family; e.g., functional view from Sabourin, 2003); and finally, (c) transactional process definitions (implies family’s intimacy, loyalty, shared history, and group identity; e.g., Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel, 2004).

Table 1.1. Examples of Definitions of Family Across Time

Murdock (1949)	“The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults” (p. 1).
Jorgenson (1989)	“A system of relations that comes about as individuals define those relations in their everyday communications with another” (p. 28).
Stacey (1990)	“A unit that may have residence but rather one that is based on “meaning and relationship” (p. 6).
Popenoe (1993)	“A relatively small domestic group of kin (or people in a kin-like relationship) consisting of at least one adult and one dependent person” (p. 529).
Bedford & Blieszner (1997)	“A family is a set of relationships determined by biology, adoption, marriage, and in some societies, social designation, and existing even in the absence of contact or affective involvement, and, in some cases, even after the death of certain members” (p. 526).
Allen, Fine, & Demo (2000)	“Characterized by two or more persons related by birth, adoption, marriage, or choice. Families are … defined by socioemotional ties, and enduring responsibilities, particularly in terms of one or more members’ dependence on others for support and nurturance” (p. 1).
Koerner & Fitzpatrick (2002)	“A group of intimates who generate a sense of home and group identity and who experience a shared history and a shared future” (p. 71).
Sabourin (2003)	“The family is an agent of socialization, performing the tasks necessary to develop children and citizens” (p. 33).
Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel (2004)	“Networks of people who share their lives over long periods of time bound by ties of marriage, blood, or commitment, legal or otherwise, who consider themselves as family and who share a significant history and anticipated future of functioning in a family relationship” (p. 6).
Braithwaite & Baxter (2006)	“A social group of two or more persons, characterized by ongoing interdependence with long-term commitments that stem from blood, law, or affection” (p. 3).

With so many different definitions of family, it may seem impossible to choose which one is “best.” In our opinion, one definition is not necessarily better than the others per se (see Floyd et al., 2006, for a discussion of the pros and cons of different types of definitions). Instead, we agree with Sabourin (2003), who argues that it is not necessary to privilege one definition or one set of criteria over others when defining families, but, instead, “to be explicit about whatever criteria we use, both to subjects engaged in research and consumers of the written research product” (p. 41). Following this suggestion, we want to explicate our own stance toward family. In response to the current discourse, we assume a more post-modern, transactional approach toward family in this book, recognizing that in so doing we have constructed a particularly wide and more inclusive boundary around our conceptualization of family (see Floyd et al., 2006). More specifically, for our purposes we define family as “a social group of two or more persons, characterized by ongoing interdependence with long-term commitments that stem from blood, law, or affection” (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006, p. 3; see textbox below).

Thus, the definition of family we use in this text possesses fewer limitations than other current definitions of family. For instance, many scholars would argue that family members ought to be genetically tied. While our definition certainly allows for blood relation, we assert that families may also be bonded through legal obligations (e.g., family by marriage or through adoption) or by an intimate connection to another. Moreover, this definition causes one to examine complex relationships that, at first, might appear familial. Take the example of an adopted child who has never seen or spoken to her biological parents. Even though the child shares genes with her biological parents, she may or may not consider those individuals to be her family members. The approach to family that we assume in this book allows for both of those possibilities.

Furthermore, our definition of family is grounded in three assumptions: (1) families are systems, (2) families are coherent, and (3) families are constituted via social interaction (Vangelisti, 2004). These assumptions emphasize the idea that each member of the family affects and is affected by the others; therefore, each member’s communication affects and is affected by the others’. As such, each of these assumptions foregrounds the role of communication in family formation and functioning.

Family: a social group of two or more persons, characterized by ongoing interdependence with long-term commitments that stem from blood, law, or affection. (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006, p. 3)

Family Communication: messages that are intentionally or unintentionally exchanged both within a system of individuals who generate a sense of belonging and collective identity and who experience a shared history and future between these individuals and outsiders. (See Koerner ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Prologue
• 1 Conceptualizing the “Dark Side” of Family Communication
• 2 Individual Influence on the Darkness of Family Communication
• 3 The Dark Side of Dyadic Family Life
• 4 Familial Interaction Structure and the Dark Side
• 5 Dark Family Communication in a Context of Darkness
• 6 Concluding Thoughts
• References
• Index