chapter
stringlengths 1.97k
1.53M
| path
stringlengths 47
241
|
|---|---|
As you read this chapter, consider the following questions:
1. How are community and connection important to individuals? What theory best helps you understand this idea?
2. How are kinship and family similar? Different?
3. What are the factors contribute to Union Formation? Which ones have influenced you the most personally?
4. In what ways does the government influence partnership, marriage, and break ups?
5. How does societal stigma influence union formations?
6. What are the issues related to equity when it comes to partnerships including marriage?
7. If you were writing the laws and regulations around taxes and benefits related to union formations and kinship groups, what would they look like?
5.02: Connection
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” –Albert Einstein
The need for, and benefits of, being connected in an emotional and social way to other human beings is one of the central foundations of family life. The quote speaks to the tension amongst Western, Eastern, and Indigenous views about individuality and collectivism. He refers to the “optical delusion” (what we might call a social construction) of seeing ourselves as separate beings from others and the natural world. Increasing layers of research, however, speak to the importance of close social relationships (belongingness and connectedness) as well as the wider circle of social networks.[1]
Theorists who discuss families, parenting, and mate selection rely on an underlying principle: that it is the mutual social and emotional interdependence of human beings that fosters family development and growth. In addition, our ability to connect to the greater society and planet, including those who are less similar or related to us, enhances our care for family and community. An emphasis of this text is the disposition of being willing to listen and to learn about the greater community in which we live.
As we discuss social connection, we are referring to qualities and experiences such as:
• Positive relationships with others in the social world;
• Attachment, an affectionate emotional connection with at least one other;
• A feeling of belonging and lack of feeling of exclusion;
• Social support, which includes connection but may also include informational support, appraisal support (such as personal feedback and/or affirmation), and/or practical support (such as money or labor);
• The act of nurturing and being nurtured;
• An individual’s perception of all of the above.
It matters most to the individual what they perceive as connection and support, and less how others would view it.
For example, in Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, he shows the individual within concentric circles that emphasize all the people and places in that person’s life. The outer circles include the community values and norms, as well as the person’s location in time and geography. Although Bronfenbrenner identified systems (for more on Bronfenbrenner’s theory see the Studying Families chapter) it can be argued that all systems consist of people. It is the people within these circles that will interact with and impact each of us.
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory, also discussed in the Studying Families chapter, includes the emotional need for affection and loving connections to others once basic physiological and biological needs are met. In contrast, there are theories created by multiple indigenous groups, and best documented by the Blackfoot Nation in North America, that emphasize the self-actualization of not just the individual, but of the community as the most primary of needs.
In 1938 Maslow spent time with the Blackfoot Nation(link to archival photo) in Canada prior to releasing his Hierarchy of Needs theory. It is believed that he based the teepee like structure on the Blackfoot ideas but westernized the focus to be on the individual rather than on the community.[2]
If we look more closely at the representation of Blackfoot ideas, it can be seen that the well-being of the individual, the family, and the community are based on connectedness, the closeness that we experience with family and friends, and the prosocial extension that we provide to others in our communities and in the world. In addition, this model focuses on time; the top of the teepee is cultural perpetuity and it symbolizes a community’s culture lasting forever.
Maslow’s theory is of value, but the mislabeling of it as a theory of human development rather than as a “Western Cultural Theory of Human Development” mistakenly applies what Maslow observed to all human beings. Bringing theories from other cultures and geographical regions forward helps us to understand the variety of ways that human beings develop and to recognize the value of the diversity of family experience and beliefs.
Human connectedness and prosocial relationships are increasingly associated with better health outcomes and longevity. The World Health Organization now lists “Social Support Networks” as a determinant of health. Their webpage notes that a person’s social environment, including culture and community beliefs, is a key determinant in overall health.[3] Household sizes are decreasing, and families are more often living apart. Employment and education options mean that some families make the choice to live distantly from their families of origin. But other families live apart, not by choice, but because of immigration laws that restrict family cohesion, or economic needs that force a choice between survival and family togetherness. This country has a history of immigration law that has often separated families, including spouses. For more on this topic, look back at the Social Construction of Families chapter. This practice contributes to the number of transnational families, many of whom are involuntarily so. In 2018, the United States developed a “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal immigration from the South and imprisoned families seeking legal status, separating children from parents. Although the policy was officially ended in June 2018, it has continued to at least October 2019, with about 1,100 additional children being separated from their parents since that time. If you would like to read more about this particular policy, there is a deep dive on this Human Rights Watch webpage, and there are links to detailed fact sheets and descriptions of visits to the facilities where parents, babies, toddlers, and children are being held.[4]
Public health officials are working to move forward the prioritization of social connections as a part of public health efforts in the United States. They propose examining current evidence and research, conducting additional research, and creating a consensus process amongst experts related to social connectedness.[5]
Families in the United States have the opportunity to know and be connected to people of many ethnicities, histories, experiences, and cultures. It is important to acknowledge one of the underlying motivations for connecting to others that we see as different from ourselves: a feeling of similarity and positivity.[6] Similarity that initially connects us and draws us together, and it is possible to see similarity in people that we might first identify as a member of “the other” group. It seems that once we feel connected to others that a more familial sense of belongingness can develop, which then benefits individuals and the greater community. This research supports the belief systems of indigenous peoples, such as the Blackfoot Nation discussed earlier, and Eastern philosophies which see a reciprocal relationship between the good of the community, the planet, and the good of individuals.
In this chapter we will explore kinship connections, including chosen families and partner or mater selection. In addition we will look more closely at the factors that affect our partner choices and family formations, including both psychological, societal and institutional factors.
Kinship
Kinship refers to the broader social structure that ties people together (whether by blood, marriage, legal processes, or other agreements) and includes family relationships. Kinship acknowledges that individuals have a role in defining who is a member of their own family and how familial relationships extend across society.
At times we may use the terms “kinships”, or “kinship groups” interchangeably with “families” to remind ourselves of this broader definition.
Chosen Families
According to SAGE Encyclopedia of Marriage, Family, and Couples Counseling, “chosen families are nonbiological kinship bonds, whether legally recognized or not, deliberately chosen for the purpose of mutual support and love.”[7] Chosen Family is an option for every individual, although it has historically been associated with the LGBTQ+ culture. People who identify as lesbian, gay, or other stigmatized identities, have sometimes been disowned by families who do not accept these identities, and therefore do not accept their children (or other family members). You may wonder, if they are the only ones who have chosen families. The short answer is no, chosen families can be for anyone of any background who desire to connect through kinship bonds with others who are non blood related or legally related individuals. The chosen family can meet or supplement needs not sufficiently met by the biological or otherwise traditionally structured family. In some cases people are ostracized from their family of origin and are denied a sense of belonging. Others may be away from their biological families due to schooling, immigration, employment, legal restrictions, migration or other reasons. While anyone can have a chosen family it is important to understand why we have them, and how they are formed, how they can be seen through the lenses of love, nurturance, and equity.
1. Seppala, E., Rossomando, T., & Doty, J.R. (2013). Social Connection and Compassion: Important Predictors of Health and Well-Being. Social Research: An International Quarterly 80(2), 411-430. dx.doi.org/10.1353/sor.2013.0027 ↵
2. Bray, B. (2019, March 10). Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Blackfoot Nation beliefs. Retrieved December 28, 2019, from https://barbarabray.net/2019/03/10/m...ation-beliefs/
3. World Health Organization. (2020). The social determinants of health. Retrieved March 6, 2020, from https://www.who.int/health-topics/so...alth#tab=tab_1
4. Trump administration family separation policy. (2020). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2020, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_...aration_policy ↵
5. Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States. American Psychologist, 72(6), 517–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000103
6. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494 ↵
7. Carlson, J., & Dermer, S. B. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE encyclopedia of marriage, family, and couples counseling. SAGE Reference. ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/05%3A_Connection_and_Love/5.01%3A_Connection_and_Love_Preview_Questions.txt |
Love and Union Formation
“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.”
–Lao Tzu, Philosopher
Relationships represent the excitement, passion, security, and connection we experience; they also represent the sadness, heartbreak, insecurities, violence, and loneliness we find at times.
Close relationships, such as those with a confidante or spouse are highly associated with health, and with recovery from disease. In studies of various forms of cancer, including breast cancer, having one or more confidants decreased the likelihood and frequency of relapse.[1] As a social species,intimate relationships are a fundamental aspect of our life.
5.04: A word about marriage
We’d like to talk about marriage as a subset of all romantic and love relationships. And we’d like to ask you, the reader, to think about the role of marriage in society.
Here are a set of statements about the role of marriage in the United States.
1. Marriage is a social construction; something that people have agreed is a unit of importance that has changed in meaning and function over time and location.
2. Marriage is a status symbol; even though people are marrying less it is still important.
3. Marriage is an institution that serves a critical function in society.
4. People marry for so many reasons and in differing ways that it is difficult to say what it means or why people marry.
Do you agree with some of these statements? Which ones and why? If you wrote your own statement about marriage and society and what would it say?
Each of these statements resonates with one of the perspectives that has been presented in this text. The first one represents the central idea of this text; that many familial operations and structures are social constructions that we have defined as a society and that have changed over time and could change some more. The other three statements each reflect one of the theories described in the Theories and Dispositions Chapter.
Table 5.1. is an excerpt from the table you first saw in Studying Families. Can you match statements 2, 3, and 4 to the theory it represents? Can you create a statement about marriage that represents the theory that you find most compelling?
Table 5.1. Foundational theories related to the study of families.
Major Principles
Conflict Opposition, power, and conflict within the family and society are needed for society to develop and change
Ecological Systems Individuals are part of a group of concentric systems that impact their development and growth.
Exchange (aka Social Exchange) Individuals have different strengths, resources and weaknesses and enter into relationships via the evaluation of benefits and costs.
Feminism (aka Feminist) Society is structured in a way that privileges men over women; the theory works to understand and to transform inequalities.
Functionalism Social institutions function together in order to meet individual and group needs.
Hierarchy of Needs Individuals meet one set of needs first in order to be motivated and able to achieve other needs.
Life Course Significant social and historical events shape the trajectories of birth cohorts and the individuals in them.
Postmodern (aka Modernity) Choice and individuality are emphasized in the postmodern era. Humans are able to act in the way they choose with society and within institutions.
Symbolic Interaction This theory focuses on the changing nature of symbols and the ways we interact with one another based on those symbols. Humans see themselves through the eyes of others and this affects the roles they play.
The author of the text used previously in this class, Andrew Cherlin,[1] is an expert in marriage in the United States. He has written extensively for decades about how marriage functions in our society, and his viewpoint on the role it plays. He describes the three eras of marriage in the United States in this way:
• Marriage as an institution which was the most common among Euro-American settlers from the time of arrival in what became this country until the mid-20th century. In institutionalized marriage roles were clearly defined between the man and the woman in the pursuit of economic and familial stability.
• Companionate marriage emerged as the economy in the United States improved and one spouse (usually the man) worked away from the home and separate spheres emerged. While roles were still well defined, the importance companionship, love, affection and sex were all added to the expectation of economic stability.
• Individualistic marriage evolved with the continued economic growth and the increase in women’s equality and the expansion of gender roles for men, women, and the nonbinary role.
Parenting and work within a marriage were more likely to be shared. Both partners are expected to be more expressive and communicative. The role of support and encouragement in helping your spouse to become their best selves is added to the growing list of expectations for marriage
To learn more about marriage and cohabitation currently in the United States, review this report from Pew Research Center, which reports on social and demographic trends. You can read about what the current statistics are as well as how individuals view and experience marriage and cohabitation.
Remember that marriage is one way of building a family or kinship group. As you continue to read this text, we encourage you to think critically about what marriage means to your own family and to society and what role it should play.
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
Figure 5.12. “Love and Marriage 298/366” by Skley. License: CC BY-ND 2.0.
Figure 5.13. Photo by Analise Benevides. License: Unsplash license.
Figure 5.14. “gay marriage” by Mellicious. License: CC BY-ND 2.0.
1. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861. doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/05%3A_Connection_and_Love/5.03%3A_Love_and_Union_Formation.txt |
As discussed in the Social Construction of Families chapter, these authors believe that each person is the master of their own social and family identities. Social institutions, however, also define “family” via rights, responsibilities, benefits, and taxes. While the federal government leaps to mind as the arbiter of family definitions for taxation and benefits purposes, state and local governments are the primary legislators of family law and mediators of familial relationships. This was an intentional decision made during the formation of the United States of America: that states and local municipalities be the governors of matters related to the family. It is only when there is enough disruption amongst the states that matters of the family rise to the national decision-making level; a good example is that when many highly differentiated laws related to same-sex marriage created inequities for families within states and disruption for families who moved from state to state. The 2015 Supreme Court decision[1] that the right to marry is fundamental and must be available to all couples created consistency in marriage law.
In addition to government entities, institutions such as employers, schools, and insurance companies all have the authority to define family within certain parameters and to limit benefits such as sick leave, insurance coverage, and pension benefits. We know that these institutions impact the resources and benefits that families receive based on their structure and legal ties to one another. One question is, how do these varied definitions, policies and practices affect partner and family formation and dissolutions? Whom we connect with, love, parent, marry, and divorce affects our access to resources in ways that are inequitable. The complexity of factors in choosing a partner(s) or in forming a family is difficult to analyze and study. Here, we will talk about how institutional policies and practices may play a role in those decisions. Federal Student Aid and student loans, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security and Income Taxes, Immigration law, Military Housing Policies and Health Care Insurance all rely on definitions of partner and family structures in order to assign taxes, rights, privileges, and benefits.
Federal Student Aid and Loans
Let’s start with what might be most familiar to the reader: Federal Student Aid and loans. Whether or not you have qualified for federal grants and loans, the system affects you and the authors expect that you know this quite well.
The Aid system makes some assumptions about families: first that parents will pay for their children’s (younger than 24 years) education. Conversely, they consider a child who is 24 years or older to be “independent” and that their parents will not be contributing to their education. Making this distinction leads to the government considering the parents’ income and accumulated wealth when it comes to awarding financial aid, but only when students are younger than 24 years. Right away we can see some flaws and inequities in this regulation. Some parents will pay for education regardless of the child’s age; others will not. Some families have accumulated wealth over generations of privilege; others may have gone without necessities to set aside savings for a health care crisis or retirement. (All wealth is not created equally). This rule does not recognize the nuances of the parent-child relationship or the privilege and oppression that contributes to the attainment of wealth and savings.
The Federal Aid system also differentiates between married couples and cohabiting or common law relationships. It presumes that a married couple combines their resources and that a cohabiting couple does not; so marrying a partner who has a higher income will likely lessen a financial aid award, while cohabiting with them will not.
Student debt is becoming an increasingly common issue for graduates and for people who do not complete a degree. College costs have increased dramatically in the past forty years, and student debt rates have followed. Does student debt influence the likelihood of marriage? Since many wish to be financially stable before marrying, it is possible. Anecdotal reports and news stories indicate that people are delaying marriage based on student debt loads. Studying this is complicated, but one demographic review found that women were more likely to put off marriage when they had student loans to repay.[2]
Social Security and Income Taxes
Income taxes and Social Security are heavily dependent on the institutional marriage of the mid-twentieth century, specifically the breadwinner-homemaker model. Couples were more homogeneous at that time; likely to marry early and stay married longer, with men typically earning more or much of the income. Both the federal income tax system and the Social Security systems evolved over the 20th century to correct what was considered to be the most common gender injustice: that many women made less money than their spouses.
These systems failed to take into account the racial injustice of the times; when Social Security was implemented in 1935 it excluded all domestic and farm workers who were primarily Black people and immigrants. Both groups were added in the 1950’s.
Much has been discussed about the “marriage bonus” and the “marriage penalty” , meaning that some couples benefit from marrying and some couples pay more taxes when they marry. The federal and state systems have changed over the years but face what is called the “trilemma” by tax experts: systems cannot simultaneously impose progressive marginal tax rates, assess equal taxes on married couples with equal earnings, and maintain marriage neutrality (meaning that married and unmarried couples pay the same amount of taxes). The net result from the trilemma is that married couples whose individual incomes are comparable pay more in taxes than a couple whose incomes are dramatically different.[3]
Both Social Security, with its survivor benefit emphasis and Income Taxes focus on the marriage ideal from the last century: one spouse (usually male) who earns most of the family’s income, and a lower-earning spouse (usually female). But this has not been the norm for over 50 years, and many argue that these systems need to catch up. As explained by the Postmodern Theory, choice and individuality are emphasized in today’s society. Diverse relationships are accepted more readily and marriages are less assortative in most ways. Marriage is declining; people wait longer to marry, are less likely to marry, and stay married for fewer years. Couples are more likely to have equal rather than disparate individual incomes. All of these factors point to the inadequacy of the current systems and raise the question about whether these policies influence people’s choice to marry or otherwise partner up.
Medicaid and Medicare
Let’s review general definitions of each of these programs, which are frequently confused. Medicare is federally funded health insurance for people who are aged 65 or older, some younger people with disabilities, and people with end-stage renal disease. Medicaid also provides health care coverage, in this case for eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities. To read about who and how to qualify, review these government websites:
Like income taxes and social security, these government programs are built on a marriage model. This model presumes shared incomes and budgets for married households, and separate budgets for people who live together and are related in other ways, such as friendship, cohabitation, or blood ties.
Chronic disease and acute injuries can lead to staggering bills, even for families who have private or public health insurance and is a major contributor to bankruptcy, loss of home, remaining in poverty, and other financial crises. Eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid can not only save physical life, but economic and family stability. But eligibility is complicated.
To learn about a classic dilemma that a family with a health crisis faces, listen to this 19 minute interview with Carol Levine, a public health professional who faced a personal and health crisis when her husband was in a devastating car accident. As you listen, ask yourself, what would you do in a similar situation? And how does this relate to love, health equity, partnership and the institution of marriage?
To learn about a classic dilemma that a family with a health crisis faces, listen to this 19 minute interview with Carol Levine, a public health professional who faced a personal and health crisis when her husband was in a devastating car accident. As you listen, ask yourself, what would you do in a similar situation? And how does this relate to love, health equity, partnership and the institution of marriage?
Military Policies
The branches of the military which include the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and the Coast Guard are funded by the federal government. As the employer, the federal government has particular policies that apply to families. Two of the most well known apply to relationships, sexuality and to marriage.
For the majority of this nation’s military history, members of the LGBTQ+ community have been disqualified from employment and service. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t serve, but they were stigmatized, and hidden. The policy changed for the years between 1994 and 2011, when the infamous rule “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue” (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or DADT) was in effect. During this time, gay men, lesbian women and bisexual people were permitted to be employed as long as they did not exhibit or talk about conduct that could be identified in these ways; in addition others were prohibited from discriminating against or harassing them. The “Don’t Pursue” aspect of the regulation limited the investigations by superiors of members presumed to belong to the LGBTQ+ community.
The law, which appeared to signify progress, still resulted in many members of the military experiencing stigma, stalled careers, discrimination, harrassment and violence. Multiple legal challenges were filed and it was eventually repealed. While the regulation has changed, stigma and harassment remain.
Necko L. Fanning, wrote this in the New York Times about his experience serving in the Army between 2011 and 2014.
“The second week after I arrived at Fort Drum, N.Y. — my first and only duty station with the Army — I found death threats slipped under the door of my barracks room. I noticed the colors first. Pink, blue and yellow; strangely happy colors at odds with the words written on them. Some were simple: slurs and epithets written in thick black Sharpie, pressed so hard into the paper that it bled through. “Faggot” and “queer fag,” the notes read. A couple were more elaborate: detailed descriptions of what might happen to me if I was caught alone, and proclamations about the wrongness of gays in the military…
…The military is built on a foundation of earning trust and proving yourself to your peers and superiors as capable. Being new to a unit isn’t unlike being a new employee at any other job. People are cautious, even wary, until you’ve shown you can handle the work. Perhaps it didn’t help that I was an intelligence analyst in an infantryman’s world — a support soldier in a combat soldier’s unit. But none of that had been mentioned in the notes. My capability wasn’t in question, nor was my duty position. It wasn’t my effectiveness or value to the unit that elicited these noxious notes but something far removed from my control. Something that after September 2011 was supposed to be meaningless.”
The military has also been known for policies that incentivize marriage. In general, single members of the armed forces live in barracks with a large group of colleagues. Married members, in contrast,live in military housing that more closely mimic suburban neighborhoods. In addition, there is a housing allowance that goes along with this privilege, resulting in married military members earning more salary and benefits. This incentive is provided by the military in order to support and stabilize families who are frequently moving and have less predictable work schedules than other government positions. Could this contribute to marriages made for financial reasons? Anecdotally, yes, there are many stories that support this theory. When taken in combination with the prohibition of LGBTQ+ people’s service, it could also serve as a double incentive: a way to avert suspicion of unsanctioned sexuality as well as a financial gain. But getting married is a complex decision and it is difficult to attribute just one aspect of life to being the primary factor in getting married.
Immigration Law
The history of immigration law is varied and complex and has favored different groups of families over time. In the most recent few years, law has changed rapidly. Here the authors will provide a few examples of the ways in which family status affects legal status and how recent and current law affect families. For special attention to how family ties affect immigration, green card, and citizenship status here are two good sources to read:
Unpredictability about laws and status may affect partners’ decisions about union formation. Consider for yourself: if your partner’s legal status changed, would it change your feelings about them? Would it change your plans to marry or to cohabitate? Families who have been waiting for years or decades, as described in the cases above, for their status to be resolved face ongoing uncertainty and stress related to work and family.
Consider the family that has some members who are citizens, and some who have green cards. Others may be waiting for resolution, perhaps approved for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), described in detail in the Justice chapter.
My Mom: Anonymous
My mom came to the United States accompanied by her aunt and uncle at the age of 14. She and my grandparents decided that it would be best for her to leave Mexico because she was no longer attending school, as they could not afford it, and she was more than likely going to be stuck working at my grandpa’s small farm for the rest of her life.
Once in the United States she was able to return to school and soon became the first in the family to graduate from high school but she found it impossible to further her education as there were no scholarships or loans available to undocumented folks at the time, so she went to work. She worked at a potato factory, met my dad, and had all her kids, including me. But right around this time DACA came around which was huge. She applied to DACA, was approved, and soon after was able to quit her factory job for a much better paying job.
Now that myself and my siblings are a little older she is considering going back to school and even buying a house but she finds herself constantly second guessing that decision as her future here in the United States is uncertain.
Official Definitions and Societal Stigma
Definitions and categories are used to assign rights, privileges, and benefits to individuals and families. Government policies grounded in these definitions are intertwined with status and stigma. For example, although same-sex and interracial marriages are now legal across the country, they still have levels of stigma associated with them, dependent on location. Cohabitation, even amongst White heterosexual couples, has less status than does marriage. Status and stigma can affect people socially and emotionally as well as economically.
Other areas that families see the effects of government definitions about partnerships and kinship groups include access to health care and health insurance which is discussed in the Health Care chapter.
As we wrap up this section about the impact of institutions on personal partnerships and relationships, what other examples have you experienced or observed?
Relationship Health and Relationship Challenge
While this course and text are primarily focused on how society, institutions, and kinship groups interact, we will spend a small amount of space here discussing the health of intimate relationships and what factors predict the longevity of the relationship.
First, watch this podcast Relationships are Hard, but Why? by Therapist Stan Tatkin.
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=855
He talks about how our brains contribute to falling in love, and then how our communication styles can contribute to feelings of being safe or being threatened within relationships.
The first half of 2020 has seen a confluence of world-wide events: the coronavirus and related pandemic; massive job loss, school closures and an economic downturn; and the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement. These have affected families in many ways; let’s look at two examples of how these trends and movements have uncovered challenges within intimate relationships.
An August 2020 letter to advice columnist Carolyn Hax, started out this way:
My husband and I disagree about covid precautions and have reached the point where we’re constantly fighting about it. I am more conservative and trying to have contact with only a few families I know are taking similar precautions. He’s exposing himself and his 8-year-old son, my stepson, to a lot more people, including one family that I believe does not take covid seriously. One child in this family had cold symptoms, and they refused to have him tested and continued to expose him to other kids.
At first my husband lied to me about seeing this family. After I found out, he said he won’t lie anymore but is going to do what he wants…[4]
As the writer continues and Carolyn Hax responds, they both acknowledge that the extreme pandemic experience has exposed the husband’s willingness to lie and to disregard her feelings and needs. Carolyn Hax emphasizes that this is not situation specific but actually uncovers a challenge in the relationship that must be addressed separately from the specific circumstance. She advises the letter writer that she has several options: couples’ counseling to see if the husband is willing to change this behavior, leaving the marriage, or to choose to stay knowing that she is not able to fully trust him.
A very public example of a relationship challenge comes to us from the popular television franchise: The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. Two former Bachelorette Leads, Rachel Lindsay Abasolo (Left, The Bachelorette, Season 13) and Becca Kufrin (Right,The Bachelorette, Season 14) host a podcast together, Bachelor Happy Hour. Lindsay met her husband on her season of the show and Kufrin met her fiance. Both women make some portion of their livelihood as “influencers”, as do each of their male partners.
As the Black Lives Matter movement gained more notice, and additional White allies emerged, Kufrin identified herself publicly as someone who wanted to become a more knowledgeable and active person in the racial justice movement Simultaneously her fiance, Garrett Yrigoyen, posted Instagram images that presented his support of the competing Blue Lives Matter movement. Kufrin discussed both her own personal development as well as the challenges she faced in her relationship on the podcast. If you’d like to listen to Rachel and Becca talk, listen to “Race,Diversity, and Bachelor Nation”, the June 9, 2020 episode. As of this writing, it appears that the two year relationship between Kufrin and Yrigoyen Has ended.
Families are under great pressure from the pandemic and economic stress. People of Color (POC) experience additional stress related to the public exposure of the disproportionate violence against Black people. In many cases, kinship groups are spending more time together, including those in intimate relationships. Values and belief system differences that may have been purposely hidden, or that were just implicitly undiscussable may be uncovered and affect relationships for the long-term.
If you’d like to know more about healthy relationships and which relationships are more likely to last, The Gottman Institute is a psychological research institute that studies couple interactions and nuances.
In The Science of Love podcast host Julian Hueguet describes the Gottmans’ work and predictors of success in the relationships that they have studied, primarily heterosexual married couples.
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=855
While the Gottman Institute is known for its scientific research, as with many studies the majority of participating couples are White and heterosexual. The Gottmans did participate with Dr. Robert Levenson in a twelve year study of 21 gay and 21 lesbian couples. In an effort to study underrepresented populations as well as partnerships outside of marriage, they have acknowledged this weakness and are reaching out to underrepresented people to tell their own relationship stories via a submission form on their website. You can participate here.
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
Figure 5.15. Abraham & Johvanna – Ring” by FJH Photography. License: CC BY 2.0.
Figure 5.16. “Medicare” by 401(K) 2013. License: CC BY-SA 2.0.
Figure 5.17. Military recruitment poster by U.S. Army. Public domain.
All Rights Reserved Content
Relationships Are Hard, But Why? | Stan Tatkin (c) TEDX Talks. License: Standard YouTube license.
The Secret To A Successful Relationship (c) DNews. License: Standard YouTube license.
Figure 5.18. Photo (c) Bachelor Happy Hour. Used under fair use.
1. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) ↵
2. Bozick, R., & Estacion, A. (2014). Do student loans delay marriage? Debt repayment and family formation in young adulthood. Demographic Research, 30, 1865–1891. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2014.30.69
3. Alstott, A. L. (2013). Updating the welfare state: Marriage, the income tax, and social security in the age of individualism. Tax Law Review, 66, 720–22. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4867/
4. Hax, C. (2020, August 22). Covid-19 will one day subside, but lying is relationship cancer. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...741_story.html
5.06: Looking Ahead
We are a social species. Familial roles can be expanded beyond the perimeters of legal definitions and regarded in a much broader sense that can include friendships, sexual relationships, caregiving, social support, partnering and more. The people we interact with on a daily basis have been influenced by many factors including where we live, our socioeconomic status, and the attachments that we formed in early childhood.This complicated network of influencing factors within our relationships contributes to societal disparities and inequities, a factor that we have strived to make more visible through this text. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/05%3A_Connection_and_Love/5.05%3A_How_does_the_government_influence_unions.txt |
As you read this chapter, consider the following questions:
1. What is the value of creativity, art, and beauty to American families?
2. How does art as representation affect our understanding of American history and current experiences?
3. What are the unique challenges and gifts that accompany protest and public art?
4. What is the role of the dominant culture in what is defined as “art”?
5. How do socially constructed ideas about beauty affect American families?
6. How does visual culture affect family outcomes?
7. What is the effect of intersectionality on potential creators, artists, and art-lovers?
6.02: Experience Expression and Equity
“If you have only two pennies, spend the first on bread and the other on hyacinths for your soul.” –Arab Proverb
In this chapter we will study the effects of visual culture on how families function in the United States.
You may wonder about the inclusion of art and beauty in a text that discusses the needs of families. But it can be argued that American individuals and families need art both as individuals and as a civilization. In addition,how society defines art and what is considered to be “beautiful” is relevant to equity and family outcomes.
Visual culture is described as the combination of visual events in which “information, meaning, or pleasure”[1] are communicated to the consumer.
The information that we take in through our eyes is both immense and psychologically powerful, affecting us in ways that take time and cognition to understand. It is the intent of this chapter to highlight the ways in which visual culture affects families, both in the way we view ourselves, and in the ways we can access resources such as education, employment, and wealth.
Art is one way in which people share ideas, express themselves, and communicate. Consider the painting or print hanging in your doctor’s office. What about the graffiti you passed on the way to the bus stop? Artistic expression exemplifies the richness of a culture and energizes our thought processes. We are exposed to art, design and creativity all day long, whether we realize it or not.
How and where an individual is able to access art is largely related to the values and beliefs a culture holds as a standard for determining what is desirable in a society, both by artistic and by beauty standards. Individuals have
specific, individualized beliefs, but can still share collective values. An example is the quote, “You can’t be too rich or too thin”. An underlying value that engenders this quote would be that being wealthy and being thin are good and desirable.
Values shape how a society views what is ‘beautiful’ and what kinds of art are valued. In Beauty is a concept that is flexible and contains contextual significance depending on where you live and the time of where you are living. A family’s access to art that speaks to their culture, interests, and imagination depends on what is available in the popular media and accessible in their geographic region. In Western Culture, art was historically housed in museums. In Indiginous cultures, art often takes the form of useful objects, such as baskets and clothing.
Today art and other imagery are easily accessible in digitized forms of technology, which are accessed through | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/06%3A_Visual_Culture_-_Art_and_Beauty/6.01%3A_Visual_Culture_Preview_Questions.txt |
Art has been a part of history and daily lives for centuries, however many individuals face a place of discrimination and underrepresentation based on their gender, race, sexuality, or other social characteristic. Even in the 20th century we see the perceived differences between men and women’s art in the way that artists are often described. Why is a woman referred to as a “female artist”? A person of color as a “Black photographer”? Or a “Latinx sculptor”? In contrast, when created by a White man, race and gender are often not mentioned.
The topic of whiteness as the dominant culture can be an uncomfortable topic for many, while seeming quite obvious to others. When we describe whiteness, we are using the term to describe a particular system, particularly one that tends to give power to a particular group of people, and oppression to another group of people, otherwise known as White privilege. “White washed art” can be described as giving privilege to a group of people based on their social characteristics and perpetuating a system that favors Euro-Americans (mostly White people).
When we talk about whiteness in art, it allows us the opportunity to peel back a layer of denial. Western expansion and dominance of Indigenous communities is one reason that there is a preference for White and westernized art and institutions. It is interesting to note that implicit bias, “the attitudes and stereotypes that affect our actions that we aren’t aware of, can affect how and what we feel and think about the word art when we hear it.”[1]
What do you think of when you think of “art”? An example of implicit bias would be when an individual from Western culture is asked about art, it is a relatively common bias to think about art in the context of dominant social characteristics. For example, social characteristics such as being “male” or being “White” are dominant in Western culture, especially in the United States. The David statue, created by one of the most famous and revered artists of the 14th century, possibly ever, Michelangelo Buonarroti of Florence Italy, is commonly recognized and is one of the most famous sculptures in the world. The David sculpture is created by individuals possessing dominant social characteristics have made the arts, by association, a practice that is dominantly White and male. We learn early on as children in the U.S through our experience with social institutions.
Social institutions are complex systems that influence its members and present opportunities for members to influence them as well. For example, schools and museums are examples of places that children enter and participate in where they are exposed to art that is, for the most part, majorly White and male dominated. Examples within this chapter show both the built in biases and the ways in which artistic expression helps us move beyond the socially constructed ideas and expand our definitions of art and beauty.
Art, Race, Ethnicity, and Culture
Ken Monkman is a North American artist well known for his paintings that reexamines the past. He frames his work by noting that these past experiences significantly influence the present. Monkman describes his use of visual art to examine the experience of Indigenous people in North America, both during the period of colonization and the effects on the present day families. His paintings depict the violence that European settlers acted upon Indiginous people, and the cultural beliefs that have been silenced. He creates works of art that tell the story from the perspective on those who were harmed and emphasizes the heroism of Indigenous families, the nonbinary aspect of gender they expressed, and other cultural aspects.
Monkman describes his use of visual art to examine the experience of Indigenous people in North America, both during the period of colonization and the continued effects on the present day families in the video below.
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=149
Kehinde Wiley is another artist known for using his work to expose hypocrisies in the framing of European history, such as the Age of Reason, or Enlightenment period which is known for its progress in liberty, universalism, separation of church and state, and freedom. This same time period is known for the colonialism of many indigenous people and people of color, including Napolean Bonaparte himself who reinstituted slavery in the French colonies a year after the famous Jacques-Louis David painting “Bonaparte Crossing the Alps” was painted.
Wiley’s re-interpretation of this painting, “Napoleon Leading the Army Over the Alps,” pictures a young Black man in the same pose, but in a way that questions the heroism and softens the military masculinity portrayed in the original. He confronts and critiques the portrayal of Black people in art.
The paintings hang side-by-side in the Brooklyn Museum, through May 2020.
Art, Sex, and Gender
Art, reflective of society, has been work dominated by men. Their work was more likely to be sponsored, commissioned, featured, publicized and preserved. Women artists have often been seen as secondary. The well-known artist Frida Kahlo was a Mexican painter who was inspired by artifacts of her culture and used a folk art style. She explored themes of identity, postcolonialism, class, race, and gender. A prime example of marginalization taking place in Frida Kahlo’s lifetime was when she lived in Detroit married to a male artist named Diego Rivera. In Detroit Frida Kahlo never showed her portraits in any exhibitions however, she did get the opportunity to be interviewed. Although she was interviewed and was praised for her work through this opportunity, when the article came out it was titled “Wife of the Master Mural Painter Gleefully Dabbles in Works of Art”.
Through this lens, Frida Kahlo was publicly known to her peers and the world as “Diego Rivera’s wife” and not as an artist. But Kahlo’s work surpassed Rivera’s in terms of artistic and social recognition.Kahlo died in 1954 at age 47, and her work became best known between the 1970’s and 1990’s. She is regarded as an icon of Chicanos (civil rights movement), feminism, and the LGBTQ+ movement.
Many paintings considered classic representations of ancient myths and events were painted by men. Carmen McCormack, a 2019 graduate of Oregon State University’s Bachelor of Fine Arts program, has recreated some works from a female, feminist and/or lesbian perspective. For example, she has reinterpreted Francois Boucher’s painting “ Leda and the Swan” from 1741 which tells the story of the seduction or rape of Leda by Zeus in the form of a swan.
“I wanted to reinterpret that as a feminist, as a woman and as a contemporary painter,” McCormack said in an interview with the Corvallis Gazette-Times.“In the original (the women) were smiling, which is interesting for a male painter because it reinterprets the story of sexual violence — it’s not a happy thing.” McCormack’s version shows a dark stormy background, and the women’s facial expressions and body language suggest more fear and resistance than does the original.
Centuries ago, genders were oppressed and underrepresented in their creative aspects. We can acknowledge that although there has been an improvement there are still groups, genders, and individuals who face underrepresentation, discrimination, and oppression. New York is known as the hub of art and yet it is estimated that 76% to 96% of the art showcased in art galleries is by male artists. We can see that to this day there is a gender gap in the art industry that continues in the 21st century.
Film
Film, another visual medium, is a part of many family’s daily lives. Mainstream movies are accessible to Americans via many formats. Although women and people of color are represented in audiences in greater percentages than their population base, they are vastly underrepresented in lead roles both on and off screen. In 2018 only one female, Greta Gerwig, and one person of color, Jordan Peele, were nominated for Best Director in the Oscars competition. And in an analysis of speaking roles for women in the 900 most popular films from 2007 to 2016, fewer than one third of the roles went to women. Representation is worse for nonbinary people and when intersectionality of color and gender are examined.[2]
When a child goes into the movies, they are exposed to a variety of people. What most of these actors and actresses have in common is that they are White. As of 2017, only 20% of all lead actors and actresses on screen were people of color.[3] To the children watching these movies, this is the majority demographic being represented. When they do see a prominent character that looks like them, it shows them that they can fit into societal roles.
When movies such as Home, Black Panther, or Crazy Rich Asians came out, people of color flocked to see them. These are movies where there are not obvious stereotypes and there are people of color playing leading roles. Movies with successful people of color are important because, without them, they are pushed to the back of the mind and this reinforces the dominant culture of White as the norm. Especially with the movie Home, parents brought their children to see the main character with the same skin color or hair type as their own. The main character,
Tip, is a young African American girl with natural hair that helps save the day and gets her mom back home. Having a strong young child of color is important because when reading fairy tales to preschoolers, it was found when they were told to draw the main character, most of the students drew a figure with blonde hair and light skin. This implies that these children, even the children of color, saw that White skin meant a happy ending.[4] In their mind, only this type of character was allowed to save the day and be a star.
Representation in movies also pertains to how the characters are portrayed. Do they follow common, sometimes derogatory, stereotypes? Are they seen as the villain? Are they the first to be killed? While a film may have a more diverse cast, if people of color are being represented through stereotypes or type casting- when a person is repeatedly cast for the same type of character, usually based on looks- it sheds a negative light on those people.
In March 2020 the Washington Post Magazine initiated a project in which they asked actors of minoritized groups what kind of roles they typically were cast in, and what kind of roles they would like to play.[5] The article emphasizes the experience of non-White actors in Hollywood. The pictorial essay is linked here, and this is one example from the essay.
The picture on the left shows the role that Nanji is typically cast in; the picture on the right shows a role she would like to play.
Typecasting people contributes to the reinforcement of stereotypes of people of color and other minoritized groups; it emphasizes the centrality of White people both as the norm and as the keepers of interesting plot lines and life stories.
Representation of People of Color
How are people of color represented in visual mediums? And which people of color are prominent? Notice that when leading roles are cast in visual mediums they are often people of lighter colored skin. This is called “colorism” and is distinct from racism in that it shows a preference for the visual look, as opposed to implying that there is inferiority based on race.[6] A recent example is the prominence of Jennifer Lopez (J-Lo) and Shakira in the 2020 Super-Bowl half-time show. While both women are Latina, many people of color do not feel represented by lighter-skinned people who have dyed their hair blonde.
Understanding “isms”
Another way that film can help us to understand the world is to view how an “ism” affects a group that we are not a part of, such as understanding how women experience sexism, or Black people experience racism. But how do we identify which movies can help us really understand what really happens, what the effects are and what “isms” feel like? One of the best ways is to listen to a member of the group that experiences it. Podcasts such as the 1A Movie Club’s program “‘The Help’ Doesn’t Help” in June 2020 helps to explain how White-centered stories about racism fail to expose and teach realistically and deeply. White-centered refers to stories which are told primarily from the White person’s point-of-view, with a lead or leads who are White, and sometimes feature what is called the “white saviour” meaning that it takes someone who is White to solve the problem, save the day, or otherwise fix some aspect of racism. Instead the the podcast hosts and guests recommend the following movies amongst others:
• “13th” (2016)
• “Blackkklansman” (2018)
• “Get Out” (2017)
• “I Am Not Your Negro” (2016)
• “Just Mercy” (2019)
• “When They See Us” (2019)
To listen to the 1A Movie Club lively discussion and debate about movies, Rotten Tomatoes and other movie rating systems, racism, health care, the racial empathy gap, history and current events, listen here.
Employment
While our discussion has focused on representation and on the effects that lack of representation has on families, it is important to mention employment. An obvious outcome of fewer people of color or other minoritized groups in media means people in these groups have fewer employment opportunities. A person who has multiple intersectional characteristics has even fewer options. Rosie Perez, in this one minute video talks about the intersectionality of being a woman of color, weight, hotness, ethnicity and age whose job is to act.
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=149
Rosie Perez’ descriptions are supported by research. Family films made between 2006 and 2009 in the United States and Canada were studied specifically for gender bias, but also included appearance and age in the assessment. Beautiful women, with unrealistic body types, exposed skin, and waists so tiny that they would leave “little room for a womb or any other internal organs” are featured in these films with 14-24% possessing these features.In addition, it is most common for women to be under the age of 39 years (about 74%) with a higher percentage of men over the age of 40 years.[7]
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
Figure 8.15. “Napoleon Crossing the Alps” by Jacques-Louis David. Public domain.
Figure 8.16. “Poster – Frida Kahlo” by Vagner Borges. License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
Figure 8.17. “Leda and the Swan” by François Boucher. Public domain.
Figure 8.19. “Adam Driver, John David Washington, and Director Spike Lee at the 2019 Critics’ Choice Awards” by Chris Miksanek. License: CC BY-SA 4.0.
All Rights Reserved Content
Figure 8.15. “Napoleon Leading the Army over the Alps” (c) Kehinde Wiley. Image used under fair use.
Figure 8.16. “Coconuts” by Frida Kahlo (c) Banco de México Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo Museums Trust. Image used under fair use.
Figure 8.17. “Leda and the Swan” (c) Carmen McCormack. Image used under fair use.
Figure 8.18. “Tasneem Nanji: Typecast role: Hijabi. Ideal role: Punk rocker” by Haruka Sakaguchi & Griselda San Martin. Images used under fair use.
Shame and Prejudice: Artist Kent Monkman’s story of resilience” (c) University of Toronto. License Terms: Standard Youtube license.
Rosie Perez on Roles for Women of Color” (c) PBS. License Terms: Standard YouTube license.
1. The Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (2015). Understanding implicit bias. Retrieved February 18, 2020, from http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/resea...implicit-bias/
2. Tan, S. (2018, February 28). This year's Oscar nominees are more diverse, but has Hollywood really changed? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...sity-in-films/
3. Statista. (2020, February 17). • Ethnicity of lead actors in movies in the U.S. 2019. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lms-ethnicity/
4. Hurley, D. L. (2005). Seeing white: Children of color and the Disney fairy tale princess. The Journal of Negro Education, 74(3), 221–232. ↵
5. Sakaguchi, H. & San Martin, G. (2020, March 4). How Hollywood sees me ... and how I want to be seen. Washington Post Magazine. www.washingtonpost.com/magaz...roles-instead/ ↵
6. Farrow, K. (2019, January 10). How the camera sees color. National Museum of African American History & Culture. Retrieved March 9, 2020, from https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/storie...era-sees-color
7. Smith, S.L. & Choueiti, M. (n.d.). Gender disparity on Screen and behind the camera in family films. Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from https://seejane.org/wp-content/uploa...y-films-v2.pdf | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/06%3A_Visual_Culture_-_Art_and_Beauty/6.03%3A_Art_and_Dominant_Culture.txt |
Although the famous saying “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” originated in the 3rd centruy BC and was revived in its current form by Margaret Wolfe Hungerford in 1878, it can also be said that society, and the media in particular, create and reinforce stereotypical ideas of beauty.
Beauty is a social construct. It is based on societally agreed upon ideas that have been ingrained into our systems over time and have been accepted as the norm(al) visual representation. These ideas of beauty slowly become embedded into our minds on a micro level, and affect the way we operate. There is a bi-directional relationship with societal forces including media, marketing, businesses, government and other institutions. These forces influence youth affect appearance, cosmetics, behavior and clothing. The media, of which 90% is controlled by four media conglomerates who are predominantly White middle-class and wealthy males,[1] are responsible for creating and reinforcing preferences and biases which reinforce the dominant culture’s idea of beauty.
Western society has identified particular aspects of physical appearance as being beautiful, or desirable. People with these characteristics are favored and featured. This is known as the halo effect, in which additional favorable characteristics are associated with “attractiveness”. One example of this effect applies to academia. While it is acknowledged that the face’s physical appearance may indicate important characteristics such as physical health, it has also been found that it is used inaccurately to predict a person’s academic performance. Using the faces of university students, researchers learned that subjects inaccurately attributed competence and intelligence to more attractive faces.[2] This can have long term implications for success in education, as other research has found that teachers’ expectations of learners can have a positive or negative effect on their learning.[3]
Another example from academia describes how gender, perceived attractiveness, and age intersect to affect how students’ perception of physical appearance moderate their experience of the actual behavior of faculty. When students rated the perceived qualities of instructors based on appearance in a 2014 study, women’s age and attractiveness were linked (older women were judged to be less attractive). Less attractiveness correlated with judgments students made about prospective faculty; that those less attractive (and older) were also less likely to be organized and/or have rapport with their students, illustrating the halo effect.[4]
There have been some insightful analyses of attractiveness and facial symmetry related to pay and job attainment in sports. The most well-known relates to “quarterback-face”. Using computer measurements, economists found that while taking into account career statistics, experience, pro Bowl appearances, and draft position, one standard deviation of symmetry of facial structure led to an eight percent increase in pay.[5] This holds true for starting quarterbacks in the National Football League (NFL), and even more strongly for back-up quarterbacks.
Beauty can and does change from place to place, from culture to culture, and from person to person. It is demonstrated via society’s products, patterns, trends, wants and desires. It is influenced biologically, by pheromones and natural physical attractions. This shows us that it is a social construction. The threat to family well-being is when that socially constructed idea is assigned different value or worth, based on physical appearance. Bullying, fewer academic opportunities, and loss of employment can all be linked to the idealized conception of beauty. The halo effect can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where those who fit the social construction of attractiveness, are perceived as being more valuable members of society, which then may lead to preferential treatment and more life chances, thereby increasing the person’s likelihood of succeeding.[6]
So what does this mean for us, the readers and writers of this text? It means that we need to be aware and pay attention to what we might call our “intuition” or “gut” feelings about who is deserving of the benefit of the doubt, or of an extra opportunity. Sometimes those instinctual feelings are masking some preference for attractiveness and/or an implicit bias. We can teach our children, students, peers, and colleagues the same. By making this topic discussable, we can work toward achieving equity in education, employment and experience.
Beauty, Art, and Identity
The dominant culture is powerful. Finding ways to fit in is important and sometimes people go to extremes to fit into what is deemed desirable. For example, in the film ‘Crazy Rich Asians’, the movie rewards Rachel Chu for mimicking European beauty standards. She is preparing for a big wedding, and has a friend who comments how they need to get her eyelids taped, which is a popular method for East Asian and Asian Americans to remove their monolids and appear more caucasion. In this movie, whiteness is provided as the aesthetic for beauty standards, particularly Euro-American standards. The continual reinforcement of one kind of beauty creates tension and conflict for families between this ideal, their own culture, and individuality.
Art and beauty matter. Make-up and facepaint reflect both culture and idealized beauty standards. Native American men use face paint to identify themselves, align with hopes and dreams, demonstrate their honor, and before battle. Paints came from a variety of natural materials and held significance related to color and pattern.[7] Drag families that form with various familiar family roles use costumes and make-up to express identity, role, and representation.[8] Tattoos and piercings have a long history of affiliation with beauty and expression and have only grown in recent decades in importance related to identity. And yet there are questions and concerns related to employment when one has tattoos; bias against tattoo-users is a worry. The complexity of how each person and family member sees oneself, influenced by the societal norms that favor certain appearances continue to affect functionality of both families and society.
Diversity in culture can inspire people to express and reinforce their own identities whether or not they are in the dominant group. Lin-Manuel Miranda, the creator of the wildly popular Broadway musical and film, Hamilton: An American Musical (aka Hamilton), talks about his love of theater as an adolescent, but the limited view he had of his own expressive abilities until he saw Rent, the 1996 rock musical with music, lyrics and book by Jonathan Larson. Hamilton premiered in 2015 and has won both critical and popular acclaim, including multiple Drama Desk and Tony awards, sold out performances on Broadway and with three national tours, ended only by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.
In an interview with Terry Gross on NPR’s Fresh Air in June 2020, Miranda said,
Really, the only thing I saw that really gave me permission to write musicals was “Rent,” which was an incredibly diverse cast. And I went from being a fan of musicals to writing musicals when I saw that show because it was the thing that gave me permission…it was contemporary, and it had Latino actors and Black actors. And it told me you’re allowed to write what you know into a show. No other musical had told me that…
…So it was truly the first contemporary musical I’d seen and and, I think, got me from being a kid who was in school musicals and loved them but just thought they were written by other people, like, by, like, old White people on the Upper East Side, to giving me permission. And it’s been gratifying to see how these shows, “Heights” and “Hamilton” in particular, like, not only provide employment but also provide, like, permission and amplification of a lot of other voices.[9]
Miranda’s statement demonstrates explicitly the importance of diverse voices being created, produced, and publicized. Identity and art are intertwined and influence individuals and families in their development, structure, and daily lives.
Conclusion
Visual culture influences family, in both the public function of caregiving and private function of emotional bonds we share with one another. Equity in access to and representation of visual culture will foster the ability of every individual and family to meet their potential. Art brings families together and simultaneously displays how we view the family at any point in time. It helps us notice the socially constructed nature of the family, and of our ideas of beauty. It can be a tool that is used for expression and to foster change.Visual representations depict ideas that we may not be able to put into words. After all, we are humanly wired to do this; to understand, categorize, to express, and to make sense of meaning. Visual Culture creates the avenue for both our own creativity and for us to better understand the world.
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
Figure 8.20. “native american dancer c” by alandberning. License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. “several piercings” by Sara Marx. License: CC BY 2.0. “celtic Cross” by scorpion1985x. License: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. “face painting” by clickclique. Licensed: CC BY-NC 2.0
Figure 8.21. “The Learning Child” by Gilbert Ibañez. License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
1. Wikipedia. (n.d.). Media conglomerate. Retrieved May 29, 2020, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate ↵
2. Talamas, S. N., Mavor, K. I., & Perrett, D. I. (2016). Blinded by beauty: Attractiveness bias and accurate perceptions of academic performance. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148284. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148284 ↵
3. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. F. (1968). Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged. Scientific American, 218(4), 19–23. ↵
4. Wilson, J. H., Beyer, D., & Monteiro, H. (2014). Professor age affects student ratings: Halo effect for younger teachers. College Teaching, 62(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2013.825574
5. Berri, D. J. (2008, September 16). Do pretty-boy quarterbacks make more money? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/s...FBALL-QBS.html
6. Wikipedia. (n.d.). Physical attractiveness. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness ↵
7. Gowder, P. (2011, July 21). Face painting traditions & meanings. PowWows.com. https://www.powwows.com/face-paintin...of-the-plains/
8. National Center for Transgender Equality. (2017, April 28). Understanding drag. https://transequality.org/issues/res...rstanding-drag
9. Miranda, L-M. (2020, June 29). 'Hamilton' creator Lin-Manuel Miranda. (T. Gross, Interviewer) [podcast]. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/88469...manuel-miranda | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/06%3A_Visual_Culture_-_Art_and_Beauty/6.04%3A_What_is_Beauty.txt |
As you read this chapter, consider the following questions:
1. What formal processes exist in the United States for representation of all families?
2. What contributes to some families being represented less frequently in social processes such as voting, being elected, and participating in the Census?
3. How would more parity amongst our elected representatives make a difference?
4. What are the barriers to participation? What institutional changes could be made to increase participation? What new processes and institutions could you imagine that might lead to more equity in representation?
5. Which demographic groups are best represented? Least represented?
6. How is representation linked with equity?
7. How has the feminist movement evolved and changed over time?
8. How do social movements interact with laws, policy, and elected officials?
9. How are representation and belonging linked?
7.02: Representation and Belonging
How is equity served by representation? Social Institutions are defined by having a critical function, and with a structure of rules and roles.Those roles almost always include some form of representation: a way in which the participants are somehow “seen” and acknowledged via a leadership structure. Representation means that families know that they belong, that they are important, that their needs are known, and that the institution is functional. If the representation does not serve these purposes, it is unlikely that outcomes will be equitable for families.
In this chapter we will focus on the institutions of local and national governments. As you read, consider applying these same concepts to other institutions that you may be involved with including K-12 schools, the college and university systems, health care and health insurance, businesses and corporations, prisons and courts, media, and others.
Your social identity affects your experience with representation. Our social identities are complex (refer to the Social Identity wheel in Chapter One) and every family member adds additional complexities to identity. This is one of the beautiful and challenging aspects of family life. It is aspirational to think that we live in a country where every family has equitable access to opportunity and representation. When this cannot be achieved, we may aspire to the belief that our representatives still “see” and understand the needs of our families.
For example, this author is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, is White, and is a cis-gendered female. In many organizations, I see that the majority of the leadership is White. I see many women decision-makers, although the percentage decreases as the level of power increases. And I see relatively few members of the LGBTQ+ community. Since this part of the population is small (about 10% or less) I do not expect to see a majority of leaders in any organization to be members of this group. What I hope for is that regardless of demographic, these leaders still work to understand me and my family. This is especially true of any aspect of my identity that has been marginalized; in my case, that is being a woman and being part of the LGBTQ+ community. I hope that they listen to my stories. That they “see” me. They work to educate themselves about families like mine, so that even if I don’t see people like myself making the decisions that affect my family, they still represent me.
When I think about representation from this perspective, I am not only considering the federal government. I am thinking about employers, city councils, my health care insurance and health care providers, the school board, and the local court system. All of these institutions affect families based on their identities and formations. For example, health care and retirement benefits are typically tied to employers, whether they are public organizations, for-profit corporations, or not-for-profit entities. Those employers will determine which members of my family qualify for benefits and may be listed as beneficiaries of pension or life insurance policies. The school board is making decisions about forms, processes, rights and responsibilities affecting my children. The local courts and judges interpret laws and make decisions about adoption, divorce, custody agreements and for foster children. In all of these cases, I want to know that the people in the decision making roles have some understanding of who my family is, and who I am, whether or not they share the same social identities. They are representing me, not just as an individual, but as a member of the community that designated them with this power.
Each one of you who reads this has your own social identity which overlaps with the identities within your family. As you read this chapter, consider what representation means to you and how you would like to be represented within the various institutions in which you participate.
Historical Context
The Declaration of Independence is commonly quoted to demonstrate the United States is founded on equality,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[1]
But as we know, this declaration did not apply to all men in the United States, but only to men who were White, and in some cases was limited to land-owners (early in the history of the United States individual states regulated the right to vote, so there was variability about which White men had access to this form of equality). Not to mention women, at a time when the White culture defined sex and gender in a binary way.
Consider your own social identity and its overlapping characteristics. Our familial and individual social identities have a bi-directional relationship with representation. Our social identities (including how others define us) affect what kind of representation we have experienced, while representation continues to contribute to the social construction of identity: color, ethnicity, gender, sex, socioeconomic status, ability, age and so on. Understanding this relationship can help us increase equity in two ways:
• Reducing the effects of racialization and other forms of stereotyping that contribute to the marginalization of families; and
• Acknowledging the ways that families who are part of the dominant culture benefit from the stereotyping and bias of marginalized groups.
When we talk about families, we are moving far beyond the social construction of the typical family and the ways that government and other institutions define “family” for taxes, health care, and other legal rights and responsibilities. We are including all the ways that people define their own families. It is our aspirational goal to inspire readers to understand injustice more deeply via the ways that we are represented in institutions and to advocate and contribute to changes toward greater equity for families in the United States.
We will study a couple of the formal ways that families can expect to be represented in the United States, and how that representation plays out when we look at equity. This is important because governing bodies make decisions that affect all families; the definitions, laws, and regulations made by governments influence employers, business practices, schools and other public facilities such as libraries and parks.
We will look at the United States Census, a survey which attempts to count all the people (not all citizens, but all people) living in the United States and directly impacts the number of seats that a state has assigned in the U.S. House of Representatives as well how federal funds are distributed. Then we will look more closely at voting and the resulting elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels. Those officials are directly responsible for the laws and justice systems that govern us. Finally we will look at an aspect of representation outside of the formal processes: activism and social movements.
The United States Census
The United States census is conducted every ten years with the goal of counting every person in the country, although, as described below, it is almost impossible to reach this goal. The census collects information about the race, age, and housing situation of the population. The primary purpose of the census, as established in the Constitution, is to determine the number of seats each state will have in the US House of Representatives, the legislative branch of government. Voting district boundaries must then be redrawn in states that have gained or lost seats between census years (we will take a closer look at how redistricting is done and the spatial challenges of the process in later chapters). Censuses also determine how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding are distributed for many important purposes, including education, health care, environmental protection, transportation, and other forms of federal aid to states and cities.
The first US census, carried out in 1791 by sixteen US marshals and 650 assistants, counted around 3.9 million people. They asked only a few questions: the number of free persons, the number of enslaved people, and the sex and race of each individual.
By 1960, with the population approaching 180 million, it was no longer feasible to have a census taker visit each household. Instead, questionnaires were mailed to every household, and temporary employees followed up in person with the households that did not respond.
Questions asked of all households now include the number of persons by age, gender, ethnicity, homeownership, and household composition. Between 1940 and 2000, one in six households also received a more detailed “long form” survey which asked questions about a much wider range of topics including income, occupation, commute length, and military service. The Census Bureau then used this sample to estimate the characteristics of the rest of the population.
Demand for more timely social data led to the development of the American Community Survey (ACS), which replaced the long form census survey in 2010. The ACS is conducted every year in order to provide more frequent “snapshots” of demographic, economic, and housing characteristics of the population. However, only 2-3 million households receive the survey per year (less than 2% of the population), which introduces substantial statistical errors in estimates for the whole population. Data for the census and ACS are collected from each household, but in order to preserve privacy and to make the data easier to use, the Census Bureau aggregates the data to larger geographic areas.
Limitations of Census Data
The census is the most comprehensive source of demographic information available for the United States, but it still has important limitations.
The primary challenge is accuracy and undercounting. The census attempts to take a snapshot of how many people there are and where they are living on April 1st of the census year. The method for collecting data assumes that every person lives in a housing unit with a postal address and that they will respond accurately to surveys. The Census Bureau estimated that approximately 10 million people were missed in its 2010 count.
Undercounting is not random because it is more prevalent in certain areas and subpopulations. Those who are homeless or have unstable housing at the time of the census are often missed. Those residing in remote rural areas can be hard to contact by mail or in person. The census is also less likely to receive responses from those who distrust the government, such as people fearful that their answers will be used by immigration enforcement to deport undocumented family members.
The census is only taken every ten years, and the counts have long-term consequences for states and cities. The accuracy of counts can be very contentious in cash-strapped cities. For example, Detroit challenged the findings of the 2010 census, having come up 40,000 people short of a population cutoff point for many major sources of federal funding. Since poor and marginalized populations are among the hardest to count, districts with the most need are also the most at risk of underfunding and underrepresentation.
Beyond accuracy issues, while the census and ACS provide an extensive set of social data, plenty of topics are not covered. For example, there are no questions about religion, consumer spending, or political party affiliation. The quantity and wording of questions asked in the census has changed over time, and data are not always available for all places or for all geographic areas.
Remember that there are many other social surveys which collect information about different attributes, areas, or periods. For example, the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies conducts the “Religious Congregations and Membership Study” (RCMS) every 10 years to track patterns of religious affiliation. Local governments gather data for projects in their specific region. There are also censuses conducted in countries around the world with varying levels of detail and accuracy.
Why Does the Government Care about Race?
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=606
This video helps us understand why race was emphasized in the first census, related to the number of voters (mostly free White men over the age of 21 years) and number of elected representatives. It also describes the changes in how race and ethnicity have been quantified. Remember the discussion of the social construction of race in the first chapter of this text? The Census is a perfect example of how the definition of race has changed over time. But social constructions have real effects on families and kinship groups. One of the reasons that we continue to quantify race is to track access to resources and the equity of experience for individuals and families.
The 2020 Census is currently underway. The Census Bureau has identified populations that are less likely to participate in the process as “Hard to Count (HTC).”[2] Have you or your family members participated in the Census? Perhaps your family falls into a group that the Census Bureau identifies as hard to locate, contact, persuade, and/or interview.
Current events may also affect participation; increased efforts to limit immigration and the mercurial decisions related to immigrants in recent years may reduce the number of immigrants willing to participate. For example, the Trump administration fought in several legal forums to have a question about citizenship added to the 2020 Census, but this question was not added. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the number of college students who respond to the Census. The main dates for the mailing of census forms was between April 1 and May 13, 2020, at a time when many college students abandoned their regular place of residence (such as dormitory or apartment building in a college town) and went to live with parents or other family members. Towns with large universities may be affected by lower census counts because of this pattern. The Census can still be completed today online or by other means and through the end of the calendar year 2020.
We Count Oregon is an organization and website that has been developed to persuade everyone to participate. Why? The more people who participate will lead to more federal funding for hospitals, Medicaid, Headstart, parks, roads, and other programs. Oregon is one of five states (Arizona, Colorado, Florida and North Carolina are the others) predicted to earn an additional seat in the House of Representatives. We Count Oregon identifies HTC communities as including “people of color, children under five, renters, immigrants, people with limited English proficiency, multiple-family homes, Native tribal and urban communities, disabled people, and LGBTQ individuals.”[3] If you and your family are wondering if you can make a difference by filling out the Census, check out their website here. It is an opportunity to be more fully represented.
A Vimeo element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=606
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
“The United States Census” is from “Census Data” by Melinda Kernik and Dudley Bonsal in Mapping, Society, and Technology. License: CC BY-NC 4.0.
Figure 7.2. Image by US Census Bureau. Public domain.
Figure 7.3. Image by US Census Bureau. Public domain.
Figure 7.4. Image by US Census Bureau. Public domain.
Open Content, Original
Figure 7.1. Family photos by Liz Pearce. License: CC BY 4.0.
All Rights Reserved Content
Why Does the Government Care about Race?” (c) Origin of Everything. License Terms: Standard YouTube license.
“The 2020 Census is about Money and Power” (c) Dancing Hearts Consulting. License Terms: Standard Vimeo license.
1. Jefferson, T. (1776, July 4). Declaration of independence: A transcription. https://www.archives.gov/founding-do...ion-transcript
2. US Census Bureau. (2019, July). Counting the hard to count in a census. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...ions-Brief.pdf
3. We Count Oregon. (n.d.). About #WeCountOregon. Retrieved July 14, 2020, from https://wecountoregon.com/ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/07%3A_Representation_and_Belonging/7.01%3A_Representation_and_Belonging_Preview_Questions.txt |
Much of the decision-making in the United States is done by elected officials. People who are allowed to vote, and who choose to vote have some influence on who gets elected. Voting is important and is one aspect of representation, a potential equalizer in a country in which some decisions are made via direct democracy (each individual has a vote) and others are made by representative democracy (elected representatives.)
But as we will explore in this section, there are other factors that affect elections and equity.
Who votes?
There are a variety of reasons that people don’t vote in local, state, and national elections. Thomas Jefferson is known for saying, “We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” Ironically Jefferson was a part of the legislature that limited which people in the United States actually had the right to vote. In fact, what he could have said was “We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority of people whom we have allowed to vote and who participate. This text aims to examine how institutions still limit voting rights both explicitly and implicitly.
Voter Registration across the United States
Elections are state-by-state contests. They include general elections for president and statewide offices (e.g., governor and U.S. senator), and they are often organized and paid for by the states. Because political cultures vary from state to state, the process of voter registration also varies. For example, suppose an 85-year-old retiree with an expired driver’s license wants to register to vote. He or she might be able to register quickly in California or Florida, but a current government ID might be required prior to registration in Texas or Indiana.
The varied registration and voting laws across the United States have long caused controversy. In the aftermath of the Civil War, southern states enacted literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and other requirements intended to disenfranchise Black voters in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. Literacy tests were long and detailed exams on local and national politics, history, and more. They were often administered arbitrarily with more Blacks required to take them than Whites.[1] Consider this along with the practice of providing schooling only to White children. Poll taxes required voters to pay a fee to vote. Grandfather clauses exempted individuals from taking literacy tests or paying poll taxes if they or their fathers or grandfathers had been permitted to vote prior to a certain point in time. While the Supreme Court determined that grandfather clauses were unconstitutional in 1915, states continued to use poll taxes and literacy tests to deter potential voters from registering.[2] States also ignored instances of violence and intimidation against African Americans wanting to register or vote.[3]
The ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment in 1964 ended poll taxes, but the passage of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965 had a more profound effect. The act protected the rights of minority voters by prohibiting state laws that denied voting rights based on race. The VRA gave the attorney general of the United States authority to order federal examiners to areas with a history of discrimination. These examiners had the power to oversee and monitor voter registration and elections. States found to violate provisions of the VRA were required to get any changes in their election laws approved by the U.S. attorney general or by going through the court system. However, in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, threw out the standards and process of the VRA, effectively gutting the landmark legislation.[4] This decision effectively pushed decision-making and discretion for election policy in VRA states to the state and local level. Several such states subsequently made changes to their voter ID laws and North Carolina changed its plans for how many polling places were available in certain areas. Texas also restricted voting based on photo identification;these changes often do not have a neutral effect. In fact when the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down one North Carolina law in 2016 they found that it targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.”
The effects of the VRA were visible almost immediately. In Mississippi, only 6.7 percent of Blacks were registered to vote in 1965; however, by the fall of 1967, nearly 60 percent were registered. Alabama experienced similar effects, with African American registration increasing from 19.3 percent to 51.6 percent. Voter turnout across these two states similarly increased. Mississippi went from 33.9 percent turnout to 53.2 percent, while Alabama increased from 35.9 percent to 52.7 percent between the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections.[5]
Following the implementation of the VRA, many states have sought other methods of increasing voter registration. Several states make registering to vote relatively easy for citizens who have government documentation. Oregon has few requirements for registering and registers many of its voters automatically. North Dakota has no registration at all. In 2002, Arizona was the first state to offer online voter registration, which allowed citizens with a driver’s license to register to vote without any paper application or signature. The system matches the information on the application to information stored at the Department of Motor Vehicles, to ensure each citizen is registering to vote in the right precinct. Citizens without a driver’s license still need to file a paper application. More than eighteen states have moved to online registration or passed laws to begin doing so. The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates, however, that adopting an online voter registration system can initially cost a state between \$250,000 and \$750,000.[6]
Other states have decided against online registration due to concerns about voter fraud and security. Legislators also argue that online registration makes it difficult to ensure that only citizens are registering and that they are registering in the correct precincts. As technology continues to update other areas of state recordkeeping, online registration may become easier and safer. In some areas, citizens have pressured the states and pushed the process along. A bill to move registration online in Florida stalled for over a year in the legislature, based on security concerns. With strong citizen support, however, it was passed and signed in 2015, despite the governor’s lingering concerns. In other states, such as Texas, some are concerned about identity fraud, so traditional paper registration has been preferred until the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has renewed interest in voting methods other than in-person.
Voting by Mail
Oregon was the first state to enact postal voting, or “vote-by mail” in the United States, in 1998. Voter turn-out dramatically increased with this adaptation and Oregon continues to have one of the highest participation rates in the country. As of 2020, Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, and Utah have all converted to vote-by-mail elections. The coronavirus pandemic has raised concerns about people visiting crowded polling places in person during 2020 and 46 states are loosening restrictions on vote-by-mail. To investigate the current status of voting in each state, consult this usa.gov website.
Research repeatedly shows that allowing people to vote by mail increases participation. A draft working paper of a Stanford University study found that postal voting in Colorado increased voter participation by ten percent. Notably, turnout amongst groups less likely to vote increased even more: 16 percentage points among young people, 13% among African-Americans, 11% among Asian-Americans, and 10 percentage points amongst Latinx Americans, blue-collar workers, those without a high school diploma, and those with less than \$10,000 of wealth.[7]
President Donald Trump has stated that postal voting is vulnerable to fraud, but other Republican lawmakers are divided on the issue, while Democratic lawmakers generally support this effort. Experts, including researchers and political science professors, do not believe that voting by mail is likely to increase fraud.
Barriers to Voting
Although the right to vote is more equitably distributed than in the past, institutional and societal factors still influence who actually votes. If there were times that you didn’t vote, what got in the way? A busy life might keep you from voting.
Socioeconomic Status
When voting is limited to one day (e.g. twelve hours in November) people who have more restrictive work, school, parenting, childcare, or other schedules will have more challenges in getting to the polling location during the limited time. Workers in jobs with less autonomy (e.g. retail, clerical, and blue-collar workers) have less flexibility on voting day than those in managerial or professional positions. Transportation can be a factor; personal vehicles provide the most efficiency in a busy life. Using shared vehicles, public transportation, bicycles and walking (while more cost and energy effective) all take longer.
If you are a working parent faced with choosing between getting food on the table for your two young children or transporting them, and waiting in line to vote in the election, which do you choose? If you need to race home from work so that your partner can use your shared vehicle to get to their evening shift, do you then go take a bus to vote? Families with a lower Socioeconomic Status are more likely to have a combination of these factors that contribute to having less flexibility and less time. Families who have more resources in general have more resources related to political activity and are more likely to participate in voting in person. Those that are unemployed are the least likely to vote.
People with Disabilities
People with disabilities vote at a 6% lower rate than people who do not have disabilities and share other demographic characteristics, as measured by Rutgers University in the 2016 election.[8] Why might that be? One factor may be the polling places themselves. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) observed 178 polling places during that same election. They found that 60% of the polling places had some kind of physical impediment between the parking lot and the entry to the buildings. Of the 137 that could be observed inside, 65% had polling stations that could impede someone casting their votes independently.[9]
There are efforts underway to improve access to and participation in voting amongst people with disabilities. The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) is working in selected states to increase voter registration and turnout. REVUP (Register, Educate, Vote, Use your Power) has shown a 1% increase in the voting participation of people with disabilities in REVUP states compared with non REVUP states between 2014 and 2018.[10] This is a small increase in a very large sample and it is difficult to say if REVUP is the main factor. If you are interested in REVUP’s work, click here.
People Who have been Convicted of Crimes
The majority of states in the United States limit people who have been convicted of felonies from voting, at least during the time that they are incarcerated. (The exceptions are Maine and Vermont.) Variances amongst states include whether rights are lost just while incarcerated, while still serving parole and/or probation or whether rights are restored automatically after release. Oregon is one of sixteen states plus the District of Columbia that automatically restore rights.[11]
There are eleven states that have additional restrictions including the payment of fees, fines, and restitution before voting rights are restored. These kinds of restrictions treat families unevenly; individuals who have lower income and no accumulated wealth will be less likely to be able to access their voting rights than will people with wealth and means. In July 2020 the Supreme Court of the United States left in place a lower-court order that means that hundreds of thousands of people with felonies who owe fines, fees, and restitution in Florida will be unable to vote in elections. This ruling appears to conflict with a 2018 citizen vote with bipartisan support to amend the constitution and allow felons to vote in Florida.
Generally, the trend over the last few decades by states is to restore voting rights to felons once they are released. There are variations state by state as these movements go forward. What is your viewpoint about the right to vote and how it overlaps with people who have committed crimes? Do you think that people serving time should be able to vote? What about those who have rehabilitated and/or paid a debt to society? What about those same people whether they are poor or rich? Should Socioeconomic Status affect the right to vote?
Younger, Less Educated, and Latinx
In general, voter turnout in the United States is higher during presidential elections which occur every four years. In measurements between 1984 through 2016, people who are older, Non-Hispanic, and more educated are most likely to vote. Those who are 60+ years old vote the most, followed by those aged 45-59 years, then by those aged 30-44 years, and with 18 to 29 years old having the lowest likelihood of voting with more than double 60+ year-old voting (65%) compared with 31% of 18 to 29 year-olds voting in the 2018 election. It could be argued that the youngest citizens have the most at stake and could have the greatest impact on the future of the United States and yet they are voting less. In your viewpoint, what is behind the numbers that indicate younger, less educated and Latinx people are voting less?
Feeling Disenfranchised
There are times when people feel so disconnected from the process of democracy and representation that voting seems hopeless. If elected officials repeatedly fail to discuss issues of importance to a person or their family, or if the decision outcomes are consistently inadequate, people may develop apathy toward the voting process. Growing up in a family where the parent(s) don’t vote or who express cynicism or distrust toward representatives and the voting process also impacts children’s view of the system and participation. As discussed at length in this chapter, there has been a great deal of effort made to limit people of color, the poor, and immigrants from voting in at least some states. It’s hard to think that you belong and that your vote matters when institutions work against your voting rights.
“Voting is not an act of political freedom. It is an act of political conformity. Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: ‘You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you’.” – Wendy McElroy.
In some states, one political party (Democratic or Republican) has such a majority position that if you are a member of the other dominant party or of an alternative party, it may not seem “worth it” to vote. They may feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference or that the election is not a competitive one.
Influencing elections: Money and Technology
It’s no secret that there is a lot of money involved in elections in the United States; it is one of a handful of countries that allows unlimited donations to campaigns and unlimited spending. This both favors the wealthy (who can run for office and who can influence elections via donations) but it also means that candidates who are pursuing office can never stop fundraising; as long as they know that their opponent can raise more money, they also stay in the race for dollars. We will look at how money impacts both local and national elections.
First, consider those elections that don’t get much media attention. Does your city have an elected council? How about your school board? Are judges elected or appointed in your area? Is there a County Board of Commissioners? Take a minute to think about what you know about how those folx get those jobs. Are those paid jobs? Do they pay enough to support an individual or family? Many of them are elected positions, although they are not paid. For example, in Corvallis, Oregon neither the school board nor the City Council are paid positions. The Benton County Commissioner positions (of which Corvallis is a part) are paid; three Commissioners each make between \$84,000 and \$94,100 in 2019.[12] Typically salaries of public employees are public information and you can find it via an internet search on the entity’s website or in a newspaper report on salary negotiations.
We ask these questions for several reasons. First, those decision-makers affect all of our lives. If you question whether or not a school board member affects your daily life, consider those board members who are now deciding how and if school will be held during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consider the recent national and local debates about what kinds of bathrooms and locker rooms students can access, and who determines which students will use which bathrooms. Elected offi when those positions are not paid, think about who is likely to have the time available to hold an unpaid position. Corvallis School Board Members are expected to devote time to reading policies, citizen input, budget documents, and related research as well as participating in trainingtrainings, committee discussions, and formal meetings. The time commitment varies from five to twenty hours per week and is unpredictable. This time commitment is similar for City Council members; remember that both positions are unpaid.
Given this context, it is likely that people who have a high enough income or accumulated wealth, a career that allows flexibility in work hours, or retired will be more likely to be able to afford the time to work in these positions. While it is important to appreciate these public servants, it is also important to acknowledge that the decision-makers are more likely to be older, have greater income and wealth, and more education. How do you think this might influence the discussions the groups have and the decisions that they make? How would families benefit from a system that is more representative of the communities served?
Now let’s look at the elections that get more attention in the media: state and federal elections. While local elections fundraise, the big money is in state and federal competitions. And as a 2014 article on PBS.org headlines, “Money is pretty good predictor of who will win elections.”[13] This is not an absolute, but it does happen most of the time: the campaign that raises the most money is most likely to win. Since candidates can spend as much of their own money as they want, being rich makes a difference. In the 2014 national election, 94 percent of biggest House race spenders won and 82 percent of biggest Senate race spenders won. While it is not true that the richest candidate always wins (for example Michael Bloomberg, a candidate for the Presidential Democratic nomination is exponentially more wealthy with a 61.8 billion dollar net worth than Joe Biden, the winner of the nomination with a 9 million dollar net worth)[14] It is true that most people who are able to devote the time it takes to run for national office are very wealthy.
What does it mean that the folx that debate and decide national policy are among the most wealthy in the country? It is estimated that about half of the members of the U.S. Congress and Senate have a net worth of a million dollars.[15] (Remember that wealth is different than income; the average salary is \$174,000/ year so having a net worth this high implies accumulated and inherited wealth). A chart here shows how the wealth is distributed among Senators and Congressional Representatives. It is ironic to have these same lawmakers limiting unemployment benefits and criticizing the lowest income earners in the country during the COVID-19 pandemic. Senator Ted Cruz (R- Texas) was quoted on the television show Face the Nation, saying, “The problem is, for 68% of people receiving it right now, they are being paid more on unemployment than they made in their job. And I’ll tell you, I’ve spoken to small business owners all over the state of Texas who are trying to reopen and they’re calling their- their waiters and waitresses … they’re calling their busboys, and they won’t come back. And, of course, they won’t come back because the federal government is paying them, in some instances, twice as much money to stay home.” | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/07%3A_Representation_and_Belonging/7.03%3A_Decision-making_and_Power.txt |
Author’s Note
With the exception of brief introductory paragraphs, this section is drawn from two other openly licensed texts, demonstrating the power of shared resources.
–Elizabeth B. Pearce
We’ve spent a large portion of this chapter focused on historical and current aspects of the way social processes work in this country: the census, voting, representation, the courts and elected officials.We have attempted to uncover some of the flaws, gaps, and structures that lead to unequal representation and treatment of families. Change within these processes is possible, but sometimes challenging because the existing structures favor some groups and reinforce negative bias and inequality toward others. Working outside of the systems to push for change is an alternative for people whom the systems have marginalized.
Social Movements
A social movement may be defined as an organized effort by a large number of people to bring about or impede social, political, economic, or cultural change. Defined in this way, social movements might sound similar to special-interest groups, and they do have some things in common. But a major difference between social movements and special-interest groups lies in the nature of their actions. Special-interest groups normally work within the system via conventional political activities such as lobbying and election campaigning. In contrast, social movements often work outside the system by engaging in various kinds of protest, including demonstrations, picket lines, sit-ins, and sometimes outright violence.
Conceived in this way, the efforts of social movements amount to “politics by other means,” with these “other means” made necessary because movements lack the resources and access to the political system that interest groups typically enjoy.[1]
Sociologists identify several types of social movements according to the nature and extent of the change they seek. This typology helps us understand the differences among the many kinds of social movements that existed in the past and continue to exist today.[2]
One of the most common and important types of social movements is the reform movement, which seeks limited, though still significant, changes in some aspect of a nation’s political, economic, or social systems. It does not try to overthrow the existing government but rather works to improve conditions within the existing regime. Some of the most important social movements in U.S. history have been reform movements. These include the abolitionist movement preceding the Civil War, the women’s suffrage movement that followed the Civil War, the labor movement, the Southern civil rights movement, the Vietnam era’s antiwar movement, the contemporary women’s movement, the gay rights movement, and the environmental movement.
A revolutionary movement goes one large step further than a reform movement in seeking to overthrow the existing government and to bring about a new one and even a new way of life. Revolutionary movements were common in the past and were responsible for dramatic changes in Russia, China, and several other nations. Reform and revolutionary movements are often referred to as political movements because the changes they seek are political in nature.
Another type of political movement is the reactionary movement, so named because it tries to block social change or to reverse social changes that have already been achieved. The antiabortion movement is a contemporary example of a reactionary movement, as it arose after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized most abortions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and seeks to limit or eliminate the legality of abortion.
In Focus: Feminism and Intersectionality
While many social movements deserve attention, we would like to focus here on one social movement that emphasizes a key theme of this text: our multiple social identities and intersectionality. Women are 51% of the population in the United States[3] and have advocated for over 100 years for equality. The in-depth essay that follows is an excerpt from the text “Introduction to Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies” authored by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, and Laura Heston at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. I am very grateful to be able to use this analysis to illustrate the importance of and the It illustrates the complexity working toward equity while focused on one social characteristic (in this case, being female). How does this social movement navigate the intersections with race, ethnicity, parenthood, employee status, and sexuality? By studying the feminist movement over time, we can see the multiple dimensions, weaknesses, and strengths of communities advocating for change.
“History is also everybody talking at once, multiple rhythms being played simultaneously. The events and people we write about did not occur in isolation but in dialogue with a myriad of other people and events. In fact, at any given moment millions of people are all talking at once. As historians we try to isolate one conversation and to explore it, but the trick is then how to put that conversation in a context which makes evident its dialogue with so many others—how to make this one lyric stand alone and at the same time be in connection with all the other lyrics being sung.”
—Elsa Barkley Brown, “’What has happened here,’” pp. 297-298.
Feminist historian Elsa Barkley Brown reminds us that social movements and identities are not separate from each other, as we often imagine they are in contemporary society. She argues that we must have a relational understanding of social movements and identities within and between social movements—an understanding of the ways in which privilege and oppression are linked and how the stories of people of color and feminists fighting for justice have been historically linked through overlapping and sometimes conflicting social movements. In this chapter, we use a relational lens to discuss and make sense of feminist movements, beginning in the 19th Century up to the present time. Although we use the terms “first wave,” “second wave,” and “third wave,” characterizing feminist resistance in these “waves” is problematic, as it figures distinct “waves” of activism as prioritizing distinct issues in each time period, obscuring histories of feminist organizing in locations and around issues not discussed in the dominant “waves” narratives. Indeed, these “waves” are not mutually exclusive or totally separate from each other. In fact, they inform each other, not only in the way that contemporary feminist work has in many ways been made possible by earlier feminist activism, but also in the way that contemporary feminist activism informs the way we think of past feminist activism and feminisms. Nonetheless, understanding that the “wave” language has historical meaning, we use it throughout this section. Relatedly, although a focus on prominent leaders and events can obscure the many people and actions involved in everyday resistance and community organizing, we focus on the most well known figures, political events, and social movements, understanding that doing so advances one particular lens of history.
Additionally, feminist movements have generated, made possible, and nurtured feminist theories and feminist academic knowledge. In this way, feminist movements are fantastic examples of praxis—that is, they use critical reflection about the world to change it. It is because of various social movements—feminist activism, workers’ activism, and civil rights activism throughout the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries—that “feminist history” is a viable field of study today. Feminist history is part of a larger historical project that draws on the experiences of traditionally ignored and disempowered groups (e.g., factory workers, immigrants, people of color, lesbians) to re-think and challenge the histories that have been traditionally written from the experiences and points of view of the powerful (e.g., colonizers, representatives of the state, the wealthy)—the histories we typically learn in high school textbooks.
19th Century Feminist Movements
What has come to be called the first wave of the feminist movement began in the mid 19th century and lasted until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which gave women the right to vote. White middle-class first wave feminists in the 19th century to early 20th century, such as suffragist leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, primarily focused on women’s suffrage (the right to vote), striking down coverture laws, and gaining access to education and employment. These goals are famously enshrined in the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments, which is the resulting document of the first women’s rights convention in the United States in 1848.
Demanding women’s enfranchisement, the abolition of coverture, and access to employment and education were quite radical demands at the time. These demands confronted the ideology of the cult of true womanhood, summarized in four key tenets—piety, purity, submission and domesticity—which held that White women were rightfully and naturally located in the private sphere of the household and not fit for public, political participation or labor in the waged economy. However, this emphasis on confronting the ideology of the cult of true womanhood was shaped by the White middle-class standpoint of the leaders of the movement. As we discussed in Chapter 3, the cult of true womanhood was an ideology of White womanhood that systematically denied Black and working-class women access to the category of “women,” because working-class and Black women, by necessity, had to labor outside of the home.
The White middle-class leadership of the first wave movement shaped the priorities of the movement, often excluding the concerns and participation of working-class women and women of color. For example, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony formed the National Women Suffrage Association (NWSA) in order to break from other suffragists who supported the passage of the 15th Amendment, which would give African American men the right to vote before women. Stanton and Anthony privileged White women’s rights instead of creating solidarities across race and class groups. Accordingly, they saw women’s suffrage as the central goal of the women’s rights movement. For example, in the first issue of her newspaper, The Revolution, Susan B. Anthony wrote, “We shall show that the ballot will secure for woman equal place and equal wages in the world of work; that it will open to her the schools, colleges, professions, and all the opportunities and advantages of life; that in her hand it will be a moral power to stay the tide of crime and misery on every side.”[4] Meanwhile, working-class women and women of color knew that mere access to voting did not overturn class and race inequalities. As feminist activist and scholar Angela Davis writes, working-class women “…were seldom moved by the suffragists’ promise that the vote would permit them to become equal to their men—their exploited, suffering men.”[5] Furthermore, the largest suffrage organization, the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA)—a descendent of the National Women Suffrage Association—barred the participation of Black women suffragists in its organization.
Although the first wave movement was largely defined and led by middle class White women, there was significant overlap between it and the abolitionist movement—which sought to end slavery—and the racial justice movement following the end of the Civil War. Historian Nancy Cott[6] argues that, in some ways, both movements were largely about having self-ownership and control over one’s body. For enslaved people, that meant the freedom from lifelong, unpaid, forced labor, as well as freedom from the sexual assault that many enslaved Black women suffered from their masters. For married White women, it meant recognition as people in the face of the law and the ability to refuse their husbands’ sexual advances. White middle-class abolitionists often made analogies between slavery and marriage, as abolitionist Antoinette Brown wrote in 1853 that, “The wife owes service and labor to her husband as much and as absolutely as the slave does to his master.”[7] This analogy between marriage and slavery had historical resonance at the time, but it problematically conflated the unique experience of the racialized oppression of slavery that African American women faced with a very different type of oppression that White women faced under coverture. This illustrates quite well Angela Davis’[8] argument that while White women abolitionists and feminists of the time made important contributions to anti-slavery campaigns, they often failed to understand the uniqueness and severity of enslaved women’s lives and the complex system of chattel slavery.
Black activists, writers, newspaper publishers, and academics moved between the racial justice and feminist movements, arguing for inclusion in the first wave feminist movement and condemning slavery and Jim Crow laws that maintained racial segregation. Sojourner Truth’s famous “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech, which has been attributed to the Akron Women’s Convention in 1851, captured this contentious linkage between the first wave women’s movement and the abolitionist movement well. In her speech, she critiqued the exclusion of Black women from the women’s movement while simultaneously condemning the injustices of slavery:
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me!….I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?
Feminist historian Nell Painter[9] has questioned the validity of this representation of the speech, arguing that White suffragists dramatically changed its content and title. This illustrates that certain social actors with power can construct the story and possibly misrepresent actors with less power and social movements.
Despite their marginalization, Black women emerged as passionate and powerful leaders. Ida B. Wells , a particularly influential activist who participated in the movement for women’s suffrage, was a founding member of the National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a journalist, and the author of numerous pamphlets and articles exposing the violent lynching of thousands of African Americans in the Reconstruction period (the period following the Civil War). Wells argued that lynching in the Reconstruction Period was a systematic attempt to maintain racial inequality, despite the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 (which held that African Americans were citizens and could not be discriminated against based on their race).[10] Additionally, thousands of African American women were members of the National Association of Colored Women’s Clubs, which was pro-suffrage, but did not receive recognition from the predominantly middle-class, White National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA).
The passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 provided a test for the argument that the granting of women’s right to vote would give them unfettered access to the institutions they had been denied from, as well as equality with men. Quite plainly, this argument was proven wrong, as had been the case with the passage of the 18th Amendment followed by a period of backlash. The formal legal endorsement of the doctrine of “separate but equal” with Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, the complex of Jim Crow laws in states across the country, and the unchecked violence of the Ku Klux Klan, prevented Black women and men from access to voting, education, employment, and public facilities. While equal rights existed in the abstract realm of the law under the 18th and 19th amendments, the on-the-ground reality of continued racial and gender inequality was quite different.
Early to Late 20th Century Feminist Movements
Social movements are not static entities; they change according to movement gains or losses, and these gains or losses are often quite dependent on the political and social contexts they take place within. Following women’s suffrage in 1920, feminist activists channeled their energy into institutionalized legal and political channels for effecting changes in labor laws and attacking discrimination against women in the workplace. The Women’s Bureau—a federal agency created to craft policy according to women workers’ needs—was established in 1920, and the YWCA, the American Association of University Women (AAUW), and the National Federation of Business and Professional Women (BPW) lobbied government officials to pass legislation that would legally prohibit discrimination against women in the workplace.
These organizations, however, did not necessarily agree on what equality looked like and how that would be achieved. For example, the BPW supported the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which they argued would effectively end employment discrimination against women. Meanwhile, the Women’s Bureau and the YWCA opposed the ERA, arguing that it would damage the gains that organized labor had made already. The disagreement clearly brought into relief the competing agendas of defining working women first and foremost as women (who are also workers), versus defining working women first and foremost as workers (who are also women). Nearly a century after suffrage, the ERA has yet to be passed, and debate about its desirability even within the feminist movement continues.
While millions of women were already working in the United States at the beginning of World War II, labor shortages during World War II allowed millions of women to move into higher-paying factory jobs that had previously been occupied by men. Simultaneously, nearly 125,000 African American men fought in segregated units in World War II, often being sent on the front guard of the most dangerous missions.[11] Japanese Americans whose families were interned also fought in the segregated units that had the war’s highest casualty rates.[12][13] Following the end of the war, both the women who had worked in high-paying jobs in factories and the African American men who had fought in the war returned to a society that was still deeply segregated, and they were expected to return to their previous subordinate positions. Despite the conservative political climate of the 1950s, civil rights organizers began to challenge both the de jure segregation of Jim Crow laws and the de facto segregation experienced by African Americans on a daily basis. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954, which made “separate but equal” educational facilities illegal, provided an essential legal basis for activism against the institutionalized racism of Jim Crow laws. Eventually, the Black Freedom Movement, also known now as the civil rights movement would fundamentally change US society and inspire the second wave feminist movement and the radical political movements of the New Left (e.g., gay liberationism, Black nationalism, socialist and anarchist activism, the environmentalist movement) in the late 1960s.
Although the stories and lives of the leaders of the civil rights movement are centered in popular representations, this grassroots mass movement was composed of working class African American men and women, White and African American students, and clergy that utilized the tactics of non-violent direct action (e.g., sit-ins, marches, and vigils) to demand full legal equality for African Americans in US society. For example, Rosa Parks—famous for refusing to give up her seat at the front of a Montgomery bus to a White passenger in December, 1955 and beginning the Montgomery Bus Boycott—was not acting as an isolated, frustrated woman when she refused to give up her seat at the front of the bus (as the typical narrative goes).
According to feminist historians Ellen Debois and Lynn Dumenil, Parks “had been active in the local NAACP for fifteen years, and her decision to make this stand against segregation was part of a lifelong commitment to racial justice. For some time NAACP leaders had wanted to find a good test case to challenge Montgomery’s bus segregation in courts.”[14] Furthermore, the bus boycott that ensued after Parks’ arrest and lasted for 381 days, until its success, was an organized political action involving both working-class African American and White women activists. The working-class Black women who relied on public transportation to go to their jobs as domestic servants in White households refused to use the bus system, and either walked to work or relied on rides to work from a carpool organized by women activists. Furthermore, the Women’s Political Caucus of Montgomery distributed fliers promoting the boycott and had provided the groundwork and planning to execute the boycott before it began.
Additionally, the sit-in movement was sparked by the Greensboro sit-ins, when four African American students in Greensboro, North Carolina, sat at and refused to leave a segregated lunch counter at a Woolworth’s store in February of 1960. The number of students participating in the sit-ins increased as the days and weeks went on, and the sit-ins began to receive national media attention. Networks of student activists began sharing the successes of the tactic of the nonviolent sit-in, and began doing sit-ins in their own cities and towns around the country throughout the early 1960s.
Importantly, the sit-in movement led to the formation of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), initiated by Ella Baker shortly after the first sit-in strikes in Greensboro. The student activists of SNCC took part in the Freedom Rides of 1961, with African American and White men and women participants, and sought to challenge the Jim Crow laws of the south, which the Interstate Commerce Commission had ruled to be unconstitutional. The freedom riders experienced brutal mob violence in Birmingham and were jailed, but the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and SNCC kept sending riders to fill the jails of Birmingham. SNCC also participated in Freedom Summer in 1964, which was a campaign that brought mostly White students from the north down to the south to support the work of Black southern civil rights activists for voting rights for African Americans. Once again, Freedom Summer activists faced mob violence, but succeeded in bringing national attention to southern states’ foot-dragging in terms of allowing African Americans the legal rights they had won through activism and grassroots organizing.
SNCC’s non-hierarchical structure gave women chances to participate in the civil rights movement in ways previously blocked to them. However, the deeply embedded sexism of the surrounding culture still seeped into civil rights organizations, including SNCC. Although women played pivotal roles as organizers and activists throughout the civil rights movement, men occupied the majority of formal leadership roles in the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC), the NAACP, and CORE. Working with SNCC, Black women activists such as Fannie Lou Hamer and Diane Nash became noted activists and leaders within the civil rights movement in the early 1960s. Despite this, women within SNCC were often expected to do “women’s work” (i.e., housework and secretarial work). White women SNCC activists Casey Hayden and Mary King critiqued this reproduction of gendered roles within the movement and called for dialogue about sexism within the civil rights movement in a memo that circulated through SNCC in 1965, titled “Sex and Caste: A Kind of Memo.” The memo became an influential document for the birth of the second wave feminist movement, a movement focused generally on fighting patriarchal structures of power, and specifically on combating occupational sex segregation in employment and fighting for reproductive rights for women. However, this was not the only source of second wave feminism, and White women were not the only women spearheading feminist movements. As historian Becky Thompson[15] argues, in the mid and late 1960s, Latina women, African American women, and Asian American women were developing multiracial feminist organizations that would become important players within the U.S. second wave feminist movement.
In many ways, the second wave feminist movement was influenced and facilitated by the activist tools provided by the civil rights movement. Drawing on the stories of women who participated in the civil rights movement, historians Ellen Debois and Lynn Dumenil[16] argue that women’s participation in the civil rights movement allowed them to challenge gender norms that held that women belonged in the private sphere, and not in politics or activism. Not only did many women who were involved in the civil rights movement become activists in the second wave feminist movement, they also employed tactics that the civil rights movement had used, including marches and non-violent direct action. Additionally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964—a major legal victory for the civil rights movement—not only prohibited employment discrimination based on race, but Title VII of the Act also prohibited sex discrimination. When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)—the federal agency created to enforce Title VII—largely ignored women’s complaints of employment discrimination, 15 women and one man organized to form the National Organization of Women (NOW), which was modeled after the NAACP. NOW focused its attention and organizing on passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), fighting sex discrimination in education, and defending Roe v. Wade—the Supreme Court decision of 1973 that struck down state laws that prohibited abortion within the first three months of pregnancy.
Although the second wave feminist movement challenged gendered inequalities and brought women’s issues to the forefront of national politics in the late 1960s and 1970s, the movement also reproduced race and sex inequalities. Black women writers and activists such as Alice Walker, bell hooks, and Patricia Hill Collins developed Black feminist thought as a critique of the ways in which second wave feminists often ignored racism and class oppression and how they uniquely impact women and men of color and working-class people. One of the first formal Black feminist organizations was the Combahee River Collective, formed in 1974. Black feminist bell hooks[17] argued that feminism cannot just be a fight to make women equal with men, because such a fight does not acknowledge that all men are not equal in a capitalist, racist, and homophobic society. Thus, hooks and other Black feminists argued that sexism cannot be separated from racism, classism and homophobia, and that these systems of domination overlap and reinforce each other. Therefore, she argued, you cannot fight sexism without fighting racism, classism, and homophobia. Importantly, Black feminism argues that an intersectional perspective that makes visible and critiques multiple sources of oppression and inequality also inspires coalitional activism that brings people together across race, class, gender, and sexual identity lines.
Third Wave and Queer Feminist Movements
“We are living in a world for which old forms of activism are not enough and today’s activism is about creating coalitions between communities.”
—Angela Davis, cited by Hernandez and Rehman in Colonize This!
Third wave feminism is, in many ways, a hybrid creature. It is influenced by second wave feminism, Black feminisms, transnational feminisms, Global South feminisms, and queer feminism. This hybridity of third wave activism comes directly out of the experiences of feminists in the late 20th and early 21st centuries who have grown up in a world that supposedly does not need social movements because “equal rights” for racial minorities, sexual minorities, and women have been guaranteed by law in most countries. The gap between law and reality—between the abstract proclamations of states and concrete lived experience—however, reveals the necessity of both old and new forms of activism. In a country where women are paid only 81% of what men are paid for the same labor,[18] where police violence in Black communities occurs at much higher rates than in other communities, where 58% of transgender people surveyed experienced mistreatment from police officers in the past year,[19] where 40% of homeless youth organizations’ clientele are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender,[20] where people of color—on average—make less income and have considerably lower amounts of wealth than White people, and where the military is the most funded institution by the government, feminists have increasingly realized that a coalitional politics that organizes with other groups based on their shared (but differing) experiences of oppression, rather than their specific identity, is absolutely necessary. Thus, Leslie Heywood and Jennifer Drake argue that a crucial goal for the third wave is “the development of modes of thinking that can come to terms with the multiple, constantly shifting bases of oppression in relation to the multiple, interpenetrating axes of identity, and the creation of a coalitional politics based on these understandings.”[21]
In the 1980s and 1990s, third wave feminists took up activism in a number of forms. Beginning in the mid 1980s, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) began organizing to press an unwilling US government and medical establishment to develop affordable drugs for people with HIV/AIDS. In the latter part of the 1980s, a more radical subset of individuals began to articulate a queer politics, explicitly reclaiming a derogatory term often used against gay men and lesbians, and distancing themselves from the gay and lesbian rights movement, which they felt mainly reflected the interests of White, middle-class gay men and lesbians. As discussed at the beginning of this text, queer also described anti-categorical sexualities. The queer turn sought to develop more radical political perspectives and more inclusive sexual cultures and communities, which aimed to welcome and support transgender and gender non-conforming people and people of color. This was motivated by an intersectional critique of the existing hierarchies within sexual liberation movements, which marginalized individuals within already sexually marginalized groups. In this vein, Lisa Duggan[22] coined the term homonormativity, which describes the normalization and depoliticization of gay men and lesbians through their assimilation into capitalist economic systems and domesticity—individuals who were previously constructed as “other.” These individuals thus gained entrance into social life at the expense and continued marginalization of queers who were non-White, disabled, trans, single or non-monogamous, middle-class, or non-western. Critiques of homonormativity were also critiques of gay identity politics, which left out concerns of many gay individuals who were marginalized within gay groups. Akin to homonormativity, Jasbir Puar coined the term homonationalism, which describes the White nationalism taken up by queers, which sustains racist and xenophobic discourses by constructing immigrants, especially Muslims, as homophobic.[23] Identity politics refers to organizing politically around the experiences and needs of people who share a particular identity. The move from political association with others who share a particular identity to political association with those who have differing identities, but share similar, but differing experiences of oppression (coalitional politics), can be said to be a defining characteristic of the third wave.
Another defining characteristic of the third wave is the development of new tactics to politicize feminist issues and demands. For instance, ACT UP began to use powerful street theater that brought the death and suffering of people with HIV/AIDS to the streets and to the politicians and pharmaceutical companies that did not seem to care that thousands and thousands of people were dying. They staged die-ins, inflated massive condoms, and occupied politicians’ and pharmaceutical executives’ offices. Their confrontational tactics would be emulated and picked up by anti-globalization activists and the radical Left throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Queer Nation was formed in 1990 by ACT UP activists, and used the tactics developed by ACT UP in order to challenge homophobic violence and heterosexism in mainstream US society.
Around the same time as ACT UP was beginning to organize in the mid-1980s, sex-positive feminism came into currency among feminist activists and theorists. Amidst what is known now as the “Feminist Sex Wars” of the 1980s, sex-positive feminists argued that sexual liberation, within a sex-positive culture that values consent between partners, would liberate not only women, but also men. Drawing from a social constructionist perspective, sex-positive feminists such as cultural anthropologist Gayle Rubin[24] argued that no sexual act has an inherent meaning, and that not all sex, or all representations of sex, were inherently degrading to women. In fact, they argued, sexual politics and sexual liberation are key sites of struggle for White women, women of color, gay men, lesbians, queers, and transgender people—groups of people who have historically been stigmatized for their sexual identities or sexual practices. Therefore, a key aspect of queer and feminist subcultures is to create sex-positive spaces and communities that not only valorize sexualities that are often stigmatized in the broader culture, but also place sexual consent at the center of sex-positive spaces and communities. Part of this project of creating sex-positive, feminist and queer spaces is creating media messaging that attempts to both consolidate feminist communities and create knowledge from and for oppressed groups.
In a media-savvy generation, it is not surprising that cultural production is a main avenue of activism taken by contemporary activists. Although some commentators have deemed the third wave to be “post-feminist” or “not feminist” because it often does not utilize the activist forms (e.g., marches, vigils, and policy change) of the second wave movement,[25] the creation of alternative forms of culture in the face of a massive corporate media industry can be understood as quite political. For example, the Riot Grrrl movement, based in the Pacific Northwest of the US in the early 1990s, consisted of do-it-yourself bands predominantly composed of women, the creation of independent record labels, feminist ‘zines, and art. Their lyrics often addressed gendered sexual violence, sexual liberationism, heteronormativity, gender normativity, police brutality, and war. Feminist news websites and magazines have also become important sources of feminist analysis on current events and issues. Magazines such as Bitch and Ms., as well as online blog collectives such as Feministing and the Feminist Wire function as alternative sources of feminist knowledge production. If we consider the creation of lives on our own terms and the struggle for autonomy as fundamental feminist acts of resistance, then creating alternative culture on our own terms should be considered a feminist act of resistance as well.
As we have mentioned earlier, feminist activism and theorizing by people outside the US context has broadened the feminist frameworks for analysis and action. In a world characterized by global capitalism, transnational immigration, and a history of colonialism that has still has effects today, transnational feminism is a body of theory and activism that highlights the connections between sexism, racism, classism, and imperialism. In “Under Western Eyes,” an article by transnational feminist theorist Chandra Talpade Mohanty,[26] Mohanty critiques the way in which much feminist activism and theory has been created from a White, North American standpoint that has often exoticized “3rd world” women or ignored the needs and political situations of women in the Global South. Transnational feminists argue that Western feminist projects to “save” women in another region do not actually liberate these women, since this approach constructs the women as passive victims devoid of agency to save themselves. These “saving” projects are especially problematic when they are accompanied by Western military intervention. For instance, in the war on Afghanistan, begun shortly after 9/11 in 2001, U.S. military leaders and George Bush often claimed to be waging the war to “save” Afghani women from their patriarchal and domineering men. This crucially ignores the role of the West—and the US in particular—in supporting Islamic fundamentalist regimes in the 1980s. Furthermore, it positions women in Afghanistan as passive victims in need of Western intervention—in a way strikingly similar to the victimizing rhetoric often used to talk about “victims” of gendered violence (discussed in an earlier section). Therefore, transnational feminists challenge the notion—held by many feminists in the West—that any area of the world is inherently more patriarchal or sexist than the West because of its culture or religion through arguing that we need to understand how Western imperialism, global capitalism, militarism, sexism, and racism have created conditions of inequality for women around the world.
In conclusion, third wave feminism is a vibrant mix of differing activist and theoretical traditions. Third wave feminism’s insistence on grappling with multiple points-of-view, as well as its persistent refusal to be pinned down as representing just one group of people or one perspective, may be its greatest strong point. Similar to how queer activists and theorists have insisted that “queer” is and should be open-ended and never set to mean one thing, third wave feminism’s complexity, nuance, and adaptability become assets in a world marked by rapidly shifting political situations. The third wave’s insistence on coalitional politics as an alternative to identity-based politics is a crucial project in a world that is marked by fluid, multiple, overlapping inequalities.
This unit has developed a relational analysis of feminist social movements, from the first wave to the third wave, while understanding the limitations of categorizing resistance efforts within an oversimplified framework of three distinct “waves.” With such a relational lens, we are better situated to understand how the tactics and activities of one social movement can influence others. This lens also facilitates an understanding of how racialized, gendered, and classed exclusions and privileges lead to the splintering of social movements and social movement organizations. This type of intersectional analysis is at the heart not only of feminist activism but of feminist scholarship. The vibrancy and longevity of feminist movements might even be attributed to this intersectional reflexivity—or, the critique of race, class, and gender dynamics in feminist movements. The emphasis on coalitional politics and making connections between several movements is another crucial contribution of feminist activism and scholarship. In the 21st century, feminist movements confront an array of structures of power: global capitalism, the prison system, war, racism, ableism, heterosexism, and transphobia, among others. What kind of world do we wish to create and live in? What alliances and coalitions will be necessary to challenge these structures of power? How do feminists, queers, people of color, trans people, disabled people, and working-class people go about challenging these structures of power? These are among some of the questions that feminist activists are grappling with now, and their actions point toward a deepening commitment to an intersectional politics of social justice and praxis.
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
“Social movements” is adapted from “Understanding Social Movements” in Sociology by anonymous. License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Adaptations: Edited for brevity and clarity.
“Introduction: Feminist movements” is from “Historical and Contemporary Feminist Social Movements” in Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, Laura Heston, Sonny Nordmarken. License: CC BY 4.0.
Figure 7.18. “Clampdown, We are the 99%” by Glenn Halog. License: CC BY-NC 2.0.
Figure 7.19. “Votes for Women’ sellers, 1908” by LSE Library. Public domain.
Figure 7.20. “Ida B. Wells Barnett” by Mary Garrity. Public domain.
Figure 7.21. “Photograph of Rosa Parks with Dr. Martin Luther King jr. (ca. 1955)” by USIA. Public domain.
Figure 7.22. “Ella Baker” by The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. License: CC BY 3.0
Figure 7.23. “Freedom Riders attacked” by Tommy Langston, Birmingham Post-Herald/FBI. Public domain.
Figure 7.24. “bell hooks” by Cmongirl. Public domain.
Figure 7.25. “ACT UP Demonstration at NIH” by NIH History Office. Public domain.
Figure 7.26. “ACT UP Demonstration on the lawn of Building 1” by NIH History Office. Public domain.
1. Gamson, W. A. (1990). The strategy of social protest (2nd ed.). Wadsworth. ↵
2. Snow, D. A., & Soule, S. A. (2010). A primer on social movements. W. W. Norton. ↵
3. US Census. (2020, April 29). Age and sex composition in the United States: 2019 [table]. Retrieved August 6, 2020, from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2...mposition.html
4. As quoted in Davis, A. (1981). Working women, Black women and the history of the suffrage movement, in A. Avakian and A. Deschamps (Eds.) A Transdisciplinary Introduction to Women’s Studies (pp. 73-78). Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, p. 73. ↵
5. Davis, A. (1981). Working women, Black women and the history of the suffrage movement, in A. Avakian and A. Deschamps (Eds.) A Transdisciplinary Introduction to Women’s Studies (pp. 73-78). Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, pp. 74-75. ↵
6. Cott, N. (2000). Public vows: A History of marriage and the nation. Harvard University Press. ↵
7. As quoted in Cott, N. (2000). Public vows: A History of marriage and the nation. Harvard University Press, p. 64. ↵
8. Davis, A. (1983). Women, race, class. Random House. ↵
9. Painter, N. (1996). Sojourner Truth: A life, a symbol. W.W. Norton. ↵
10. Wells, I. B. (1893). Lynch law. https://digital.library.upenn.edu/wo...sition.html#IV
11. Zinn, H. (2003). A people’s history of the United States: 1492-present. HarperCollins. ↵
12. Odo, F. (2017). How a segregated regiment of Japanese Americans became one of WWII’s most decorated. New America.https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/edition-150/how-segregated-regiment-japanese-americans-became-one-wwiis-most-decorated/ ↵
13. Takaki, R. (2001). Double victory: A multicultural history of America in World War II. Back Bay Books. ↵
14. Debois, E. & Dumenil, L. (2005). Through women’s eyes: An American history with documents. St. Martin Press, p. 576. ↵
15. Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second wave feminism, Feminist Studies 28(2): 337-360. ↵
16. Debois, E. & Dumenil, L. (2005). Through women’s eyes: An American history with documents. St. Martin Press. ↵
17. hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center (2nd ed.). South End Press. ↵
18. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, November). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2018. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/wom.../2018/home.htm
19. James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Ana , M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://www.transequality.org/sites/...port-FINAL.PDF
20. Durso, L.E., & Gates, G.J. (2012). Serving Our youth: Findings from a national survey of service providers working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/80x75033
21. Heywood, L. and J. Drake. (1997). Third wave agenda: Being feminist, doing feminism. University of Minnesota Press, p. 3. ↵
22. Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In R. Castronovo & D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing democracy (pp. 175-194). Duke University Press. ↵
23. Puar, J. (2007). Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Duke University Press. ↵
24. Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance, (Ed)., Pleasure and danger. Routledge ↵
25. Sommers, C. H. (1994). Who stole feminism? How women have betrayed women. Doubleday. ↵
26. Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In d. C. T. Mohanty, A. Russo, & L. Torres (Eds.), Third world women and the politics of feminism. Indiana University Press ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/07%3A_Representation_and_Belonging/7.04%3A_Working_Outside_of_the_System-_Social_Movements_and_Activism.txt |
People who have experienced marginalization in this country continue to work to raise their families, ensure their children have better lives, and toward equity. We have attempted to demonstrate this via the analysis of the feminist movement and the ways it intersects with other needs and activism.
The nation is focused on the Black Lives Matter social movement in 2020. Black people have been actively seeking change for hundreds of years. We have described some of those changes in the voting section. The year 2020 saw increased activity both amongst Black people and among individuals who are not Black. Nationally there is increased understanding of the discrimination and bias that Black people continue to experience. This is a time of enlightenment and understanding, and rapid change and we encourage readers to continue to understand how past and current practices affect the experiences of Black and multi-racial families.
One aspect of the current Black Lives Matter movement is the increased involvement of people from other races and ethnicities. Listen here to one young Korean American’s experience with speaking up.
Allyship is critical to changing systems of bias, discrmination, and the corresponding privilege that other groups experience. The focus of the story should continue to be Black individuals who have experienced ongoing systemic harm to their families. They have continued to advocate for understanding of their experience, representation, belonging, and an equal opportunity to participate in society and institutions.
You have likely heard of Dr. Martin Luther King Junior’s “I Have Dream” speech delivered in Washington, D.C. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963. Maybe you have heard these famous lines,
I say to you today, my friends [applause], so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow (Uh-huh), I still have a dream. (Yes) It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. (Yes)
I have a dream (Mhm) that one day (Yes) this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed (Hah): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” (Yeah, Uh-huh, Hear hear) [applause]
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia (Yes, Talk), the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream (Yes) [applause] that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice (Yeah), sweltering with the heat of oppression (Mhm), will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream (Yeah) [applause] that my four little children (Well) will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. (My Lord) I have a dream today. [enthusiastic applause]”
You can watch the whole speech here, with subtitles (although there are occasional places where the audio has been lost).
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=615
It’s worth reading and listening to, and reflecting on your viewpoint about whether and how the country has progressed and changed since this speech in 1963. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/07%3A_Representation_and_Belonging/7.05%3A_Looking_Ahead.txt |
This chapter was created with selected essays by three student authors: Alexis Castenada-Perez, Christopher Byers, and Carla Medel. The balance of the book consists of either collaborative writing among student authors and myself or my individual writing based on substantive brainstorming and research conducted by the research librarian, Michaela Willi-Hooper, the student authors, and myself. But when it comes to justice, I wanted you to read directly the words of students and what matters to them. Going forward, I will add to this chapter with additions by other students. You will read my introduction and then each of the individual students will speak to a meaningful aspect of justice, their experience writing the text, and their developing understanding of social justice.
–Elizabeth B. Pearce
Preview Questions
1. How is justice typically defined? How does it apply to families in the United States?
2. How do race, ethnicity, gender, immigration and socioeconomic status intersect to create differing experiences with justice?
3. What do the founding documents of our country tell us about justice?
4. In what ways has your family experienced justice and injustice? What topics would you add to this chapter?
8.02: Justice
It’s up to all of us—Black, white, everyone—no matter how well-meaning we think we might be, to do the honest, uncomfortable work of rooting it out. It starts with self-examination and listening to those whose lives are different from our own. It ends with justice, compassion, and empathy that manifests in our lives and on our streets. –Michelle Obama, J.D.
Your social identity affects your experience with justice, how you understand what justice is, and how you will respond to this chapter, and this textbook, which is written with an equity lens. It is appealing to think that we live in a country where every family has equitable access to opportunity, representation, and justice, but we must recognize the ways in which justice is distributed unevenly. Justice is typically defined as equal access or opportunity, equal treatment, and equal rights.
It is the intent of this chapter, and of this text, to uncover the ways in which representation and justice contribute to inequity in family experiences in the United States. When we talk about families, we are moving far beyond the social construction of the typical family and the ways that government and other institutions define “family” for taxes, health care, and other legal rights and responsibilities. We are including all the ways that people define their own families. It is our aspirational goal to inspire readers to understand injustice more deeply and to advocate and contribute to changes toward greater equity for families in the United States.
The Social Construction of Justice and Criminality
Flowing from the representation via elected officials is the common law system of justice generally in use in the United States. Common law (aka case law) is law that is derived primarily from the court system, meaning that when a case is tried and decided in a court it can affect civil law, those laws that are created by governing bodies such as state legislatures and the federal congress.
The level a particular court holds will affect whether counties, states, or the whole country will see a change in law based on the decision. Who makes those court decisions? While juries are involved in some cases, judges are the ultimate arbiters, as they make many decisions before a case even appears before a jury, as well as decisions all along the way about what evidence, witnesses, and motions will be allowed. Many cases are decided by a single judge or a panel of judges, without a jury. This is true to the United States Supreme Court, the Regional Appeals Courts, and many lower-level courts. Who judges are, their experiences, their beliefs, and their backgrounds have a big impact on all citizens of the United States. Judges in the United States must meet requirements such as having a Juris Doctorate (law degree), passing the bar exam, and practicing law. Judges may be elected or appointed depending on the governing regulations of the county, state, circuit, or federal system. Appointments are made by elected officials (e.g. the President of the United States appoints federal justices and then The Senate must confirm that appointment in order for it to be official). As you can see, the system of common law comes back to elected officials, and participation of residents in the United States.
We will discuss the social construction of justice and criminality in the United States, and we will include aspects of the court system, the government, and the criminal justice system for our examples. If you would like to more clearly understand the structure and interrelationships of these systems, these openly licensed and free texts are useful:
Like every system created by human beings, the justice system, and what is considered to be criminal, is a social construction. We have created and defined structures, roles, and institutions that we tacitly agree to abide by. Ideas such as “justice” “rehabilitation,” “debt to society,” and “criminality” all have definitions that have changed over time and location. For example, let’s look briefly at the plant marijuana which is frequently dried to be smoked, has oil extracted, or is otherwise ingested or applied. Is it a valuable medicine? Is it an illegal drug? Is it bad for you? Is it a comparable form of recreation to alcohol? Is it an essential service in the time of COVID-19? Are you a criminal if you use it? The answers to these questions vary based on location (federal, state, and county laws) and over time. They vary based on your profession and employer. Currently, it is legal in 33 states to use marijuana for medical purposes, and it is also legal for recreational purposes in 11 states, including Oregon.[1] But its use is also considered to be criminal; cannabis over 0.3% THC continues to be completely illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The increased legislative activity around marijuana between 2009 and the present day illustrates the very complicated relationship between federal and state governments and that the social construction of marijuana is in contention. For recent history and up-to-date changes, consult the Cannabis in the United States Wikipedia page here. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/08%3A_Justice/8.01%3A_Author%27s_Note_and_Preview_Questions.txt |
Preface
As a psychology major, I was surprised to find myself contributing and writing for an HDFS open textbook. “What does any of this have to do with the human psyche?” was something I was asking myself before I started research and writing. While we learned of intersectionality in HDFS 201, I didn’t really start to fully grasp the concept until I started writing for this project. It’s not just sociology and psychology that comes into play when we talk about social justice, but instead a strong cooperation of multiple disciplines are involved in understanding how inequality and injustice occur. Everything is connected whether we realize it or not.
After the events that happened during the spring and summer of 2020, it feels very gratifying to try and help educate others on topics and ideas that I myself didn’t fully understand when I began writing. I don’t necessarily consider myself a great writer, but challenging myself to do this project has only made me a better student. If there’s anything that I would like for someone to take away from this reading it’s this: for some, it is easy to deny that many of the ideas discussed (such as intersectionality and institutional racism) exist. Human civilization and society stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Many modern institutions and values in the United States were founded on the antiquated idea that those pertaining to a certain class and race were superior to others. Context matters and it shouldn’t be ignored.
With that being said, I want to thank everyone who collaborated on this project for being some of the most open-minded and friendly people I’ve met!
Following is a series of short essays that explore various groups who experience injustice and the ways that social identities overlap with the justice system.
What does Justice look like?
The last few words of the United States Pledge of Allegiance are “with liberty and justice for all.” It’s part of our nation’s identity. The unfortunate reality is that our justice system wasn’t ever made to be fair. The first form of police in the southern part of the United States were slave patrols.[1] Their purpose was to capture escaped enslaved people, to prevent further escape, and to discipline those enslaved. For hundreds of years in the United States the justice system’s job was to enforce the idea of White supremacy, and to limit the rights of women and people of color. This can be seen in Supreme Court cases such as Dredd Scott Vs Sanford, where the Supreme Court ruled that anyone with African ancestry could never become a citizen of the United States, and therefore not be able to sue in federal court. The Supreme Court also seized this opportunity to rule that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. This meant that the federal government couldn’t prevent slavery in certain territories. This decision was unsurprising to many Americans, because seven of the nine Supreme Court justices at the time of the Dredd Scott decision had been appointed by pro-slavery presidents.[2] Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who authored the majority opinion for the Dredd Scott case, wrote in reference to the legal status of African Americans, “They are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”[3]
While there may not be laws, rules, and regulations that explicitly target people of color (POC) today, there do exist many that their entire origins are based on racism and prejudice (See Housing Chapter: Redlining). In many cases, those whose duty is to exercise the law simply choose to ignore crimes that are being committed against POC. For example: 37 percent of cases involving missing/disappeared Native American women are dismissed by the US Attorney’s Office.[4] To learn about the search for missing and murdered Indigenous women, listen to this 1A podcast.
This is a pattern that goes back to at least the 1920s when local law enforcement neglected to properly investigate murdered Native Americans during the infamous Osage Indian Murders. The Osage Indian Murders show one of the more blatant attempts of a government trying to circumvent justice in order to oppress and marginalize a group of minorities. The Osage people of Kansas were relocated to a reservation in Oklahoma around 1870. It later became known that the Osage reservation is located on top of one of the largest oil deposits in the country. As a result of this, the Osage people saw an extraordinary increase in wealth. The United States Congress eventually passed a law requiring a guardian to assume control of every Osage’s finances until they were deemed ‘competent’. The guardians were of course always White males, who usually didn’t have the best interests of the Osage in mind, often defrauding them.
“Justice” Depends on Race
There currently exists a disparity in the United States that has been rapidly increasing particularly within the last two decades. African Americans face harsher punishments than a White person would for committing the exact same crime. If you compared the sentence of a Black person and a White person for a similar crime, Black people serve sentences around 19% longer than White people do on average. Not only do Black people serve longer sentences, but the more Afrocentric features someone has the more likely they are to be sentenced to death.[5] This recent disparity while having many causes, can largely be attributed to the Supreme Court ruling on the case of United States vs Booker. The Supreme Court ruled that judges didn’t have to strictly adhere to mandatory sentencing regulations that were created in 1984 under the Sentencing Reform Act, a bipartisan bill that aimed to increase fairness and consistency of sentences (whether this reform actually worked could be debated as well, because the Reagan administration doubled down on Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’ during his presidency; the policies introduced during this time disproportionately targeted POC). Instead, the federal government found that the United States vs Booker ruling actually has been counterproductive to the Sentencing Reform Act, and actually created more sentences inconsistent with regulations, and a greater racial disparity as well.[6] Since judges can use the regulations as just advisory, their biases and preconceived notions of people of color have a much larger role in the sentencing of minorities than they did before 1984.
The War on Drugs
Originally coined by former president Richard Nixon, “the War on Drugs” was first started as a campaign by the Nixon administration. Although it wasn’t known as “the War on Drugs” until 1971, drug reform in the United states dates back many years all the way to the beginning of the 20th century when the first drug prohibition policies were being passed. The Harrison Narcotics Tax of 1914 was one of the first federal laws to regulate drugs.[7] On paper the aims of the Nixon campaign were to try and shrink the drug trade in the United States and prevent new addicts through various policies,[8] which includes the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and giving increased funding to law enforcement agencies (LEA) to actively seek out drug charges. Drug crime was so low on the priority list for most LEAs when the ‘war’ started, that many agencies did not try to enforce the new policy. To try and get all LEA to participate in the war, the federal government provided them with a few incentives. Firstly, they could compete to receive federal cash grants. This allowed many agencies to expand their number of officers and to start a new narcotics task force in order to increase the number of arrests. Simply put, more arrests and convictions equals more money for the agency. In addition to giving money to LEA, the federal government also provided cooperating agencies with Intelligence, special training, and equipment in order to carry out the war. To top it all off the government let agencies keep almost all of the money that they seized in drug raids.[9] Overall this system has led to issues such as the militarization of the police and an increase of POC in prison for nonviolent crimes. Even one of Richard Nixon’s own aides has admitted that the War on Drugs was used as a means to incarcerate Black people.
The Militarization of Police
As a direct result of the War on Drugs, the police in the United States are given more freedom and weaponry than ever before. Concerns have been raised recently regarding what is called “Warrior Culture” that is present in many police departments, where officers are encouraged to take a “warrior’s mindset” This sometimes is in contrast to academy training and is instead encouraged by fellow officers, but not always. The warrior mindset can also be understood as an “Us vs Them” form of thinking. Police are being taught that they live in a hostile environment that is out to get them.[10] Rookie officers are told constantly that their lives are in danger and that they should be scared or else they could die. Many departments say that their first and immediate goal is to make sure officers are unharmed and get home safely; this tends to foster fear in officers and causes overestimation of danger. As a result, officers are more likely to treat ordinary citizens as a threat and to escalate the situation entirely. This counter-intuitively raises the risk of death for both police officers and citizens. In order to benefit our communities to the best of their ability, police must work closely with the communities that they are serving. A heavily armed and paranoid police force does not mesh well with people who are growing ever more distrustful of police. For many decades national confidence and trust in the police have remained at around 60%[11]. Unsurprisingly trust and confidence for the police are much lower in minority communities. African Americans’ trust of the police sits at just 31%.[12][/footnote] While minority communities could greatly benefit from a well-trained police presence, they are often disproportionately arrested, harassed, disrespected, and made victims of police brutality.
Police Brutality
“… the senseless acts of killings of these young boys out there … This is reality, this is my world, this is what I talk about in my music. You can’t delude that. Me being on a cop car, that’s a performance piece after these senseless acts … Hip-hop is not the problem. Our reality is the problem of the situation. This is our music. This is us expressing ourselves.” – Kendrick Lamar to TMZ
During the 2015 BET awards Kendrick Lamar performed his hit song “Alright” off of his album To Pimp a Butterfly, whose lyrics have been praised by critics for being politically-charged and a socially relevant commentary on the struggles of the modern African American. At some point in the performance, Lamar stood on top of a police car that has been vandalized, a symbolic statement for many viewers showcasing his support for those protesting the killing of unarmed Black men and condemning the police for their actions. In 2014 and 2015 many high profile cases of police brutality emerged. To name a few: Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Walter Scott, and Freddie Gray. There were over 1,059 known police killings in the United States in 2014,[13]many of whom were unarmed. It was during this year that the Black Lives Matter movement gained large traction. Lamar faced backlash from those critical of the Black Lives Matter movement. Lyrics such as “… and we hate po-po, wanna kill us dead in the streets fo-sho” got the attention of Fox News pundit Geraldo Rivera, who said “This is why I say that hip-hop has done more damage to young African-Americans than racism in recent years. This is exactly the wrong message.” Lamar responded by saying “Hip-hop is not the problem. Our reality is the problem of the situation. This is us expressing ourselves.”
People of Color are more likely than White people to be victims of police brutality, African American men, American Indian/Alaskan Native women, and Latino men to be more specific. African American men are the most likely out of all races to be victims. Black men face a 1 in 1000 chance of being killed by police throughout their lifetime.[14] The blame for all of this is all too often placed on minorities. Kendrick Lamar’s words are affirming for many young people. Lamar’s words still ring true today. With the recent death of George Floyd as well as Breonna Taylor, the United States has seen a surge of protest across all 50 states.[15] There are many parallels that can be drawn from the civil rights movement of the 1960’s as well as the 1992 Los Angeles riots, but there is also unique history happening right in front of our eyes. With the relatively recent rise of smartphone cameras, people can now capture police brutality with relative ease, as well as being able to upload it straight to the internet as it happens. While some would hurry to dismiss the problem of police abusing their power as just ‘ a few bad apples,’ we can now see that police brutality isn’t a rare or isolated incident. There is a clear pattern of abuse, one that has been occurring in this country for centuries. It is clear that police brutality is a systemic problem in the United States.
Gender, Underrepresentation, and Intersectionality
With many of the high profile cases of police brutality being about men, women of color are often forgotten in the discussion. Due to this there unfortunately are not many studies particularly focusing on the experiences of minority women. The most oppressed voices are usually the least heard. Women of color are at the intersection of gender and race and are victims of police violence just as much as men of color. Physical violence isn’t the only way women suffer at hands of the police, they are also more likely to face sexual assault as well. Sexual assault is the second most reported form of police misconduct in the United States.[16][17] Transgender women are most vulnerable to sexual violence by the police. Fifteen percent of transgender women report being sexually assaulted while in police custody, while African American transgender women report an astounding 32% assault rate.[18] Some of these instances of sexual violence occur during ‘searches’ where officers look for narcotics or other paraphernalia. Black men are also often victims of police sexual violence as well.[19]During an investigation by Associated Press News on police sexual misconduct, it was discovered that over 1,000 police officers lost their jobs over a six-year period for sex-related crimes. [20] The Say Her Name movement was started to bring light to the issues women of color face. We can quickly see a pattern forming. The more instances of intersectionality in your life, the more likely you are to be a victim of violence and systematic oppression.
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
Figure 8.7. Kendrick Lamar by Andrew Stephenson for The Come Up Show. License: CC BY-ND 2.0.
1. Potter, G. The history of policing in the United States. EKU Online. https://plsonline.eku.edu/sites/plso...cing-in-us.pdf
2. PBS. (n.d.). Dred Scott's fight for freedom. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html
3. Brewer, R. M., & Heitzeg, N. A. (2008). The racialization of crime and punishment: Criminal justice, color-blind racism, and the political economy of the prison industrial complex. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(5), 625–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207307745
4. National Indian Council on Aging. (2019, January 21). Inadequate data on missing, murdered indigenous women and girls. https://www.nicoa.org/inadequate-dat...men-and-girls/
5. United States Sentencing Commission. (2017, November). Demographic differences in sentencing: An update to the 2012 Booker Report. www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...mographics.pdf ↵
6. Department of Justice. (2006, March 15). The impact of United States v. Booker on federal sentencing [fact sheet]. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/...Fact_Sheet.pdf
7. PBS. Opium through history. Frontline. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...c/history.html
8. Nixon, R. M.(1971, June 17). President Nixon declares "war on drugs." The American Presidency Project. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science...ares-war-drugs
9. Alexander, M. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New Press. ↵
10. Stoughton, S. (2015, April 10). Law enforcement’s “warrior” problem. Harvard Law Review, 128(6). https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04...rrior-problem/
11. Tyler, T. R. (2011). Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the Usa and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811411462
12. [footnote]Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271105
13. Mapping Police Violence. About the data. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2020 from https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/aboutthedata
14. Edwards, F., Lee, H., & Esposito, M. (2019). Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(34), 16793–16798. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1821204116
15. Burch, A. D. S., Cai, W., Gianordoli, G., McCarthy, M., & Patel, J. K. (2020, June 13). How Black Lives Matter reached every corner of America. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...h=login-google
16. Bennett, K. (2018, June 14). Say her name: Recognizing police brutality against Black women. ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-l...-against-black
17. National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project. (2010). Police misconduct statistical report. CATO Institute. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/...D/AJUD338L.pdf
18. Office of Justice Programs. (2014, June). The numbers. https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xy...l_numbers.html
19. Chan, S. (2007, August 9). The Abner Louima case, 10 years later. New York Times. https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...0-years-later/
20. Sedensky, M. (2015, October 31). Hundreds of officers lose licenses over sex misconduct. AP News. https://apnews.com/fd1d4d05e561462a85abe50e7eaed4ec | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/08%3A_Justice/8.03%3A_The_Intersectionality_of_Justice.txt |
Preface
I always thought of myself as someone who has been the underdog in life. From my sister’s death, to homelessness to drug addiction, I thought I had it worse than anyone in the world. My negative experiences played a role in shaping my belief systems about myself and the world around me and in a way, encapsulated my thinking by keeping me “unique.” But then, that all began to change for me. It all started with a class. A Human Development and Family Sciences class at LBCC, where I was introduced to a concept that altered my perception of the world and how I fit into it in a significant way. I began to learn how maybe after all these years of believing I had a hard life and everyone had it easy, this was not the case. I learned about concepts such as “Privilege,” Sociological Imagination, Equity, Social Constructivism, and many other concepts like those that helped me to slowly and sometimes painfully open my eyes to the reality of life. When I learned about Privilege, I had the hardest time wrapping my head around that one. Me, someone whose sister died, experienced homelessness and drug addiction be privileged? I thought at first that it didn’t apply to me. But through much internal reflection and writing and processing with people in my life and with my professor, I began to slowly understand what Privilege means. That concept alone was a catalyst for me to dive further into researching injustice in the U.S., and really inspired me to do a lot of deep reflective work on my own social identity and what it means to be who I am in the United States. This work has become some of the most important work I have ever done in my life, I see it as a path of healing not only for myself, but for many of us who choose to seek it.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Humans have been ingesting drugs for thousands of years. And throughout recorded time, significant numbers of nearly every society on earth have used one or more drugs to achieve certain desired physical or mental states. Drug use comes close to being a universal, both worldwide and throughout history. –Sociologist Erich Goode
To the extent that social inequality, social interaction, and drug culture contribute to substance use, it is a mistake to contribute substance use only to biological and psychological factors. While these factors do play a role, it would be a mistake to ignore the social environments in which people participate in substance use. The role that the family plays in substance abuse potential in members is vastly underlooked. Weak family bonds and school connections are often seen as a major role in the development of substance use in adolescents. Weak bonds to family members prompt adolescents to be less likely to conform to conventional norms and more likely to engage in using drugs and other deviant behavior. Healthy family bonds, coping with trauma, learning how to identify feelings, and open communication all play a positive role in the reduction and prevention of potential substance use of family members in the future.
Mental Health
So what exactly is Mental Health? And how is it defined today? Well, first, lets shine a brief but illuminating light on its history in the U.S. The mentally ill have been treated very poorly for hundreds of years. In the 1800s, It was believed that mental illness was caused by demonic possession, witchcraft, or an angry god. For example, in medieval times, abnormal behaviors were viewed as a sign that a person was possessed by demons. Actually, most people who displayed abnormal behavior were viewed as being possessed by demons. This was not an uncommon societal belief in the 1700s. The idea that mental illness was the result of demonic possession by either an evil spirit or an evil god incorrectly attributed all inexpiable phenomena to deities deemed either good or evil.[1] As a result of these prevailing theories of psychopathology, derived from folklore and inadequate scientific beliefs, these systems are still perpetuated today. Although science has shed a light to a better understanding of mental health, it is still common for stigma, discrimination, and ignorance to be the deciding factors in how people with mental health are cared for and treated.
Psychological disorders are very common in the U.S, yet there is still a great deal of inequity that encompasses mental health issues. Stigma, labeling, ignorance, discrimination and judgement are all still very prevalent and harsh realities in our society today. The biological, sociological, physiological and cultural determinants of mental health disorders vary from case to case and most mental health issues are still often difficult to understand, since the roots of mental illness are often misunderstood. We mentioned the DSM-5 earlier, which is another tool that psychologists and psychiatrists and CADC counselors (Drug and Alcohol Counselors) often use to diagnose mental health and substance use disorders. Our society has made a lot of progress in understanding how some operate, but we still have a ways to go until we as a society can see mental health through a collective, compassionate lens. It is important to remember that those who struggle with psychological disorders are not their disorder. It is something they have, through no fault of their own. As with cancer and diabetes, these people who have psychological disorders often suffer from debilitating, often painful conditions through no choice of their own. These individuals deserve to be treated and viewed with compassion, dignity, and understanding.
Substance Abuse
So what exactly is the relationship between substance abuse and mental health? Substance abuse and mental health are interconnecting and overlapping systems. There has been years and years of stigma, discrimination, and misunderstanding with people who both have mental health issues and substance abuse issues. Many people who suffer from substance abuse often have undealt-with trauma, depression, anxiety, and environmental and genetic factors that contribute to the use of substances as a way to self-medicate and cope with how they feel, regardless of the negative consequences that might happen as a result of using. For example, conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder are strongly associated with the development of both substance use and serious mental illness such as major depression and bipolar disorder. Some substance abuse use can even mimic mental health issues, and are quite difficult to diagnose without dealing with the substance abuse issues first. Psychopharmacological reactions to withdrawal can also induce psychiatric symptoms and exacerbate underlying mental health issues for people as well.
Mental health issues are interconnected with substance abuse. Most people who practice counseling often deal with the substance abuse issues with a client and then proceed to determine if that individual is suffering from mental health issues after the substance abuse is addressed.
Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and the Criminalization of Drugs
Although slavery has been abolished, and the Jim Crow Laws are no longer legal, the systems that have oppressed people of color and marginalized communities from 300 years ago are perpetuated still to this day. It can be argued that the criminal justice system and the legislation and policies that were created to punish drug users and drug crimes were designed to perpetuate discrimination and oppression of people of color at disproportionate rates.
A significant aspect of the “War on Drugs,” which was a piece of legislation that disproportionately affected people of color in the United States. It imposed mandatory minimum sentencing laws that sent non-violent drug offenders to prison, rather than enrolling them in treatment programs. Seventy percent of inmates in the United States are non-White—a figure that surpasses the percentage of non-Whites in US society, which is approximately 23%, according to the 2015 US census. That means that non-White prisoners are far over-represented in the US criminal justice system. The United States has the highest incarceration rates for drug-related crimes. This figure based on the article “The Black/White marijuana arrest gap, in in nine charts,” demonstrates the implicit bias our justice system still has for people of color in the United States.
It is a very sad and common societal view that addicts and substance abuse users as lesser human beings, a lower standard of individual than the rest of society. This is known as stigma. This overarching and negative view on people who struggle with substance abuse plays a role in the passing of policies and criminalization of millions of people every year in the United States, most importantly, affecting families of color. When people of color are targeted for nonviolent drug-related crimes, they are more likely to receive harsher punishments than White people. This has absolutely deleterious consequences for people of color and their families, with the head of households usually being the ones who receive these harsher punishments.
Women of color have been arrested at rates far higher than White women, even though they use drugs at a rate equal to or lower than White women. Furthermore, according to Bureau of Justice statistics from 2007, nearly two-thirds of US women prisoners had children under 18 years of age. Before incarceration, disproportionately, these women were the primary caregivers to their children and other family members so the impact on children, families, and communities is substantial when women are imprisoned. Finally, inmates often engage in prison labor for less than minimum wage. When these individuals are incarcerated, corporations contract prison labor that produces millions of dollars in profit. Therefore, the incarceration of millions of people artificially deflates the unemployment rate (something politicians benefit from) and creates a cheap labor force that generates millions of dollars in profit for private corporations. How do we make sense of this? What does this say about the state of democracy in the United States? When seen through an equity lens, we can establish some interesting points. One is that the rates that people of color and White people use drugs are about the same, but one important factor plays a role in the disproportionate rates that POC are incarcerated. This is implicit bias. People have subconscious ideas about who uses drugs in the United States. These ideas are based on false narratives derived from implicit biases that perpetuate the inequitable incarceration of people of color. And two, the war on drugs focused and funneled money into the punishment of and incarceration for drug-related offenses.
A question to ponder is this: What would society look like if instead of punishment and criminalizing drug use and drug users, we used that money to focus on treatment, recovery centers, and social services?
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
Figure 8.8. “One and Other-Mental Health” by Feggy Art. License: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
Open Content, Original
Figure 8.9. “Arrest Rates for Marijuana Possession by Race (2001-2010)”. License: CC BY 4.0. Data source: FBI/Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data and U.S. Census Data compiled by the Washington Post.
1. Lumen Learning. (n.d.). The state, law, and the prison system. Retrieved September 3, 2020, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/su...prison-system/ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/08%3A_Justice/8.04%3A_Treatment_Jail_or_Justice.txt |
Preface
Now going into my last year in undergrad and looking into graduate school for programs in counseling, specifically designed for children and families, I would like to thank Liz for allowing me to be a part of this project. It has been one of the best experiences so far in my academic career. I think that at first it doesn’t really make sense as to why I would be so passionate about something like this but I’ll explain. All I have ever wanted is to see myself reflected in the things that I partake in, part of that being academic materials. As a Latinx woman and daughter of immigrants, I have never really gotten that and it can truly take a toll on the way you view yourself and your people.
Because of the privilege I have of being able to make it into higher ed and be a part of this project I wanted to use that to write about people like me, my parents and my family so that more children don’t see themselves as an ‘other,’ a little section of the text that no one really goes over. Things haven’t been and aren’t fair for those who identify as immigrants, but people like me have been a part of the United States before this land was even named and we are here to stay so it’s time for our stories to be told too. Here I’d like to explain several of the laws that affect not just families like mine, but tangentially all families in the United States.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals aka DACA
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, better known as DACA is a policy created under the Obama administration on June 15, 2012, and it officially started to accept applications on August 15, 2012. Individuals who meet the following criteria are eligible for DACA:
• are under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012;
• came to the U.S. while under the age of 16;
• have continuously resided in the U.S. from June 15, 2007, to the present;
• entered the U.S. without inspection or fell out of lawful visa status before June 15, 2012;
• were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making the request for consideration of DACA with USCIS;
• are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces;
• have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors of any kind; and
• do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.
Applicants will have to provide evidence of the above criteria. In addition, every applicant must complete and pass a biographic and biometric background check. An applicant who is granted DACA is not considered to have legal status but will not be deemed to be accruing unlawful presence in the U.S. during the time period when their DACA is in effect. DACA allows for individuals to live in the U.S. without fear of deportation and with work authorization. DACA is temporary as it only lasts 2 years; every 2 years the individual will need to reapply which means submitting an application, getting biometrics done, and paying a fee of 495 dollars.
At its peak there were up to about 800,000 people who were DACA recipients but those numbers dramatically declined during the Trump Administration, due to fear of what would happen to the DACA program. The number of people on DACA now is closer to 600,000 total.
DACA has been on the line since Donald Trump took presidency, having DACA recipients live in limbo unsure of what their future will look like. Even after waiting years for the Supreme Court to make a decision on DACA during this presidency, that decision is not being respected. The Supreme Court decided in July of 2020 that Donald Trump’s decision to rescind DACA was made without the proper steps and because of that DACA should have been restored to its original form, meaning open to new applicants and advanced parole, a special permit for international travel, available but this is not the case. We thought we had a win but not soon after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new memorandum limiting the DACA program. This memorandum eliminates DACA eligibility for applicants who have not received DACA in the past, stating that all initial requests will be rejected. It also eliminates the possibility for DACA recipients to be granted advance parole and lastly, requests for renewal, was changed from a two-year period to a one-year period.[1] Not even the highest of courts has been able to protect these young dreamers.
Here is one of many stories from the website of the National Immigration Law Center.[2]
Esmeralda
I am a current DACA recipient. Given that I am a member of a multi–[immigration] status family, DACA has allowed me to do more for my family, financially and emotionally.
In regards to education, DACA gave me access to the resources I could never afford prior. Having to experience these hardships, I dedicated my life to support the diverse population of students in California, from pre-K to higher education.
DACA allowed me to complete my A.A. and transfer to a four-year institution. I was finally able to complete my bachelor’s degree. After ten long years, this past May, I graduated with a master’s and would love to continue on to a Ph.D.
DACA gave me access to a humane job with a living wage. DACA allowed me to have a driver’s license. Having an actual identity in this country gave me life. I could live without my everyday fear of being deported or having to drive without a license.
DACA gave me access to open a bank account with a credit line, and I would love to one day do something with that credit, like invest in the country I consider my home: the U.S.
DACA changed my life for the best: being able to legally drive, travel to other states in the country, finish my degrees, have a fulfilling job, and give back to my community.
Most importantly, DACA gave me life.
Dream Act
The Dream Act[3] was a bill brought forward in 2017 which also, unfortunately, died that same year. This is what most Dreamers (young undocumented immigrants) are fighting for. This bill would provide Dreamers protection from deportation and an opportunity to obtain legal status if they meet certain requirements.
The Dream Act would create a conditional permanent resident status valid for up to eight years for young undocumented immigrants that would protect them from deportation, allow them to work legally in the U.S., and permit them to travel outside the country. To qualify for conditional permanent resident status, young undocumented immigrants would need to meet the following requirements:
• Through documentation described in the bill, establish that they were brought to the U.S. at age 17 or younger and have lived continuously in the U.S. for at least four years prior to the bill’s enactment;
• Pass a government background check, demonstrate “good moral character” with no felony or multiple misdemeanor convictions, submit biometric and biographic data and undergo a biometric and medical exam;
• Demonstrate they have been admitted to a college or university, have earned a high school diploma, or are in the process of earning a high school diploma or an equivalent; and
• Pay a fee.[4]
The bill would automatically grant conditional permanent resident status to DACA recipients who still meet the requirements needed to obtain DACA. Conditional permanent resident status can be changed to lawful permanent resident status by:
• Maintaining continuous residence in the U.S.;
• Meeting one of the following three requirements:
1. Completion of at least two years of military service,
2. Graduation from a college or university or completion of at least two years of a bachelor’s or higher degree program in the U.S., or
3. Employment for a period totaling at least three years;
• Demonstrating an ability to read, write and speak English and an understanding of American history, principles, and form of government;
• Passing a government background check, continuing to demonstrate “good moral character” without felony or multiple misdemeanor convictions, submitting biometric and biographic data and undergoing a biometric and medical exam; and
• Paying a fee.
The Legal Process
“Just come here legally” is one of my most disliked phrases because the process to do so is not as easy as the general public thinks. Immigrants just like everyone else seek out to move because where they currently are isn’t providing them what is needed to succeed. Unlike here in the United States, they cannot just move from one state to another to seek out those opportunities, as they do not exist there either, instead they need to leave the country. Some people have the time and money needed to try and apply for a visa or have a family member who is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident sponsor them to become a legal permanent resident and are able to come to the United States that way. This could take anywhere from 6 to 28 years and will cost anywhere from \$750 to \$1,225,[5] so it’s obvious that there could be a lack of the money needed to take this route and even worse for others their current situation might be more urgent, and they don’t have the time to wait. If legal immigration was easy, accessible, and fast, it’s very unlikely that people would risk their lives entering the United States without documentation and living in the United States without documentation.
Licenses and Attributions
All Rights Reserved Content
“Esmeralda” (c) National Immigration Law Center. Used under fair use.
Figure 8.10. “The Legal Process” (c) Terry Colon, Mike Flynn, Shikha Dalmia, Reason Magazine. Used under fair use.
Figure 8.11. “Rest in Power” boxes (c) @unitedwedream. Arranged by Carla Medel. Used under fair use.
1. National Immigration Law Center. Immigrant Legal Resource Center. (2020, August). DACA frequently asked questions. DHS July 2020 memorandum. https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/f...ugust_2020.pdf
2. National Immigration Law Center. (n.d.) Stories in defense of deferred action for childhood arrivals. https://www.nilc.org/issues/daca/dac...rsary-stories/
3. National Immigration Forum. (2017, July 21). Dream Act of 2017 bill summary. https://immigrationforum.org/article...-bill-summary/
4. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2020, August 12). Green card eligibility categories. Retrieved September 20, 2020 from https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/gre...ity-categories
5. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2020, May 15). I-485, Application to register permanent residence or adjust status. Retrieved September 20, 2020 from https://www.uscis.gov/i-485 | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/08%3A_Justice/8.05%3A_Real_laws_real_families.txt |
There is a great deal of discussion in this country about the politics, legality, and ethics of our immigration practices. In this text we discuss some of the aspects that directly affect immigrant families and their descendants who are living in the United States right now. As discussed in the Social Constructions chapter, laws have primarily been designed to foster inexpensive labor (the immigrants) to benefit the existing landowners, business owners, and consumers already residing in the country. Regardless of employment status, wage, and purpose for coming to this country, these families have the same needs as other residents. In addition, they are navigating new structures such as the health care and insurance system, differing government practices, and perhaps a new language at the same time as they are caring for their children, accessing schooling, finding a place to live, and fostering healthy family routines.
The authors view all families, regardless of documentation status, as “contemporary families in the United States”, the subjects of this course and this textbook. We believe that the well-being of each family in the U.S. is of value in and of itself. In addition, every family affects all the other families within the spheres of the neighborhood, the places of worship, the retail establishments, schools, parks, and employment. As we discuss the laws that affect immigrant families, and the ways in which employment and citizenship practices reflect a lack of justice, think about these families’ needs and rights just as you would for any other family.
It is not only laws that work institutionally to foster immigration, but also businesses and corporations. In this excerpt of an article from The Conversation, applied research demonstrates how undocumented labor practices are encouraged.
A Preference for the Undocumented
by Lise Nelson, Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and Associate Professor of Geography, Pennsylvania State University
My colleagues and I have conducted research in U.S. communities where undocumented Latino immigrants live and work, including interviews with their employers. We focused on small businesses in rural Colorado and Georgia. We investigated how and why entrepreneurs in construction, landscaping and low-wage service industries began actively seeking to hire undocumented Latino immigrants starting in the mid-1990s even though immigrant workers were largely absent from these places prior to that time.
What started for many as a short-term solution to fill a labor gap turned into a preference for hiring undocumented workers. Recruitment efforts thus intensified, causing a significant growth in the Latino immigrant population in both places. In a rural Georgia county, the Latino population increased 1,760 percent between 1990 and 2010, due to the increase in these recruitment efforts by businesses involved in construction, landscaping, cleaning and food provision.
Why did businesses that rely on low-wage workers develop a preference for immigrants and particularly undocumented ones?
In interviews, employers describe the undocumented Latino immigrants they hire as among the most reliable, honest and hardworking employees they have ever had. As one Georgia employer described it:
“I think about, if I had to get rid of the nine Hispanics that I’ve got tomorrow and replace them with locals, to get the same amount of output, I would have to hire fifteen instead of nine and I’d probably have to pay them \$1 an hour more each, and that figures up quick. And there’s sometimes that you just can’t find people to do the work.”
Most employers we interviewed began by the late 1990s to organize their businesses around the productivity and discipline offered by an undocumented immigrant workforce.
When we talk about how immigrant families affect other families in the United States we must understand that immigrant families are deeply interwoven into communities, schools, for-profit businesses, services, and all aspects of society. Kinship groups themselves can be mixed, made up of recent immigrants, second-generation citizens, indigenous, and citizens whose families have lived in the United States for hundreds of years. It’s difficult to unwind the complexity of these relationships, but it is critical to understand that we are intertwined and to continue to educate ourselves about these economic, familial, and societal relationships.
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
“A Preference for Undocumented” is from “Trump’s wall ignores the economic logic of undocumented immigrant labor” by Lise Nelson in The Conversation. License: CC BY-ND 4.0.
Figure 8.12. “Vietnamese members speak to Representative Gerry Pollett” by OneAmerica. License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Figure 8.13. “Quilt – stars and interwoven steps” by Ramson. License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/08%3A_Justice/8.06%3A_Real_needs_all_families.txt |
As you read this chapter, consider the following questions:
1. How is the production of food tied to equity?
2. What role do government crop subsidies play in nutrition?
3. What role do tax breaks and food banks play in food insecurity?
4. How do food costs and the poverty line interact?
5. What influences a family’s food purchases? How does what you’ve read relate to your own family’s experience with food?
6. What are the factors that affect a family’s access to safe water and sanitation?
7. What role does the government play in the water and sanitation system?
8. Are safe water and sanitation a human right?
9.02: Food
“I have the audacity to believe that people everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
Survivalists have a rule of three: you can survive without food for three weeks, without water for 3 days, without shelter from a harsh environment for 3 hours, and without air for 3 minutes.[1] If a human goes without any of these resources for a long enough time, death will eventually be the result. It stands to reason that when we talk about American families’ needs we would talk about all of these; in this chapter we will look at both food and water.
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory (1943) describes these physiological needs as being a key motivator in human behavior.[2] Obtaining food, water, shelter, sleep and oxygen to survive consumes a large amount of our time and resources both directly and indirectly. Think about how much time your family spends working to pay for food. In general, families pay a smaller percentage of their income for food than they did 50 years ago. That’s not because food expenses have decreased, but because other costs, primarily shelter and health care, have increased. We discuss shelter (housing and living environments) in the Housing chapter. Now consider your family’s access to water. While we may not think about paying for it as a percentage of our incomes, access to plentiful, clean, safe water is influenced by where we live. The financial resources that are invested into our community infrastructure which includes water and sanitation, impact our safety and overall health. Where we live matters when it comes to having available and safe water.
Personal finances are only one part of the cost, benefits, and societal dynamics that play into meeting these basic needs. We must pay attention to where foods come from, business and government investment in food production, and the business of food charity. Time is another cost of food; families decide how much time is spent purchasing, preparing, eating, and cleaning up meals. Turning on a faucet to access clean, toxin free drinking water requires building, maintaining, and monitoring water and sanitation systems, and this comes at a cost that not all municipalities can afford. While the federal government has invested in water infrastructure, there is not an ongoing commitment, so these needs must be balanced with competing needs such as schools, parks, police, and libraries. There are variations and influences on how food and water needs are met, but ultimately they must be met in some way.
Producing Food
Prior to the formation of the United States, families found food in a variety of ways including foraging, hunting, fishing, and growing food. As the country progressed toward a formal organizational structure managed by the Euro-American settlers Native Americans were restricted to designated reservations, often on land that was not as fertile for farming. Food production via farms became a major economic factor. Industrialization created more efficiencies and more wealth for landowners.
It is important to note that these new ways of sourcing food would not have been possible without three institutional structures:
1. Oppression of the way of life that Native Americans had established here for thousands of years;
2. Enslavement of African immigrants brought to this country for the explicit purpose of free labor without attention to their rights and needs;
3. Laws that controlled immigrants from other countries by limiting who could immigrate by gender, familial, and employment status; laws that discriminate based on nationality and immirgration status related to wage, housing options, and kind of employment.
These structures affected the functionality of all families in the United States, favoring White families, especially those who owned land. Which of these structures affect families today? If you answered all three, you are correct. Native Americans are still fighting for rights related to their family needs that have been disrupted and restricted; the aftereffects of slavery including the restrictions of wealth attainment on Black people affects both the families who were able to accumulate wealth and the ones who were not; and current immigration laws still place the needs of the employers first.
Black Farmers
Black farmers in America have had a long and arduous struggle to own land and to operate independently. For more than a century after the Civil War, deficient civil rights and various economic and social barriers were applied to maintaining a system where many Blacks worked as farm operators with a limited and often total lack of opportunity to achieve ownership and operating independence. Although some formerly enslaved people were deeded land in the famous “Forty Acres and a Mule” division of lands in 1868, the same land was later deeded back to the original Confederate owners and the Black families became sharecroppers rather than owners. Other Black farm owners saw their properties diminished throughout the 20th century as described in this fifteen-minute video.
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=714
These personal stories help us understand how families that worked hard still were treated unjustly. Black farmers often ended up working for landowners once again. Even as employees they received less protection than factory and office workers. When Social Security and Unemployment laws meant to protect workers were passed,they excluded people who worked on farms or as domestic help, of which the majority were immigrants and minoritized groups, including African Americans. Diminished civil rights also limited collective action strategies, such as cooperatives and unions.
It is tempting to think that these past laws and practices do not affect us today. Many of the structures survive, however, in both subtle and obvious ways. In addition, because these structures limited access and land ownership in proximity to the vital resources of food and water, Euro-Americans were able to build wealth more quickly and easily than any other group of families. We discuss the institutional factors related to housing, location and wealth in the Housing chapter.
Farm and Field Workers
Farm workers are and have been an essential part of the United States economy and food system. They come in varying immigration statuses, United States citizens or residents, folkx on guest worker visas, or they could be undocumented workers. The following USDA table describes the demographic characteristics of farm workers in the United States in 2018 from the USDA, collected from data on the American Community Survey (part of the Census project). The data shows that about 55% of farm laborers are born in countries other than the United States.
Demographic Characteristics of Farm Workers in the United States in 2018[3]
Note: Counts all private sector wage and salary workers employed in the crop, livestock, and agricultural support industries.
Item Farm laborers, graders and sorters Farm managers, inspectors, and supervisors All other occupations in agriculture Agriculture: All occupations All U.S. private wage and salary workers
Percent female 25 13 32 26 45
Average age in years 39 43 42 40 40
Percent under age 25 22 13 15 19 18
Percent over age 44 38 46 47 41 41
Percent married 47 61 52 51 48
Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry
Percent White, not Hispanic 32 64 59 43 60
Percent Black, not Hispanic 3 3 5 3 12
Percent other, not Hispanic 2 3 3 2 9
Percent Hispanic: Mexican origin 57 27 28 45 12
Percent Hispanic: Other 7 3 6 6 7
Percent born in U.S. (includes Puerto Rico) 45 76 75 57 80
Percent U.S. citizens 54 84 83 65 90
Education
Percent lacking high school diploma 48 24 20 38 9
Percent with high school diploma (includes equivalency) 32 31 33 32 29
Percent with at least some college 20 45 47 30 62
Differences in demographics are also evident between crop and livestock workers (not shown in table). A larger share of laborers in crops and related support industries are female (28 percent versus 20 percent in livestock). Crop laborers are also less likely to be non-Hispanic White (25 percent versus 48 percent for livestock), and less likely to have been born in the United States (39 percent for crop workers in manual labor occupations versus 60 percent for manual livestock workers). Finally, crop laborers have lower levels of educational attainment: 52 percent lack a high school degree, compared with 37 percent in livestock.
Notably, the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), discussed below, finds larger shares of foreign-born, Hispanic, and less educated employees among crop and support workers than does the ACS (livestock workers are not surveyed in NAWS). For example, NAWS estimates that in Fiscal Years 2015-16, just 25 percent of crop farm workers in manual labor occupations were U.S. born, compared with 39 percent in the ACS.
Since this data is gathered from a written survey related to the Census, it is important to note that there is likely some underreporting from groups that are the hardest to reach, including people of color, children under five, renters, immigrants, people with limited English proficiency, multiple-family homes, Native tribal and urban communities, disabled people, people who distrust the government, and LGBTQ individuals. This is discussed at length in the Representation chapter.
The survey also tells us that the average age for farmworkers is on the rise and more likely to be female. Younger immigrants are less likely to go into farm work than into other professions, so the population is aging. It is hypothesized that as men move toward agricultural employment (rather than working with crops) and there is increased machine usage, women are moving into these jobs.
Immigrants, especially those who are not yet documented, or who live in mixed-status families are more likely to experience poor treatment and be less likely to complain about bad work conditions.
Field Workers
By Carla Medel, Bachelor’s Degree candidate: Psychology with Spanish and HDFS minors, Oregon State University, 2021.
103 degrees Fahrenheit, picking zucchini, I turn to the sound of “water, water, we need water!” and to the woman with the purple bandana and a hurt shoulder on the ground; she had fainted of dehydration. She sits underneath a tree for 15 minutes with a bottle of water that one of our coworkers was able to give her and before I even know it, she is back on the field picking zucchini along my side.
That afternoon as I made my way home, I could not help but to begin crying out of frustration. I was only 16 but I knew that what I had just witnessed was not correct. Feeling hopeless, the next day I no longer wanted to go back to work. What I did instead, was go grocery shopping with my mom. When we headed to produce, and I saw people grabbing zucchini the tears came again. They did not know what those .76¢ zucchini really cost. This is my story, but this is definitely not a unique one. Immigrant farm workers in the United States are treated terribly and with little to no protection, others are ready to take advantage.
Food Factory Workers
The recent Coronavirus pandemic has brought necessary attention to the important function of meat production and the preservation of fruits and vegetables in factories. The federal government has determined them to be essential workers. Many of these workers are immigrants and people of color.
The authors of this text plan to elaborate on this group of families in future editions of the text. For now, this podcast which highlights the experience of a mother supporting a family of five who works in the Smithfield pork plant in South Dakota illustrates the dilemmas an essential worker faces.
Procuring Food
We’ll discuss getting food, and what causes some families to be hungry, or the more technical term, “food insecure”. We acknowledge that food insecurity is a symptom of another social problem, poverty. First, let’s look at some of the systems that affect food availability in the United States.
Equitable access to food is hampered by governmental systems that focus on subsidizing specific farm crops. Federal government subsidies help farmers reduce their risk due to weather, commodities brokers, economic downturns, and changes in demand. There are only five crops that receive these major government subsidies: corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. Producers of fruit, vegetables and meat only benefit from crop insurance and disaster relief.[4] Farm subsidies have increased dramatically in the last four years, totaling \$28 billion dollars for a two year period (2018-2020, not including the additional Coronavirus payments authorized in the spring of 2020).[5] This incentivizes the production of certain crops in the United States. and provides stability for the families involved in producing those crops.
It is more complicated to measure the effects of these subsidies on consumers. We know that these subsidized food crops (corn, soybeans, wheat and rice) are more easily stored and utilized in processed foods, which nutritionists advise should be eaten in the smallest amounts. Crops in their raw forms, such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, meat, and dairy products provide more health benefits but are not subsidized consistently by the government. Here we may deduce that governmental subsidies of less healthy crops contributes to food availability and cost, affecting food purchases. Lower income families and those living in food deserts (described in the next section) are most affected.
Another challenge to food accessibility is the societal approach which focuses on governmental programs (such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–SNAP, which will be described later) and charity, which in itself has become a business. Grocery stores and other businesses are provided with tax benefits when they overproduce food and donate it to food banks. Andy Fisher, the author of Big Hunger, describes hearing from grocery store owners who acknowledge the overproduction of sheet cakes, birthday cakes, pastries, and other baked goods. Consumers do not wish to purchase the last cake on the shelf, and so stores overproduce these items. When they are no longer considered fresh, they are donated to food banks. This is one of the reasons that about 25% of the donations that Food Banks give away food that is categorized as unhealthy.[6]
Not only is overproduction of food is supported by tax deductions, but food banks themselves have become multi-million dollar businesses (also described in the above podcast). Food banks serve a charitable purpose that meets an immediate and important need. At the same time, if the real problem–poverty–were addressed, people could have the dignity of providing and choosing the food that is best for their own family.
Poverty affects Americans of every racial-ethnic group, including those descended from European immigrants, but continues to affect the previously mentioned groups (Native Americans, Black or African Americans, and people descended from Latinx and some Asian countries) in disproportionately larger numbers.[7] The United States is an individualistic country and people are sometimes blamed for being poor. This makes the problem of hunger more approachable than the problem of poverty. It is encouraging to note, however, that Americans increasingly understand that poverty stems not from personal shortcomings but from differentiation in circumstance and opportunity. Pew Center survey results released in March 2020 note that almost ⅔ of American adults say that people who are rich have experienced more advantages than those who are poor; only ⅓ say that it is because rich people have worked harder. These viewpoints are uneven related to political affiliation and age with Democrats and younger people more likely to hold the majority view.[8] If more people view poverty as a social problem than a personal problem, it is more likely to be solved with a systemic solution.
Food Deserts
Perhaps you are familiar with this term, or have lived in a food desert. If you travel by bicycle or via public transport you may be more aware of food deserts in your community. Food deserts are geographic locations where there is not a variety of healthy food readily available (within a mile in urban environments or within 10-20 miles in a rural area.) Food deserts occur nationally, with a greater concentration of food deserts in the midwest and southern states.
Think about the community that you live in. Where are the grocery stores? Convenience stores don’t count, because they do not typically have fresh fruits and vegetables. Are the stores even spaced out amongst the neighborhoods? Probably not, and typically the dearth of stores is in lower income neighborhoods. The same parts of Portland, Oregon that are identified as redlined neighborhoods in the Housing chapter are also food deserts. The Oregon State (OSU) Barometer wrote about food deserts in Corvallis in 2019, pointing out that the majority of grocery stores in Corvallis are clustered around Ninth Street and Walnut Boulevard.[9] Two of the four stores that are more distantly spaced are among the healthiest, emphasizing organic produce and natural foods, but also the most expensive.
What if there were federal funding to support equitable distribution of grocery stores that had a full selection of healthy foods? In the same way that federal subsidies protect farmers of selected crops from economic problems, they could protect grocery businesses in the same way and create greater equity for many consumers.
To learn more about food deserts, or to access an interactive map that displays different ways of viewing food deserts read NPR’s article “How to find a food desert near you” and follow the link to the USDA’s Food Atlas.
The Poverty Line and Food Costs
How is poverty defined? While there are multiple measures, a common and shared one is the Poverty Threshold, also known as the Poverty Line. While poverty will affect all of the families related to all of the topics in this text, we will discuss it here because it was originally tied to the cost of food, specifically an “economy food plan”. In 1963 the poverty line was designated at three times the economy food plan and assumed, “that the housewife will be a careful shopper, a skillful cook, and a good manager who will prepare all the family’s meals at home.”[10]
When US officials became concerned about poverty during the 1960s, they quickly realized they needed to find out how much poverty we had. To do so, a measure of official poverty, or a poverty line, was needed. A government economist, Mollie Orshanky, first calculated this line in 1963 by multiplying the cost of a very minimal diet by three, as a 1955 government study had determined that the typical American family spent one-third of its income on food. Thus a family whose cash income is lower than three times the cost of a very minimal diet is considered officially poor.
This way of calculating the official poverty line has not changed since 1963, although the amount is adjusted by inflation. It is thus out of date for many reasons. For example, many expenses, such as heat and electricity, child care, transportation, and health care, now occupy a greater percentage of the typical family’s budget than was true in 1963. In addition, this official measure ignores a family’s non cash income from benefits such as food stamps and tax credits. As a national measure, the poverty line also fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living. All these problems make the official measurement of poverty highly suspect. As one poverty expert observes, “The official measure no longer corresponds to reality. It doesn’t get either side of the equation right—how much the poor have or how much they need. No one really trusts the data.”[11]
This is a good time to ask yourself, if looked at food as a percentage of your budget, would it be the equivalent of 33%? That’s how the poverty line is still calculated.
The poverty line is adjusted annually for inflation and takes into account the number of people in a family: The larger the family size, the higher the poverty line. In 2010, the poverty line for a nonfarm family of four (two adults, two children) was \$22,213. A four-person family earning even one more dollar than \$22,213 in 2010 was not officially poor, even though its “extra” income hardly lifted it out of dire economic straits. Poverty experts have calculated a no-frills budget that enables a family to meet its basic needs in food, clothing, shelter, and so forth; this budget is about twice the poverty line. Families with incomes between the poverty line and twice the poverty line (or twice poverty) are barely making ends meet, but they are not considered officially poor.
When we talk here about the poverty level, then, keep in mind that we are talking only about official poverty and that there are many families and individuals living in near poverty who have trouble meeting their basic needs, especially when they face unusually high medical expenses, motor vehicle expenses, college debt, or the like. For this reason, many analysts think families need incomes twice as high as the federal poverty level just to get by.[12] They thus use twice-poverty data (i.e., family incomes below twice the poverty line) to provide a more accurate understanding of how many Americans face serious financial difficulties, even if they are not living in official poverty.[13]
Food Security and Food Insecurity
Identified in 1995 as a measurable problem, the USDA introduced new language to describe ranges of severity of food insecurity in 2006. The methods used to assess households’ food security remained unchanged. Here are the current definitions of food security and food insecurity.
Food Security
• High food security (old label=Food security): no reported indications of food-access problems or limitations.
• Marginal food security (old label=Food security): one or two reported indications—typically of anxiety over food sufficiency or shortage of food in the house. Little or no indication of changes in diets or food intake.
Food Insecurity
• Low food security (old label=Food insecurity without hunger): reports of reduced quality, variety, or desirability of diet. Little or no indication of reduced food intake.
• Very low food security (old label=Food insecurity with hunger): Reports of multiple indications of disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.[14]
According to the USDA, hunger “… refer(s) to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation.” Nationally food insecurity has been a problem as long as it has been measured and the rate has changed very little; the number of food insecure families was 12% in 1995 and was still 11.1% in 2018. Let’s look more closely at Oregon where food insecurity has been one of the toughest challenges to overcome. According to the Oregon Public Health Division, Oregon ranks 13th in the nation for food insecurity among children, and 21st for adults. While efforts have been made to combat hunger in Oregon, it is still a big problem for the state. According to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, more than one in seven of Oregon households were food insecure between 2014 and 2016.[15] Renters in Oregon had food insecurity rates as high as one in four between 2015-2017.[16]
The Oregon Center for Public Policy says that over 527,000 people in Oregon suffer from food insecurity.
[17] To put that into perspective, the population of Portland, our largest city is around 647,800 people. Overall, minorities and single mothers are disproportionately impacted by food insecurity; food insecurity is strongly linked to socioeconomic status.
While there are programs to help families who are food insecure, there are still families who are food insecure who do not qualify for any food assistance.
Food Insecurity at Linn-Benton Community College
In a recent survey conducted by the HOPE Center at Temple University, LBCC was one of 400 community colleges queried about food and housing insecurity over the past five years. Linn-Benton Community College students participated in 2019, the fifth year of the study. The survey was sent to 5,700 students and 558 students responded.
A surprising 48% of students reported experiencing food insecurity within the last 30 days, slightly higher than the nation-wide average of community college students.
Sixty-six% of the students that participated in the survey reported experiencing either food insecurity, housing insecurity, or homelessness within the past year.[18]
Here is how LBCC students responded when asked whether they had experienced any of the following items in the last 30 days.
Food stamps: SNAP
Many people in the United States rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to provide food for their families. SNAP is a federal program that in some states is supplemented with local funds whose goal is to supplement nutrition and the food budget of families who are moving toward self-sufficiency. According to the 2018 American Community Survey, 12.4% of people in the United States use food stamps and the majority of those families have at least one person working, with ⅓ of recipients having two family members working.[19] Oregon has one of the highest usage rates in the country at a rate of fourteen percent. Here you can see a map of SNAP usage across the country.
In 2019 President Trump proposed dramatic cuts and restrictions to the food stamp program. The rule was finalized by the administration in 2020, but a federal judge blocked its implementation in March 2020 due to the coronavirus epidemic. Between May and July 2020 the USDA appealed this judgement. While the SNAP program is currently unchanged, if the proposedwork restrictions go into effect, it is estimated that about 700,000 people will lose benefits.[20]
Even without these changes, people on SNAP are having trouble meeting ends meet. Many people find themselves stuck in a seemingly endless cycle of poverty, despite striving for self-sufficiency. Listen here to a three minute summary of an interview with a woman in 2000 when she used food stamps and then re interviewed in 2012.
Fraud is often mentioned as a concern when it comes to food stamps, but when recipient and vendor fraud is totaled it is estimated at less than one percent of all funds disbursed. That means that more than 99% of the funds are used correctly.[21] The USDA maintains a webpage that reports on their efforts to stop fraud and to recoup delinquent funds. These authors advocate for the focus to shift toward solving the social problems of poverty and hunger, rather than letting the small amount of fraud distract the country from these efforts.
People struggling to feed themselves and their families face other challenges as well. Accepting governmental assistance and charity is stigmatized. Some families feel too embarrassed to seek or accept needed resources. Constant stress related to food insecurity and choosing which bills to pay contributes to mental health challenges. Do you or someone you know have experience with using SNAP? Click here to read Voices From ‘Hunger In Oregon’ for short descriptions from Oregonians who have used this program.
What are families eating and why?
Hearing the phrase “you are what you eat” might conjure a distinct image in a person’s mind. This phrase is often associated with encouraging a healthy diet to promote an individual’s overall well-being. Yet, food is not only a form of sustenance, but it is also used to communicate culture as well as a way of forming social ties and communicating love.
It is important to recognize the multi-dimensional influence food has on family life, and therefore how it can impact families in various ways. In this chapter we have focused on the ways that institutional forces and family social class shape access to food. Let’s spend a little time here on other factors that affect food choices; this text will explore more aspects of food and family in the Routines, Traditions, and Culture chapter.
Early food experiences
The way our family approaches food when we are children affects us the rest of our lives. What we eat matters, as do the social aspects of meals. Some families eat meals together; others eat their meals individually in front of devices. People who were not exposed to a variety of foods as children, or who were forced to swallow every last bite of overcooked vegetables may make limited food choices as adults. Children who do not have practice socializing during meals may not develop social skills or understand dining table social norms.
Habits
It can be easy to establish a habit around things we do each day. For example, having a dessert can become a habit. Having a snack after school or a drink with dinner can develop into a habit. Healthy habits such as “an apple a day” can be developed as well and may require intention on the part of the individual.
Culture
The culture in which one grows up affects how one sees food in daily life and on special occasions. Food and family recipes are important ways to transmit culture across families and from generation to generation. Traditions and celebrations often include food.
Geography
Where a person lives influences food choices. For instance, people who live in Midwestern US states have less access to fresh seafood than those living along the coasts.
Advertising
The media greatly influences food choice by persuading consumers to eat certain foods. Have you ever found yourself suddenly hungry after watching an advertisement for the local pizza place The media affects both when we eat and what we eat.
Social factors
Any school lunchroom observer can testify to the impact of peer pressure on eating habits, and this influence lasts through adulthood. People make food choices based on how they see others and want others to see them. For example, individuals who are surrounded by others who consume fast food are more likely to do the same.
Health concerns
Some people have significant food allergies, to peanuts for example, and need to avoid those foods. Others may have developed health issues which require them to follow a low salt or gluten free diet. In addition, people who have never worried about their weight have a very different approach to eating than those who have long struggled with excess weight.
Emotions
There is a wide range in how emotional issues affect eating habits. When faced with a great deal of stress, some people tend to overeat, while others find it hard to eat at all.
Green food/Sustainability choices
Based on a growing understanding of diet as a public and personal issue, more and more people are starting to make food choices based on their environmental impact. Realizing that their food choices help shape the world, many individuals are opting for a vegetarian diet, or, if they do eat animal products, striving to find the most “cruelty-free” or sustainable options possible. Purchasing local and organic food products and items grown through sustainable means also helps shrink the size of one’s dietary footprint.
Religion and Belief Systems
People design their diets for various reasons, including religious doctrines, health concerns, ecological and animal welfare concerns. For example, Jewish people may observe kosher eating practices and Muslim people fast during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar.[22]
Knowledge
Knowledge about healthful foods and calorie amounts affect food choices. This can be gained through family, peer, or media influence. Cooking knowledge is impactful. For example, knowing how to hydrate dried beans or prepare fresh vegetables could increase consumption of healthier foods. There has been a dramatic increase in television cooking shows in the 21st century, as well as nutrition, recipe, and cooking websites, blogs, and videos. The amount of information can make it hard to choose, but there are many options to learn about nutrition and cooking.
Time
One thing that contemporary families in the United States have less now than they did fifty years ago is time. This is primarily due to the decreasing number of jobs with enough pay and benefits to support a family and the need for more adults in the house to be working. With less time, efficiencies such as fast food, processed food, and prepared food become more appealing. Having more time means that families have the flexibility to cook and prepare their own food if they choose.
Children
Several other chapters in this text (Nurturance; and Routines, Traditions, and Culture) will focus more closely on children. But they deserve a special mention when it comes to food, and especially to hunger. Children are heavily impacted by poverty and hunger in the United States. In 2017, 17.5% of all children in the United States lived in poverty; Latino and Black children were more often in poverty than were White children. This contributes to diet deficiency. A high quality diet is a major contributing factor to children’s health and well-being and to their health outcomes as adults. Poor eating patterns in childhood are associated with obesity during childhood and adolescence; obese children are more likely to become obese adults. Obesity in children has been increasing dramatically since 1980 and is likely related to diet, physical activity, family environment and other factors. Obesity leads to increased risks for a wide variety of chronic diseases, including diabetes, stroke, heart disease, arthritis, and some cancers.[23]
Hunger and a poor diet can have other effects on children. Hungry children cannot learn as efficiently as well nourished children. According to the American Psychological Association (APA) they are more likely to develop anxiety and depression along with other health problems. Brain development, learning, and information processing can all be affected by lack of an adequate diet. Children experience stigma around being food insecure and accessing free and reduced meals, part of the federal response to poverty. For more information on this program, access the USDA website here. They may feel isolated and ashamed about being poor or about being food insecure although many children share this experience in the United States.[24]
Licenses and Attributions
Open Content, Shared Previously
“The Poverty Line and Food Costs” is adapted from Social Problems: Continuity and Change by Anonymous. License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
“What are Families Eating and Why” is adapted from Human Nutrition by Marie Kainoa Fialkowski Revilla, Alan Titchenal, Allison Calabrese, Cheryl Gibby, & William Meinke. License: CC BY 4.0.
Figure 9.1. Photo by Keith Weller/USDA. Public domain.
Figure 9.2. “kitchen remodel: 1927 Mission Revival bungalow” by jlt. License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
Figure 9.3. “Food Desert Challenge: Day 1” by Mark Bonica. License: CC BY 2.0.
Figure 9.4. “A static caravan park on the cliffs above Beer, Devon, England.” by Adrian Pingstone. Public domain.
Figure 9.9. “NCES receives fresh fruits & veggies grant” by North Charleston. License: CC BY-SA 2.0.
Open Content, Original
Figure 9.5. “Poverty rate by race/ethnicity, Oregon, 2018.” Based on data from the American Community Survey/Kaiser Family Foundation. License: CC BY 4.0.
Figure 9.6. “Share of food insecure Oregonians with too much income to qualify for SNAP assistance, 2016.” Based on data from the Oregon Center for Public Policy. License: CC BY 4.0.
All Rights Reserved Content
How Black Americans Were Robbed of Their Land” (c) The Atlantic. License Terms: Standard YouTube license.
Figure 9.7. “Food security among survey respondents at Linn-Benton Community College” in #2019 RealCollege Survey: Linn-Benton Community College by The Hope Center. Used with permission.
Figure 9.8. “Food insecurity among survey respondents at Linn-Benton Community College” in #2019 RealCollege Survey: Linn-Benton Community College by The Hope Center. Used with permission.
1. Rule of threes (survival). (2020, February 2). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_o...ees_(survival) ↵
2. Maslow's hierarchy of needs. (2020, February 6). Retrieved February 10, 2020, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow...archy_of_needs ↵
3. U.S. Census Bureau. Farm labor. Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm...my/farm-labor/
4. Amadeo, K. (2020, June 29). Farm subsidies with pros, cons, and impact. The Balance. https://www.thebalance.com/farm-subsidies-4173885
5. Charles, D. (2019, December 31). Farmers got billions from taxpayers in 2019, and hardly anyone objected. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...nyone-objected
6. Hemmelgarn, M. (2013, January 3). Andy Fisher interview [Audio podcast episode]. In Food Sleuth Radio. https://exchange.prx.org/pieces/9034...sher-interview
7. U.S. Census Bureau (2013, February). Poverty Rates for Selected Detailed Race & Hispanic Groups by State and Place: 2007-2011. https://www.census.gov/library/publi...csbr11-17.html
8. Pew Research Center. (2020, March 2). Most Americans point to circumstances, not work ethic, for why people are rich or poor. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...-rich-or-poor/
9. Shelby, V. (2019, February 25). Corvallis food deserts make finding nutritious, affordable meals difficult. Daily Barometer. http://www.orangemedianetwork.com/da...ab733184f.html
10. Fremstad, S. (2019, September 16). The official U.S. poverty rate is based on a hopelessly out-of-date metric. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...f-date-metric/
11. DeParle, J., Gebeloff, R., & Tavernise, S. (2011, November 4). Bleak portrait of poverty is off the mark, experts say. New York Times, p. A1. ↵
12. Wright, V. R., Chau, M., & Aratani, Y. (2011). Who are America’s poor children? The official story. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty. ↵
13. Anonymous. (2016). Social problems: Continuity and change. University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/t...ity-and-change
14. Economic Research Service. Department of Agriculture. (2019, September 4). Definitions of food security. Retrieved March 7, 2020, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food...food-security/
15. Bauer, J. (2018, May 17). Oregon Lags in Fighting Food Insecurity. Oregon Center for Public Policy. https://www.ocpp.org/2018/05/17/oreg...nsecurity-lag/
16. Edwards, M. (2018, December). Widespread declines, yet persistent inequalities: Food insecurity in Oregon and the U.S. Oregon State University School of Public Policy. https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/...ortdec2018.pdf
17. Bauer, J. (2018, May 17). Oregon Lags in Fighting Food Insecurity. Oregon Center for Public Policy. https://www.ocpp.org/2018/05/17/oreg...nsecurity-lag/
18. Baker-Smith, C., Coca, V., Goldrick-Rab, S., Looker, Richardson, B., & Williams, T. (2020, February). Hope Center. https://hope4college.com/wp-content/...vey_Report.pdf
19. US Census Bureau. (2020, July 21). Most families that received SNAP Benefits in 2018 had at least one person working. https://www.census.gov/library/stori...n-working.html
20. Vesoulis, A. (2020, May 13). The White House Pushes to Curb Food Stamps Amid Record Unemployment Retrieved August 19, 2020, from https://time.com/5836504/usda-snap-a...l-rule-change/
21. Constable, S. (2018, April 4). The facts about food stamp fraud. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonco...d-stamp-fraud/
22. Constable, S. (2018, April 4). The facts about food stamp fraud. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonco...d-stamp-fraud/
23. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2019). America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2019. https://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/
24. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). What are the psychological effects of hunger on children? Retrieved August 19, 2020, from www.apa.org/advocacy/socioec...tus/hunger.pdf ↵ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/09%3A_Food_and_Water/9.01%3A_Food_and_Water_Chapter_Preview_Questions.txt |
Safe Water and Sanitation
For about 100 years, water in the United States has been supported by a federally funded infrastructure that ensures families safe drinking water and sanitation. Water-borne diseases, such as cholera, were virtually eliminated by the provision of this system. Although the effort to create safe water and sanitation was well funded up until the end of the 20th century, there are some geographic areas and groups that are underserved; systems were not funded equitably before funding dried up.
Safe water and sanitation can be defined by these three things:
• Access to safe and reliable drinking water;
• A shower, toilet, and tap in the home;
• A reliable system for treating and disposing of wastewater
Socioeconomic status is a barrier to safe water access. Challenges in poor communities include contaminated water supplies, housing with lead-infested water, other substandard plumbing issues, and unequal distribution of public drinking water such as water fountains in schools and other public places.
As individuals more regularly carry their water with them, access to a bottle filling station can mean the difference between a one-time purchase or the ongoing expense of hundreds of plastic water bottles. Look around your own daily environments; where can you find these stations? Could there be more bottle fillers added and more equitably distributed?
Almost one third of adults in America are inadequately hydrated. Race is the biggest predictor to lack of water access; African American and Latinx people are more likely to experience lack of adequate hydration as are lower income people.[1] This graphic from the University of North Carolina describes six access challenges.
There is no centralized government or research entity that collects national data about water and sanitation in the United States, which creates challenges to assessing and meeting needs. In November 2019 the US Water Alliance and Dig Deep, two organizations dedicated to improving water access for families in the United States, released a comprehensive report analyzing all available data from local, regional and national sources. More than two million Americans lack access to safe water. Closing the Water Access Gap in the United States: A National Action Plan has five key findings:
1. Federal data doesn’t accurately measure the water access gap
2. Race is the strongest predictor of water and sanitation access
3. Poverty is a key obstacle to water access
4. Water access challenges affect entire communities
5. Progress is uneven, and some communities are backsliding.
Along with race and poverty as indicators, the report identifies residents of Puerto Rico, homeless people, and members of American Indian communities as having a greater likelihood of lack of access to water and sanitation.[2]
Case Study: Flint, Michigan
Let’s look more closely at a community that has experienced a safe water crisis between 2014 and 2020. For some context, Flint was a booming city with an economy centered around the automotive industry through the late 20th century. In fact this is where vehicle manufacturer ‘General Motors’ was founded. Although its industrial prime is past, Flint is still home to roughly 100,000 Americans. According to the United States census population estimates, 53.7% of Flint residents are African American and 40.4% of its population lives in poverty.[3] The median household income in Flint is about \$24,000-\$27,000 a year.
Saving Money
City officials in Flint decided to change its water source in 2014. The city used to get its water from the Detroit Water and Sewage Department. This water was treated and sourced from Lake Huron and the Detroit River. While this worked fine, the city was strapped for cash and in 2011 Flint had a \$25,000,000 deficit.[4] The city declared a state of emergency and was looking for ways to save money. City leaders decided to source water from the Flint River as a cheap and temporary alternative while a pipeline from the Huron River was built. Unfortunately, shortcuts were taken and the water was not treated properly for human consumption which caused spikes of lead in the water. IImmediately after the water source was switched people noticed that the tap water in Flint was different. The color ranged from yellow to brown, it smelled weird, and it tasted terrible.
Effects on Families
Dangerous amounts of lead were found in Flint’s drinking water. In one home, Virginia Tech researchers found that the lead levels in the water were between 200 parts per billion (ppb) to 13,200 ppb.[5] Lead amounts above 5,000 pbb are classified by the EPA to be hazardous waste. Children are the most susceptible to the effects of lead. It can lead to many health issues such as anemia, slowed growth, and learning problems. Lead can put pregnant women at risk for miscarriage as well as causing organ issues in adults. High levels of lead can cause death.[6] An outbreak of Legionnaires disease is also thought to be caused by the water crisis.[7] According to the CDC “ Legionnaires’ (LEE-juh-nares) disease is a very serious type of pneumonia (lung infection) caused by bacteria called Legionella.” At least twelve people have died as a result and numerous criminal and civil lawsuits have been filed against officials. After 18 months of negotiations a \$600 million settlement to be paid by the state of Michigan was agreed to in August 2020. More than 80% of that money would go to people who were minors, and most affected by the toxins in the water. As of the publication of this text, plaintiffs still had time to decide whether or not to agree to the settlement.
To read more about how to find lead in your home environment and the effects of lead on children, click here for the CDC’s infographic.
Environmental Justice
According to the EPA “Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”[8] People of color and low income families are disproportionately being affected by the water crisis in Flint, a classic case of environmental injustice. These families can’t easily move or fund a new source of water.
The EPA also emphasizes “the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards” along with its definition of environmental justice. It is clear that the people of Flint are not receiving the same degree of protection.
Watch this 3 ½ minute video to further understand the definition and history of environmental justice.
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=716
Institutional Forces
While on the surface it may seem like the crisis in Flint was caused by a singular error (switching the water source) the underlying responsibility is with multiple government policies that are institutionalized. These are the results of over a hundred years of policy that eventually culminated into a health crisis.
Earlier we described Flint as a city of industry, home to a rich automotive economy. The Deindustrialization (The decline of the manufacturing industry) of the United States was hard for everyone who relied on these companies to provide for their families. The decline was reinforced in the 1980’s as the manufacturing industry hit a recession. Flint’s population shrunk from around 200,000 to just 100,000 residents.[9] Many people who had the means relocated to a different area in search of better opportunities. But then there are those who are more or less forced to stay, as relocating can be a risk, as well as being cost-prohibitive. As the overall population of Flint declined, the African American population percentage of Michigan has steadily increased. According to Census data, in 1960 the total percentage of African Americans in Michigan was roughly 9%. As deindustrialization occurs, and people relocate, it jumps to 14% in 2000.[10] Those who remained in Flint were White Americans and African Americans of low income. These two groups are by far the most impacted by the effects of deindustrialization, although this isn’t isolated to Flint.
Could this Happen in Oregon?
The decline of deindustrialization can also be felt in Oregon as well. Oregon’s timber industry faced a massive decline after the 1980’s recession.[11] Environmental regulations have affected job availability. We can see many parallels between this situation and other communities who have faced job and company losses. Many towns that were dependent on the income from the timber industry are now left struggling.
Douglas county recently voted to shut down their entire library system.[12] Jackson county and Josephine county have also had to shut down their libraries, although eventually they managed to bring back partial services.[13] Many timber towns depended on a federal program that gave \$100,000,000 every year to Oregon counties. Since the program has been discontinued many counties are having to make sacrifices to keep from going under.[14] Another parallel we can see between the deindustrialization of Michigan and Oregon is people leaving small towns for urban centers, with those remaining mostly being of low income.
Lawmakers in these communities face similar choices as the leaders in Flint, Michigan. When there are fewer taxpayers to fund local services and less federal funding for services that all families can use, programs such as libraries, schools, parks, and even water must be examined as places to save money.
Looking Ahead
One purpose of analyzing Flint, Michigan as a case study is to give a voice to those impacted by this and similar hardships. To see additional perspective and proposed solutions to these social problems, watch the TED Talk below. LaToya Ruby Frazier was hired to document the unfolding crisis in Flint and relates her history growing up with environmental racism in Philadelphia to the crisis. She details the experiences of the low-income residents as well as a creative solution that helps.
A YouTube element has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view it online here: https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/?p=716
The US Water Alliance described at the start of this section has provided the most comprehensive view of water access in the United States and is dedicated to valuing and managing this resource. Via listening sessions and collaborations with businesses, governments, non-profit organizations and individuals all over the country, they have developed a platform of seven big ideas to sustain water resources:
1. Advance regional collaboration on water management
2. Accelerate agriculture-utility partnerships to improve water quality
3. Sustain adequate funding for water infrastructure
4. Blend public and private expertise and investment to address water infrastructure needs
5. Redefine affordability for the 21st century
6. Reduce lead risks, and embrace the mission of protecting public health
7. Accelerate technology adoption to build efficiency and improve water service.
Ideas and organizations such as this one provide leadership so that all families in the United States will have access to safe water and sanitation. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Contemporary_Families_-_An_Equity_Lens_(Pearce_et_al.)/09%3A_Food_and_Water/9.03%3A_Water.txt |
Change is inevitable; growth is intentional.
― Colin Wilson
Chapter Insights
• Although our use of the internet is just 30 years old, and seemingly ubiquitous devices like smartphones have been around for less than 20 years, observations about digital media and “technology” offer us a foundation of basic “truths” with which to dig deeper.
• Although we may use the shorthand term “technology” to refer to information and communications technology (ICT), we must be cautious. “Technology” is a general term, and we have various, more specific ways to talk about ICT.
• The ICT devices and applications we use help fulfill a range of functions for us as individuals and as families.
• Because research on technology is relatively new, and technology innovations continue to develop, using research findings to craft clear guidelines on use is a challenge. Current research has significant limitations in scope, sampling, methodologies, and more. Technology innovations do, however, mean new ways to gather and analyze data.
• An ecological perspective enables us to see our ICT use not just in terms of individuals, but as having an impact on and being impacted by our contexts and social connections, and by wider forces such as institutional policies, research, and industry.
• To date, we can identify a great number of benefits to individuals, families, and societies in the US and internationally from ICT use. At the same time, we have learned that ICT presents significant challenges to our relationships, communication, development, learning, and work.
• Equitable access to the internet, to devices and to the development of skills for using ICT, is a significant factor influencing differences in how technology is used.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
When I went to college in the mid-1970s, the weekly call to my parents meant waiting in line to use the pay phone in the dormitory hallway. It was a collect call, meaning I’d go through an operator who would ask the person who picked up if they’d accept the charges. Or I could write a letter. Registering for courses meant long lines and a half day in the gymnasium, going from table to table to get a form signed by the department (IF there was room in the course; if not the search continued in another line). For classes, we sat in lecture halls taking notes with pen and paper. Professors lectured at a podium, using a chalkboard and the occasional overhead projector.
Tests were ONLY taken in the classroom. Books were hard copies, purchased at the bookstore. Term papers were written by hand or on a manual typewriter. And doing research for those papers meant finding books using a card catalog, and articles in large, published volumes of the journals, hidden away in the “stacks.”. The only way to communicate with professors was to wait outside their offices during weekly “office hours.” Pizza was ordered over the phone (though delivery was possible), and when Saturday Night Live (SNL) was on, we’d jockey for floor space to view the TV in the dormitory common room.
Consider your college experience today. Everything just described can feasibly be done on your smartphone and you’d never need to leave your bedroom. Remember Covid-19 [1]? (Of course you do). The internet [2]and ICT enabled us to continue participating in life, even under quarantine. Today you can call, text, videoconference, or email your parents anytime (and they you). Textbooks (while often still available in hard copy) may be offered as e-versions, purchasing can be done online, and many can be rented. Class registration and course planning, ordering pizza, finding journals, and taking notes for the term paper? Online. Platforms like Google Docs make collaborative note taking or group work efficient (this book was written on Google Docs so I could share it with the folks helping me publish it). Missed SNL? You can stream it on demand.
As you compare what it was like in the 1970s (and, let’s face it, the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s) with your ICT-accessible life today, is there anything you might even envy about a world without the internet, where our idea of personal technology was a corded landline telephone? Or does the idea seem simply unfathomable (or, go ahead and say it, revolting)?
My intention is not to sing the praises of the “good old days.” Indeed, the efficiency of ICT in our lives offers us unparalleled (for now) opportunities for social interaction, information, and news gathering, and for creativity and productivity. The United Nations, Division of Economic and Social Affairs identified technological change as one of four megatrends affecting families (along with urbanization, migration and climate change). As we will explore throughout this book, while we have gained much, there is so much more we need to know. We are still in the infancy of understanding ICT’s capabilities — and its dangers. The rapid rise in technology development makes it difficult to turn around usable research results. By the time all the necessary protocols are followed, data collected and analyzed, and reports prepared for public, professional and policy consideration, the device or application studied may be outmoded. Research has revealed a great deal about who uses which types of technologies for which purposes under which conditions, we have an initial sense of impact (as you’ll read in this book), and scholars are learning both new questions and new methodologies. The Screenome Project, for example, enables researchers to analyze the realities of smartphone use through thousands of screen captures (Brinberg, et al., 2021). But while new technologies for information and communication are being developed, and our consumption and use alone and together offer fodder for research, the many unanswered questions put us in pioneer territory.
And undeniably, our use of devices like smartphones can raise a few eyebrows:
A friend posted this picture on Facebook, taken while people were waiting for a cruise. Our own use makes technology seem personal, yet when observed in large groups like this we begin to see how technology has shifted the ways in which we relate as a society.
And questions of culpability arise when behaviors once contained by place move to virtual spaces. In the early 2000s, before university policies had evolved to address virtual learning, I encountered an issue while teaching online before . For weeks, a student posted erratically in discussion forums, creating havoc in student discourse and learning, with behavior that stole focus from the content of the course. In a traditional classroom, I could talk to the student privately, even barring them from returning to the classroom while they were being disruptive. Yet back then, barring a student from the learning management system (LMS) used to deliver all components of the course prohibited access to all course materials. After many hours of discussions with university policy makers unfamiliar with how online learning operated, a timely yet equitable workaround was reached. By then, the offending student understood their disruptions and class continued in peace. The upside is that the event triggered the need to develop new policies for a new environment and new mechanisms for student learning and instruction.
Similarly, in response to issues with e-commerce, security breaches, identity thefts, and children’s exposure to the internet, new policies and laws have been created. This book was written for the spaces of our use between innovation, eager consumption, earnest research, and policy action and sound practice, spaces that call on us to be both educated and intentional about our use of technology. Particularly for families who bear the significant responsibility of caring for their members — in many cases raising children to adulthood — and thriving as a unit, ICT offers tremendous value yet at a significant level of understanding.
To set the stage for our close examination of technology use and the family, we begin with a set of “truths” about information and communications technology.
Technology Truths
#1. Technology can be interpreted to mean many things.
This brief video nicely defines the scope of ICT and impacts it has on our lives
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=527#oembed-2
In our daily language (and in this book) we refer to our use of “technology.” Although we may use this shorthand term to indicate our use of smartphones and the internet, in its strictest sense “technology” refers to “the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems.” (Merriam-Webster). In fact, any novel device developed for problem-solving, such as pencils or maps, can be considered technology. More specifically to our interests here, Wikipedia defines “information and communications technology (ICT)” as that which “stresses the role of unified communications and the integration of telecommunications (telephone lines and wireless signals) and computers, as well as necessary enterprise software, middleware, storage and audiovisual, that enable users to access, store, transmit, understand and manipulate information.” This brings us closer to what we’re really discussing in this book.
Throughout this book although we will shorthand with the word, ‘technology,’ we primarily will be referring to information and communications technology. ICT spans a range of devices, software to run applications, and the applications themselves. Yet it’s important that our thinking isn’t limited to the devices we currently use, like computers, gaming devices, smartphones, and tablets. Futurists see us using glasses that read books and enable us to feel like we’re in the setting, or headgear that allows us, for instance, to enjoy a virtual landscape in South America.
The internet
To stay current on the language and terms used to describe ICT, see this article from the BBC.
Within our broad sense of ICT is the “internet,” Per Wikipedia, “the global system of interconnected computer networks that uses the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to communicate between networks and devices. [3] The internet carries many applications and services, most prominently the World Wide Web, including social media, electronic mail, mobile applications, multiplayer online games, internet telephony, file sharing, and streaming media services. Most servers that provide these services are today hosted in data centers, and content is often accessed through high-performance content delivery networks.” The internet is the virtual environment in which information (as data) is gathered, shared, and engaged with. Two common aspects of the internet are the World Wide Web and, within that, social media.
The World Wide Web (WWW)
When we “go online” we generally mean that we’re connecting to the World Wide Web[4], or to a website which is a compilation of web pages. The web is “is an information system enabling documents and other web resources to be accessed over the Internet…. Documents and downloadable media are made available to the network through web servers and can be accessed by programs such as web browsers. Servers and resources on the World Wide Web are identified and located through character strings called uniform resource locators (URLs), as shown above. The character string www.Wikipedia.org is an example of a URL.
Breaking down the web address, http:// or https:// refers to the communication protocol used for the information’s transmission. The “s” indicates when secure information, such as passwords or identifiers, is being shared. The domain is the hostname (which includes the www, though it often isn’t shown). Host server domain names are controlled by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). *.com, *.net, *.edu, and country-level identifiers (e.g., *.en, *.us, *ie) refer to top-level domain names.
Social media
Social media, or social networking services (SNS), “is an online platform which people use to build social networks or social relationships with other people who share similar personal or career content, interests, activities, backgrounds, or real-life connections…. Social networking sites allow users to share ideas, digital photos, videos, and posts, and inform others about online or real-world activities and events with people within their social network. While in-person social networking — such as gathering in a village market to talk about events — has existed since the earliest development of towns, the web enables people to connect with others who live in different locations across the globe (dependent on access to an internet connection to do so).”
Social media scholars have leaned on the functionality of the internet application, such as for self-presentation to broad or narrow audiences (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2020, Fig, 2, below). By Carr and Hayes’ (2015) definition, Facebook, LinkedIn, games like Farmville, and the dating app Tinder would be considered social media; collaborative platforms like Wikipedia[5] and email, or a streaming platform like Netflix, would not be. Other scholars focus on identity as the central feature and purpose of social media — the presentation of one’s identity through social interaction and having an audience. Social media is also classified by the audience and functionality of its reach (Thelwall, 2009):
• socialization SNSs, used primarily for socializing with existing friends (e.g., Facebook, Instagram)
• online SNSs, decentralized and distributed computer networks where users communicate with each other through internet services
• networking SNSs, used primarily for non-social interpersonal communication (e.g., LinkedIn, a career- and employment-oriented site)
• social navigation SNSs, used primarily for helping users to find specific information or resources (e.g., Goodreads for books, Reddit)
Social presence/Media richness
Low Medium High
Self-presentation/Self-disclosure High Blogs Social networking sites (e.g. Facebook) Virtual social worlds (e.g. Second Life)
Low Collaborative projects (e.g. Wikipedia) Content communities (e.g. YouTube) Virtual game worlds (e.g. World of Warcraft)
Classification of social media by social presence and self-presentation (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2020).
In his critical observation of the power of social media, Ian Bogost (2022) provides a useful history of its evolution. Data on current use is also found in this report from Pew Research.
Applications
We also refer to the “apps” that we use on our devices — downloading a new translation or mapping app when we travel, or a new real estate app when we’re looking for a new place to live. Or we upgrade current apps or software on our laptops, such as word processing programs or the learning management system used by our universities. “Apps,” also called application programs or software applications, are “computer program[s] designed to carry out a specific task other than one relating to the operation of the computer itself, typically to be used by end-users…. The other principal classifications of software are system software, relating to the operation of the computer, and utility software (‘utilities’). Applications may be bundled with the computer and its system software or published separately and may be coded as proprietary, open-source, or projects.” The software application on which you are reading this book is considered open-source — it is publicly accessible and its source code can be shared or modified.
As discussed in Truth #2, below, technology can also mean the range of devices we use to search and share electronic information, and for communications. We commonly think of our smartphones, laptops, tablets, and peripherals used along with their components (e.g, mice, monitors, speakers, microphones, headsets). But there is a wide range of device possibilities and mobilities.
#2. Our use of technology means different devices to accomplish different functions; or one device to accomplish many functions.
Try this exercise: take out your smartphone, and look at the various applications (or “apps”). Write down all the functions or jobs that your phone helps you perform. Remember, an app like Instagram isn’t a function. Instagram might be used for entertainment, communication, or gathering information. Others use it for marketing and sales, or for education. It depends on the user. When you have your list of function categories, consider if there’s anything else you do on or with your phone that could be considered a function. Read over your list. Does the list of different functions surprise you? What function does your phone NOT provide that you need other devices for?
Our use of the internet and smartphones may seem so immediate that we can forget the purposes they serve for us. Communication is an obvious function. Just as we used landline telephones (first corded, then portable) to communicate in the past, our mobile phones enable communication with others at any time and place through voice, text, or video. Tech developers have also explored ways to make our communication more tactile, as in the haptic HugMe (Cha et al., 2008). Early mobile phones only provided ways to communicate; the smartphone revolutionized ICT by enabling touch screen access to the internet, a camera, and more.
Using devices for information is wider ranging, and we might consider types of information and subcategories. For example, while we might think of browsing the internet as an information function, using a device as a calculator or map may also be a form of gathering information (or is it a utility? Or a tool?). And some applications may offer a range of functions. Consider social media. For some, it might be a way of building social support; for others, it’s also learning more about a topic; for still others, its support, learning, and entertainment. So while we might access multiple applications on a single device like a laptop or smartphone, that device might fulfill a wide range of functions for us.
In other cases, ICT can fill very specific functions. Photography purists may prefer a separate, handheld camera to take pictures or video. A Virtual Reality headset, whether stand-alone or tethered to a personal computer, allows the user to explore an alternative landscape. Even devices that have the capability to fulfill multiple functions may be used for specific purposes. Ratliff (2014) reported that, although the smartphone was the go-to device to fulfill a range of functions, multi-device users had a preference for devices depending on function. The laptop was used to perform “work,” the tablet for entertainment, and the smartphone largely for communication and social activity. (Personal note: the author was surprised to see a family member interacting with their phone, with their laptop open, while watching a movie with other family members. They reported the easy ability to multi-task and hold multiple foci, and agreed that each device held separate functional values.)
Now consider the family, and the various devices and functions ICT provides. How might ICT help family life? Let’s translate the functions of technology into societal value, or standing in the way. What value would technology provide to the family? What challenges might it present?
Some examples:
• Communication between parent and child through texting while away at college can maintain a relationship.
• Opening a phone while eating dinner might be an intrusion. For others, it might be a way of sharing valuable information.
• During COVID, parents used computers to continue their work, as children continued participation in school. Jointly, they used videoconferencing technology to maintain connections with extended family.
• A new parent may search for available, affordable, and quality child care for his infant twins.
Now think beyond the traditional family, or the family best known to you. Consider families you read about in the news or relatives in distant countries. In the current conflict in Ukraine, for example, how might using cell phones fulfill valuable functions for families in the country or who have immigrated? Would seeing images of the destruction be useful or, for children using TikTok, create stress?
Understanding technology’s range of functions, and our use of devices to fulfill those functions, can give us a basic way of conceptualizing the processes that contribute to individual, family, and societal outcomes.
#3. Our use of technology has changed dramatically over a short time.
Internet availability
At the beginning of the chapter, we discussed how technology and university life have changed in last 50 years. In fact, the efficiencies offered by ICT have really only existed since the web was introduced in 1991. As the internet became available, the rates of people accessing it and using it increased rapidly. Pew reports that in 1994, 18% of people used the internet. In 2021, that percentage was 93%, ranging from 99% of those 18–29 years old to 75% of those 65 and older. As a different metric, the current population of persons using web browsers is nearly 5 billion (4,878,428,571) — 62% of the world’s population. Web 2.0 technology moved us from one-way communication in web pages and email to interactive, collaborative, social tools with blogs, wikis, social networking, mobile/handheld devices, and more.
Shifts in behavior
The Endgadget article was produced in 2019. That’s at least three years ago. Looking at the list to the left on advances, are there any new advances that you’d add?
As Lee and Cooper observe in Endgadget, since 2004 (the last 15–20 years), we’ve become able to:
• Hold the world in our hands via smartphones (which debuted in 2007).
• Capture everything through cameras on the phone. (This capability also added the word “selfie” to conventional dictionaries.)
• Effortlessly track our movements through smartwatches and other devices that send information about our health.
• Navigate maps on our phones
• Step into another world through Virtual Reality, and now Augmented Reality.
• See, listen, and play everything in seconds (through Netflix, Hulu and lots of other streaming services).
• Connect to everyone. Yes, social media like MySpace and Friendster existed before 2004, but it wasn’t until Facebook entered the marketplace in 2006 that things really took off.
• Create anything (as long as it is small and plastic) using 3D printers.
• Use an affordable, mobile option for computing and for reading, thanks to tablets and e-readers with touchscreens.
• Speak, and have it done — through voice-activated assistants and smart speakers, and also through smart devices like doorbells, lights, and thermostats.
• Ask the world for patronage or support, with sites like Kickstarter making it easy to click a button and collect/donate funds.
• Share everything, like cab rides through an app that finds a driver for you.
• Drive electric cars.
The rapid advancement of information and communications technology in the last 20 years has also revolutionized our way of thinking and living. Beyond making life more efficient, the internet offers an additional environment for interaction and engagement. We can operate IRL (in real life) and virtually. As Alicia Blum-Ross describes it, the internet is like wallpaper; it always seems to be there. Our comfort with access to information and people anytime, anywhere can leave us feeling bewildered (FOMO?) when we’re without service.
Visual Capitalist offers a slick graphic, below, of the history and rise in use of media. Early media, starting in the 15th century and going through the end of the 20th century, includes telephones, newspaper, and television. While these media can be used to spread information to the masses, they are also one-way, leaving the power of the content in the hands of the creator. The second wave — Connected Media — spans from 2000 to 2020, with the inclusion of the smartphone. Media is now two-way, and engagement is everything. Yet explosive use and easy access also means “fake news,” censoring, and surveillance. The Data Media phase, which we are now in, offers access to primary data sources for information and the ability to verify. However, this can also mean “cherry picking” (selecting data to prove a point or to slant the narrative) and the temptation to falsify data. Looking ahead, we will see more creative and constructive ways to use data, and further de-centralization.
And there is much ahead. In 2021, reflecting on COVID-19, Brian Chen in the New York Times wrote about augmented reality for our shopping experiences, which will allow us to try things on or see what things look like in our homes before buying, and “hands-off” technology that will read our smartphones, making it unnecessary to access payment apps. He joins the ranks of technology futurists who predict our lives in decades, even just years to come.
From the chart The Evolution of Media: Visualizing a Data-Driven Future, and your own observations, what challenges do you foresee in the future of data media?
Device ownership
Pew (Hitlin, 2018) reports on the rapid rise in technology use after 1994, noting that figures have plateaued since 2016. It is interesting that the desktop/laptop computer is the only technology showing a significant decline.
Social media — growth and impact
Pew Research (Auxier & Anderson, 2021) reported that, in 2021, approximately two-thirds of Americans used some kindof social media, and illustrated shifts in the use of various social media platforms, below Among teens, platform use is different (Vogels et al., 2022). TikTok, for example, is used by 67% of those ages 13–18, and Instagram by 62%, whereas Facebook consumption is much lower than general U.S. figures, used by only 32% of teens. As indicated by the figure below, use has increased over time for some platforms like Facebook and Instagram and remained relatively steady, such as with Twitter.
Beyond the power of the internet to invite interaction and engagement, social media enables us to quickly make social connections, expand the size and shape of our networks with others, and quickly share and receive information In Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky, an early writer on the power of social technologies, observes that social media holds the power to expand the size and shape of our social networks by connecting our more intimate social worlds with those of others. This diversifies our contacts, nd offers us access to a flow of information, and strengthens our social connections. This clip from the 2018 film Crazy Rich Asians depicts the speed of sharing information across social connections.
One aspect of information speed relates to news events. The author was in Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. We first heard about the planes crashing into the towers, and then into the Pentagon, through radio and
television. For the rest of the day we were dependent on these sources — and on constantly refreshed news webpages — to get updated information. The delivery of news was slow and controlled by others. We had less personal involvement in it.
By 2013, the rapid spread of information from a news event — a shooting at the Washington Navy Yard on September 16 at 8:20 am— prompted within 30 minutes a public response through Tweets, Reddit posts, live video footage, “I’m fine” posts, crowdsourcing information to help with the investigation (quickly taken down), and a Facebook memorial page. This isn’t surprising to us today. Events are live-streamed; Philando Castille’s girlfriend, for example, posted a video on Facebook of his murder in 2016 as it happened. And when events are anticipated — like Hurricane Ida, which hit Louisiana in the fall of 2021, Facebook pages are set up in advance so victims can indicate their status.
What does it mean to have the ability to engage and share information so quickly? Consider this from a family perspective. What are the benefits? Might there be any consequences? When information spreads quickly there can be mistakes, which can get in the way of professional reporting and can breed a certain impatience. A colleague from Louisiana related that there was such an assumption that people would turn to Facebook during the hurricane, that people ignored the likely scenario of internet service being unavailable during the disaster.
Using social media data, new research is measuring the power of social connections on outcomes such as economic success (Chetty et al., 2022). Researchers are employing social capital data from over 21 billion Facebook “friendships” to determine social connectedness, social cohesion, and predictors of economic well-being. An advantage to the rise and steady use of social media lies with the volumes of data that, as in this case, can be used to infer social well-being. On the other hand, public sites like Facebook and Instagram are well-known for leaking personal information and exposing users to security breaches. For this reason, numerous sites provide recommendations on how to keep social media accounts safer (e.g., Kelly & Fowler, 2021).
#4. Our use of technology varies.
Although the numbers indicate that technology use is prolific, within that data individuals vary in their access, use, skills, and attitudes. Consider the people you interact with regularly — your family, friends; at school, home, and work. It is very likely that you use social media apps differently than your parents, and that your parents use technology for work differently than you use it for school and work. Your younger sibling may be a “gamer,” while you spend more time on your laptop writing papers for school. Your family home may be outfitted with smart speakers; your apartment may be lucky to get a strong wifi signal. You may use a multitude of devices, while your cousin in Ghana lives only on her smartphone.
It matters that we understand differences in use. As we’ll discuss in our next “truth,” and more in Chapter 3, because ICTs are used for communication, differences in behavior can create disruptions in the flow of communication, which can lead to conflict. Because ICTs are used to find and share information, behavioral differences can affect relationships if, for example, personal information about one person is shared by another. And because people vary in their access to ICT, they vary in their ability to communicate, share and find information, and benefit (or be negatively affected) from the functions ICT enables. We’ve observed differences in technology use over time, and differences in which platforms are popular for social media use.
Demographics — broad factors used to characterize individuals in a population — are easy to access to describe differences in technology use. The chart below, from the Pew Research Center, illustrates differences in smartphone ownership and broadband use by age, race, education, income, and geography. Although overall numbers indicate that 85% of people have smartphones and 77% report broadband access at home, there are differences by groups. Fewer older Americans, those with less education and income, and those living in rural areas report both; more Whites than people of other races report broadband access.
And naturally, individuals don’t exist by a single characteristic. Often there are correlations between education and income; between education, income and geography; between race, education, income, and geography. (APA, 2017) So if we read that Hispanic women are less likely to have internet access, is that because they are Hispanic, or because they are likely to be in an income category that challenges their ability to purchase internet? Or because they are likely they live in a rural area that doesn’t provide high-speed internet? Internet access isn’t always tied to individual income; it is tied to economic infrastructures that make internet service available.
Consider the chart above. How would you characterize the demographic characteristics of someone least likely to have access to the internet in their home? To have a smartphone?
It’s also possible that lack of internet access is due to preference. The Pew report observes that, while many of those without broadband access mention its cost or availability, others use their smartphones for the internet or simply prefer not to have it. Pew also reported that, in 2021, those with disabilities were less likely to have some devices, own multiple devices, and have access to broadband (Perrin & Atske, 2021).
Technology use also varies by preference, attitude, and comfort. We’ve observed that social media has become more popular over the last decade among all age groups, though younger groups show the highest use, and that platform preferences have shifted. YouTube and Instagram are frequented more than Pinterest and Twitter. Consistent increases in social media use are also revealed across race, gender, education, income, and geographic location (e.g., rural, suburban, urban). Use differs little by race and gender, but slightly more by income and by education. Age differences may represent generational perspectives, which can reflect exposure to trends and to events that shape attitudes. For example, this piece discusses differences in perspectives of Millennials and Gen Z.
Within a group of “users,” there are differences in behavior. Among Twitter account holders, there are clearly high- and low-volume consumers (McClain, et al., 2021), and portion of the high-volume users account for the majority of the content we read: “An analysis of tweets by this representative sample of U.S. adult Twitter users from June 12 to Sept. 12, 2021, finds that the most active 25% of U.S. adults on Twitter by tweet volume produced 97% of all tweets from these users.” The report identifies differences in attitudes among users by volume, with those posting often feeling their political views influenced and more likely to experience harassment. Ironically, however, these users are less likely to view the atmosphere as a problem. We might consider those high-volume Twitter posters as a “type,” and we wouldn’t be alone. A significant line of research on internet and technology consumption analyzes the behavior and preferences of users (e.g., Blank, & Groselj, 2014; Borg & Smith, 2018). Why would this be of interest?
#5. Variation in use and access can mean new sorts of divides.
With the COVID-19 pandemic requiring children to stay home from school, significant divides in access to technology had consequences on school attendance, participation, and learning. Even if schools loaned wifi hubs, Chromebooks, or other devices that enabled children to attend school at a distance, their homes were not necessarily equipped with internet access. Those families with devices may have had to share a single screen. And if parents were working from home, priority may have gone to adult employment over children’s engagement in classes. In Chapter 3 we’ll explore more about access differences in the U.S. and around the world. As an example of global differences in technology access and children’s learning, Ayllon et al (2021) show high European Union country variation by households without access to a computer and households without access to the internet during COVID-19.
Variations in access can also mean variations in “readiness.” Those with less ability to use technology become less skilled and comfortable and may develop attitudes that lean toward not using it, or not using particular applications (think, for example, of a grandparent’s interest in joining Instagram). In 2016 Pew identified a “readiness gap: among internet users (Horrigan, 2016). As we can see in Figure 5, below, there are demographic differences in those who are “unprepared” and those who are “ready,” with correlations once again to income, education, and age.
Differences in access can also mean divides in who influences others’ behavior. One example is political values and voting behavior. This interactive chart reveals shifts in ideologically political values and partisanship from 1994 to 2017. We can correlate this shift with the growth in ICT availability and use of smartphones, which made access to social media easier. And social media has the power to influence global politics, like the May 2022 presidential election in the Philippines. Politics isn’t the only thing influencing those who actively use social media; “Grandfluencers” on TikTok, for example, are attempting to shift our perceptions of aging.
#6. Our technology use presents a paradox: as it offers many benefits, it equally poses challenges.
In 2005, Javenpaa and Lang’s research on mobile technology experiences identified eight paradoxes in use:
1. Empowerment / enslavement: our access to information and others 24/7, yet exposure to those we’d rather not see, and our access to functions, which in turn encourages our availability.
2. Independence / dependence: use of our devices to make life easier, yet creates a dependence on those devices to make our lives easier.
3. Fulfills needs / creates needs: new technology provides valuable functions, yet it creates costs and needs for management.
4. Competence / incompetence: as people gain new skills in using technology, they also have another area of life in which to feel competent / incompetent.
5. Planning / improvisation: devices make planning more efficient, yet some users put less effort into planning, leaving it to an “app” and thus losing skills and leaning on improvisation.’
6. Engaging / disengaging: the ability to engage with others is enhanced, yet equal engagement across exposure is impossible, which leaves some connections “disengaged” (see “phubbing”).
7. Public / private: technology enables private communication, yet it increasingly enters the public domain.
8. Illusion / disillusion: users believe that tech will make their lives easier, which is often true, yet they also can experience disillusionment when it doesn’t work as well as they’d hoped.
We’ll see these paradoxes and others played out in the many examples and research findings offered in this book. Future chapters will explore how technology can bring families together, while differences in use can also threaten understanding and closeness, challenging feelings of connectedness. Technology can aid children’s creativity and learning, yet at the cost of introducing sedentary habits acquired through excessive hours of screen time. It can offer adolescents opportunities to create important friendships, yet the public nature of these conversations can have damaging effects. An episode of This Hidden Brain, for example, features an interview with a young man who was accepted to a prestigious university. The university offered a Facebook group for incoming freshmen to help them get acquainted and feel connected to others when starting school. The group discussion included some rather “casual” language that encouraged users to be less cautious with what was said. For the young man interviewed, this included some racial slurs. Because the forum was moderated, admissions staff read and carefully considered the discussion, resulting in several of the students being un-invited. Many have experienced harsh lessons like this — though perhaps to lesser consequence — by taking advantage of the social media’s connectivity benefits yet being reminded of the public, shareable, and viewable nature of the words.
Here are just a few more benefits and complementary consequences of our lives online:
• Texting is an easy, mobile way to get and send information, YET the availability of our mobile phone numbers exposes us to “smishing” campaigns (AKA spam texts).
• Using smartphones is convenient, yet some phones can expose to unhealthy levels of radiation.
• Zoom is great for video conferencing with friends and family, for work, and for communication with professionals like doctors and therapists, yet over time, our energy gets drained from using this medium.
• Banking and shopping are incredibly convenient from the comfort of our couches, but essential information can be compromised, and we become a “data security” statistic.
#7. Our use of technology as individuals affects others; others affect our technology use.
Our information and communications technology is often referred to as “personal” technology — we use it as individuals for individual purposes. Yet given that the internet is a system of networked servers that allow users to easily share information, it is likely that our use can affect others, intentionally or unintentionally. We might also think about the settings in which we use personal technology. If you’ve ever been annoyed by someone having a loud conversation on their phone in a public place, you’ve been affected by another’s “personal” use. And if you stray from taking lecture notes on your laptop and start shopping on Amazon during class, the students behind you may be distracted by your screen. If you find “spam” in your inbox, the sender has influenced your technology experience.
In the next chapter, we’ll look more closely at a model of human development that contextualizes the settings and conditions in which human beings thrive as influences on their development. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological perspective of human development (1995) identifies development as the result of individual biology in interaction with settings (including the people and events in them) over time. Those settings can be both proximal and distal to us in location and interaction frequency. For example, those closest to us — our family and friends, people at our workplaces and our schools — are those we interact with often. And it isn’t unusual for those settings to interact — when our parents and teachers meet, or when we carry stress from the workplace to our home-based relationships. And still wider or distal influences come from the institutions, government policies, cultures, and societies we are part of. They have an indirect influence on us, often through messages repeated by our nearby contacts. The model depicted below adapts Bronfenbrenner’s classic framework perspective to include subsystems of the family, including parents and children, and contexts, including family service systems and government policies.
A neo-technological modification of this model by Navarro and Tudge (2022, discussed in Chapters 2 and 5) proposes the internet as an environment for interaction parallel to real life. We can imagine how a teen’s cyber harassment experiences might result in feelings of stress and anxiety that others offline (like her family or friends at school) can see, respond to with support, or potentially exacerbate.
At a macro level, we appreciate the role that policies and regulations can have on our experiences with technology. As previously noted, data from our time online is easily shared, and our privacy and security can be compromised. One result is the creation of policies to protect users, particularly young ones. For example, the 2020 California Children’s Privacy Act provides more stringent protections than COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) related to notice and consent, children’s rights, enforcement, and other items. It is similar to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe. On the other hand, whole governments like China seize control of the internet to limit the extent to which individuals can post, and what they can see. In other words, these government censor the internet.
#8. The effects of technology can seem out of our control.
China’s censorship is a perfect example of how individuals can feel that the effects of technology are out of their control. If we are limited in what we attempt to see and read, to post and participate in, we feel powerless in our engagement and thus in the effects we experience. We learn how TikTok algorithms determine the content we see. And news of the ways in which our data is not private when we interact with ICT can leave us feeling powerless. Recent examples include data tracking from baby monitors, Facebook revealing data on those seeking an abortion, and data pulled from a phone that led to a priest’s resignation. Tufecki (2019) warns that algorithms and analysis from network data provide inferences about many things that are never disclosed, including individuals’ sexual orientation and moods. She notes that apps as innocuous as those for weather updates were found to sell users’ location data, which was used to make inferences (“What were you doing at a cancer clinic?”).
Related to our list of paradoxes, above, although we can love using technology we can also feel addicted to it. Every semester students in FSOS 3105 are asked if they feel addicted to their smartphones. Here are the results from fall 2021 (which are quite similar to those from other semesters between 2017 and 2022).
Yet is our addiction the result of our own conscious behavior? As Tiku observes, ICT is programmed in ways that keep us interested and glued to it, generating FOMO (the fear of missing out). These methods include push notifications, pull-to-refresh, infinite scroll, autoplay, bright colors, streaks (or short-term goals), and gamification using points, a leaderboard, and rewards. Atler (2017) also investigates how applications are programmed to keep our attention, and observes that our attention span has decreased an average of 8 seconds since the introduction of iPhones. The website VirtualCapitalist.com identifies 33 ways that media can be a problem for its users.
With these industry-created, subconscious methods of encouraging us to keep using technology, and our data being used in ways we aren’t aware of (despite the prevalence of pop-ups on websites asking us to “agree” on a privacy policy or use of cookies), it can feel like we’re powerless. In large part, awareness can help (see Truth #10), as can action to keep our technology use limited and intentional. And we can advocate for stricter protections from the very people we pay to make our lives easier, and from our governments.
#9b. Continual innovation in ICT will challenge our ability to do research that informs practice and policy.
During COVID-19, our initial months of quarantine were our best protection from the virus. We waited for a vaccine to protect us from contracting the disease. This meant waiting for the testing and approvals through the Food and Drug Administration. Even “fast-tracked,” this process involves panels of experts reviewing research that shows evidence of product development and testing, clinical trials, testing for side effects, effectiveness, and large-scale success. Part of that review is ensuring that the research was rigorous and followed a strict protocol, with conditions controlled so as not to introduce any confounding variables that would pose alternative explanations for the findings.
In the case of ICT, in most cases there isn’t a treatment to eradicate a problem (though its applications can facilitate treatment). Instead, there is a range of products, including the internet as a virtual environment for information and communication interaction. Still, as with any product we use, we want to know that it is both safe and effective. Product testing of devices such as smartphones for radiation exists. Yet when it comes to the effects of using the products for communication, information gathering, sharing, and creating uses, and to our questions about their effectiveness and impact on aspects of human development, learning, and family life, we have moved to other realms of “knowing.” There are many ways of “knowing.” Jhangiani et al., in Research Methods in Psychology, identify these five:
• Intuition, or our “gut” response to an experience,
• Authority, or relying on the words of another, authoritative guide,
• Rationalism, or applying reason and logic to understanding a phenomenon,
• Empiricism, or making an observation from experience, and
• The Scientific Method, or “the process of systematically collecting and evaluating evidence to test ideas and answer questions.”
Consider what you “know” about the safety and effectiveness of using a smartphone. Or what we “know” about teenagers feeling depressed from scrolling Instagram. And how we know it. Is our knowledge based on personal experience or observations, or from reading a compilation of research findings? Did the research include users like YOU? Was the research on adolescents short-term, measuring depression at a single point in time, or did it follow them to see if the symptoms changed?
The challenge with the relative novelty of information and communications technology is that we’re still in the early stages of using the devices and applications. And with major events like COVID-19, we’re using them under ever-changing circumstances. As Martha Pickerell observed in 2015, and which still rings true to an extent,
There is no reliable evidence yet of long-term risks from overexposure to screens. The current guidelines for kids’ use of screen media are based on decades of research into kids’ TV habits and the related outcomes: poorer performance in reading and language arts, lower attention span, and higher risk of obesity among kids who watched excessively.
We have more research on the effect of screen exposure — both the quality of exposure and the quantity of time — on children at different ages in different sets of conditions, but it’s not longitudinal, and doesn’t have the volume of the research on TV viewing, which had a good 40–50 years before the advent of personal computers, tablets, and mobile devices.
Look at the two images below, of children viewing a television (left) and a computer (right). Can we apply what we know about television viewing to our use of modern ICT? Think about the differences between viewing a TV screen and interacting with a computer; one with internet access and that runs a range of software. Would research on their impacts by the same? How would it be different? Changes in television — in size, color display, and content offerings — haven’t been at the speed of changes in our mobile devices, applications, algorithms, and internet capabilities. The research-to-publication pipeline moves relatively slowly for all the points of rigor along the way. Yet in that time, what we use and how we use it can change dramatically. Colleagues of the author gathered data on parents’ interactions on discussion forums, which became outmoded when social media took over.
In the meantime….
#10. Our “intentional” use is a way for ICT to be both safe and effective for us and in our responsibility to others.
While we may be the guinea pigs in using ICT, and subject to the ongoing findings of researchers, we accept that our use brings certain benefits and that we will remain open to understanding the risks. Parents report that it’s harder to parent today than ever before, and technology is the reason cited by most (Auxier et al., 2020). Yet they don’t forbid their children, or themselves, from using it. They practice ways of knowing, whether through observation and action, trusting an authority figure, or open conversation with their children. danah boyd, ICT pioneer, philosopher, and parent (Tippet, 2017), remarked:
I think that it’s a tool. It’s a vice for some. It’s a way of connecting. There’s all of these different layers to it. And we’ve had to think about how to be responsible in relationship to anything. If you think about it in terms of ancient religious texts, you think about gluttony, think about what is our relationship to food. We agree that food is a necessity, but what’s the level in which it’s acceptable? … Like all of these other stimuli, though, we should step back and say, hey, what is the relationship I want to have with people, with food, with substances, with the internet, with my environment? And that’s where I do think that there’s a spiritual ask to all of this.
The idea of intentionality can seem very hard, particularly for Millennials and Generation Z’ers, who grew up with the internet, mobile devices, and social media. Yet we are all becoming aware of our reliance on smartphones — and of their possible impact on our personal, in-person conversations, of the feelings of being addicted to them, and of how we respond to the discomfort of feeling bored or impatient by giving in to the impulse to check for messages or scroll for updates.
We can practice what Michelle Drouin calls “social economizing,” making active decisions about how we want to spend our time — alone, with others, on technology or not — and taking steps to realize our intentions. And we can check our security settings on streaming devices to reduce tracking when we watch Euphoria or the Bachelorette.
This is where family professionals come in. Not only are they researching technology’s effects, but those on the front lines as educators and service providers help families get the information they need to make informed decisions — the reason for this book) And information about technology is best consumed with a critical eye — another reason for this book. As mentioned earlier, while our use can seem personal, it can have clear impacts on others. We can enjoy a new app, yet realize that it’s sharing personal data in a way we find objectionable. Our use must be ethical and responsible, and seeing the complexity of our technology use as individuals, as family members, as professionals, and as a global society is key.
We can challenge technology innovators to be wise to the intended and unintended effects of their products. In her On Tech column in the New York Times, Shira Ovide cautioned against building new tech like augmented reality. While such technology can seem like a fun way to experience new places and adventures, we must consider other uses and pre-consider the possible risks. She asked about AR (augmented reality):
What do we want from the next generation of immersive internet for our kids? Do we want to drive while our headgear flings tweets into our fields of vision? Do we even want to erase the gap between digital life and real life?
For a recent discussion of how the Amish use ICT, take a look at this article from Wired magazine.
When we think about the future — and think beyond ourselves to our near and far communities — our technology use can become part of the common good. Several years ago, Kevin Kelly, a co-founder of Wired magazine, described the Amish community’s interest in ICT. Well-known for their religious practices, which shun the use of electricity and other technologies, the Amish did not immediately dismiss the notion of cell phones. Rather, they deployed several of their younger members to use the phones for several weeks to test their purpose and the value they’d bring to the group. Their interest was to identify any potential value for the community.
Our awareness of technology’s impact and use by families begins with our careful reflection on the ways in which we use technology in our own lives, how it affects our relationships and communication, how it enhances and detracts, and what it might mean in the future. This is a big ask — and I appreciate your joining me on this journey.
1. Throughout the book the coronovirus of 2019 will be spelled COVID-19 or Covid-19 as there doesn't appear to be an agreed upon convention on capitalization of this disease
2. On the other hand, the accepted spelling of internet is internet (not Internet) and this will be consistently followed through the book.
3. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the Wikipedia link to read more about the internet, its scope, history, and governance
4. Readers are directed to the Wikipedia page for the World Wide Web for detailed descriptions of common terms like browsers, servers, cache, and cookies.
5. Although in a recent interview, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales talked of the challenges with page editing by those with an agenda. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/01%3A_Ten_Truths_about_Technology/1.01%3A_Ten_Truths_about_Technology.txt |
Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. Penguin.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethnic and racial minorities and socioeconomic status. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-erm.pdf
Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021). Social media use in 2021. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/04/07/social-media-use-in-2021/
Ayllón, S., Holmarsdottir, H.B. & Lado, S. (2021). Digitally deprived children in Europe. (DigiGen – working paper series No. 3). doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.14339054
Blank, G., & Groselj, D. (2014). Dimensions of Internet use: Amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 417–435.
Bogost, I. (2022, November 10). The age of social media is ending. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...ecline/672074/
Borg, K., & Smith, L. (2018). Digital inclusion and online behavior: Five typologies of Australian internet users. Behavior & Information Technology, 37(4), 367–380.
Brinberg, M., Ram, N., Yang, X., Cho, M. J., Sundar, S. S., Robinson, T. N., & Reeves, B. (2021). The idiosyncrasies of everyday digital lives: Using the Human Screenome Project to study user behavior on smartphones. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106570.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. E. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. E. Lüscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). American Psychological Association.
Carr, C.T., & Hayes, R.A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23, 46–65.
Cha, J., Eid, M., Rahal, L., & El Saddik, A. (2008). HugMe: An interpersonal haptic communication system. In 2008 IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio visual Environments and Games (pp. 99–102).
Chetty, R., Jackson, M. O., Kuchler, T., Stroebel, J., Hendren, N., Fluegge, R. B., Gong, S., Gonzalez, F., Grondin, A., Jacob, M., Johnston, D., Koenen, M., Laguna-Muggenburg, E., Mudekereza, F., Rutter, T., Thor, N., Townsend, W., Zhang, R., Bailey, M., Barberá, P., … Wernerfelt, N. (2022). Social capital I: measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature, 608(7921), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04996-4
Hitlin, P. (2018). Internet, social media use and device ownership in U.S. have plateaued after years of growth. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/28/internet-social-media-use-and-device-ownership-in-u-s-have-plateaued-after-years-of-growth/
Horrigan, J. (2016). Digital Readiness Gaps. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/09/20/digital-readiness-gaps/
Jarvenpaa, S., & Lang, K. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23. https://doi.org/ 10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/ 90026.2
Jhangiani, R.S., Chiang, I.A., Cuttler, C., & Leighton, D. (2019). Research methods in psychology. https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/psychmethods4e/
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53, 59–68.
Kelly, H., & Fowler, G. A. (2021). Privacy reset: A guide to the important settings you should change now. Washington Post (online). www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2021/privacy-settings-guide/
McClain, C., Widjaya, R., Rivero, G., & Smith, A. (2021). The behaviors and attitudes of U.S. adults on Twitter. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/11/15/the-behaviors-and-attitudes-of-u-s-adults-on-twitter/
National Human Services Assembly (2007). The parenting initiative: Investing in parents so children and youth succeed. Policy Brief 22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499303.pdf
Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 1–17. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3
Perrin, A., & Atske, S. (2021). Americans with disabilities less likely than those without to own digital devices. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/10/americans-with-disabilities-less-likely-than-those-without-to-own-some-digital-devices/
Ratliff, C. (2014). More than 40 percent of online adults are multi-device users. E-consultancy. https://econsultancy.com/more-than-40-of-online-adults-are-multi-device-users-stats/#i.pdznn69qnfres2
Thelwall, M. (2009). Chapter 2 social network sites: Users and uses. Social Networking and the Web. Advances in Computers. Vol. 76. pp. 19–73. doi:10.1016/S0065-2458(09)01002-X. ISBN 9780123748119.
Tiku, N. (2018, April 18). The WIRED guide to internet addiction. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/wired-guide-to-internet-addiction/
Tippet, K. (Host). (2017, July). danah boyd. The internet of the good the bad and the ugly. In On Being. American Public Media. https://onbeing.org/programs/danah-boyd-the-internet-of-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-jul2017/#transcript
Tufekci, A. (2019, April 21). Think you’re discreet online? Think again. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/opinion/computational-inference.html
Vogels, E. A., Gelles-Watnick, R. & Massarat, N. (2022). Teens, social media and technology, 2022. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion. The MIT Press. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/01%3A_Ten_Truths_about_Technology/1.02%3A_References.txt |
A day (or more) without technology
Challenge yourself to put aside your phone, shut off your laptop, and ignore TikTok, Instagram, and Netflix. Zero technology for a full 24-hour period. If you need to, let your friends and family know you’ll be off the grid. Go about your day and observe how you manage the various functions for which you use technology: navigation (e.g., maps), communication (e.g., texting), entertainment. How does it feel? Check your reactions periodically. Does it seem to get easier? Does your experience with life change? Do you feel in a bit of a panic at times? Use the experience to understand the role technology plays in your life and, at the end of it, whether you’d make any changes.
Debate: Technology and the college learning experience
The use of laptops, tablets, and smartphones in college classrooms has become the norm. Classes are increasingly being delivered via video conferencing, especially during the COVID pandemic. The use of technology has many benefits to learning, yet there are also potential drawbacks. There are faculty who strongly oppose laptops in the classroom.
Assume your university is proposing a ban on using laptops in a classroom. Divide into groups: YES (those agreeing with the ban) and NO (those opposing), and prepare points supporting your stance. After sharing the main points on both sides, discuss what you’ve learned. Using the graphic below, with one side PRO and the other side CON, reflect on the use of laptops
• as individuals (pro/con).
• as groups (pro/con) — our use of technology is not inherently personal.
• as member of society — our use of technology is controlled and influenced by forces beyond us, including our households, our communities, our universities and employers, the larger society.
• What is the answer with regard to personal responsibility for our community’s technology use?
• With regard to technology in general, what recommendations do you have as a class for its safe and effective use?
Measuring technology use
With a group of at least four people, discuss how you individually use technology. Identify the types of devices you own/use, the applications you use, the functions they serve for you, the people you connect with, and the ways in which you use ICT during a week.
1. Create a list of functions ICT provides to you. Match up the devices and applications that fulfill these functions.
2. Observe the ways that you as individuals vary in your use — the number and type of devices, frequency of use, comfort with use, functions or purposes, and so on.
3. As a group, design an instrument that would assess differences in technology use. What would you measure? How would you measure it?
The power of social media
This video is from the January 6 House Committee testimony of Stephen Ayres, given on July 12, 2022. Ayres protested at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, believing that the election had been stolen: www.nytimes.com/live/2022/07/12/us/jan-6-hearing-today-trump/29866d4b-e590-5573-b39a-535cf7f75f7c?smid=url-share
As you watch, you can see how Mr Ayres’ was influenced by what he read on social media, only later deciding to “do his own research” to understand the realities of the 2020 presidential election. What is your reaction to watching this video? How might you convince someone like Stephen Ayres to expand his sources of information beyond what he reads on social media?
Your relationship with technology
Each of us spends many hours each day with our phones, laptops, the internet, streaming services, social media, and more. You might say that we spend more time with technology each day than we do with any human being. And even if we don’t interact with technology, the fact that we carry our phones with us means that technology is “always with us.” Reflect on your use of technology over the day, and on your connection, interaction, and even intimacy with it. We are, in effect, in a relationship with our technology.
Reflect on that relationship as though it was with a person. Is it a relationship that makes you happy? It is one that you feel dependent on? One that might be jealous if you also spend time with humans in real life, with nature, with a book? Is it a relationship that you feel you might be losing some control with? Or is it clearly a consensual, co-dependent, cooperative relationship?
Maybe write a letter to technology, expressing how you feel about it.
Being Good Ancestors
Jonas Salk, pioneer of the polio vaccine, stated that the most important thing we can do is to be good ancestors. He refers to intentional actions that are forward thinking, and to preparing a world for future generations. One element that surrounds us is ‘smart cities.’ Thinking about the inevitability of technology innovation, if we want to be good ancestors, what do you think information and communications technology should do? Or not do? How can it be safe? For individuals and for society? Develop a list of recommendations for ICT innovators that look ahead to future families and individuals. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/01%3A_Ten_Truths_about_Technology/1.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
Listen to Lindy West’s This American Life podcast segment on trolls (“If you don’t have anything nice to say…”). What is it about posting online that allows individuals to feel comfortable with being rude and hurtful to others? Jimmy Kimmel has a popular segment on his late night show featuring celebrities reading the “mean tweets” they receive. Reflect on your own experience with social media.What is your reaction to Lindy West’s story about the pain she felt when an anonymous person trashed her father’s memory through online comments? Most of us don’t have the opportunity to interact one-on-one with online trolls to the point that they come to understand their actions and apologize. What should we do when we receive negative comments from those who don’t know us and use a fictitious identity? Do we turn away from social media altogether? Do we ignore it? Do we respond in some way?
During emergencies and other events (like weather), information travels quickly through social media. Consider the impact of this on us, pro and con. For perspective, consider events that happened before rapid social technology was available — 9/11, election news, natural disasters (like hurricanes), or threats of nuclear disaster (such as during the Cold War). What value is there to the speed of this information being shared? What are the consequences?
Kevin Kelly is a cofounder of Wired magazine and a philosopher about technology. Listen to his podcast interview on On Being, “The universe is a question,” and reflect on his thoughts about how we view our ability to shape the character of technology.
In 2014, Pew Research published Digital Life in 2025. Scan through the report to read the hopeful and less hopeful predictions by experts. Reflect on our collective experiences during COVID-19 (obviously an event not known to these experts). Consider that 2025 is not that far in the future. How would you assess the predictions? Will they happen? Are they happening? What will or could they mean to family life? To society?
Listen to the podcast episode of Hidden Brain on the social media scandal at Harvard discussed in the chapter.What is your reaction to the response and to the ultimate decision related to a student’s admission decision? Was it fair, given our current social media climate? Consider our class discussion about our individual use of technology and it’s additional impacts on others, and how our use is heavily influenced by others’ expectations of us.
Reflect on the ways in which your ICT use shifted (if at all) during COVID-19. For most of us, the time of quarantine between March 2020 and June 2021 had significant influence on our lives and our use of technology. What was good about this time, relative to your technology behavior? What are you not as happy with? From the perspective of the time in which you’re reading this, did your shifts in technology use during COVID-19 continue?Here’s an example. In May 2020, the author saw family educators post questions about integrating technology on Facebook. She offered to hold a Zoom session for people to gather and share ideas. The meetings were such a success that they have continued for well over two years, becoming a regular weekly meeting open to any family educator wanting to talk about practice. This is a simple change brought about by COVID-19 that has remained.
During COVID-19, many in-person classes shifted to videoconferencing (usually Zoom). Consider a traditional class, whether a lecture, a mixture of lecture and discussion, active learning, or laboratory work. Is videoconferencing a good substitute? Consider the effectiveness of videoconferencing for learning, compared with in-person learning. What does videoconferencing instead of coming to class mean to you as a student? How does it affect your own use of technology, in classrooms and elsewhere, to support your learning? When is it efficient? When might it be costly due to its power to distract or to other negative impacts? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/01%3A_Ten_Truths_about_Technology/1.04%3A_Blog_Prompts.txt |
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.
― Marie Curie
Chapter Insights
• “Family” can be defined in various ways; there are generally accepted roles and functions families fulfill for their members and to society.
• As the family operates as a system, there are characteristics, processes, and influences on its functioning.
• Extant theories of the family — including family development, symbolic interaction, feminist and social construction — are useful in understanding dynamics of technology use and family access.
• While theories of media use help us understand how people vary in their use in relationships, they might be insufficient to apply to family research without some adaptation.
• This chapter presents Lanigan’s Family Sociotechnological Framework, along with Hertlein and Blumer’s Couple and Family Technology and Life Course. Consider how these frameworks characterize the role of technology in family dynamics and functioning.
• With evolving research and theory, our consideration of families’ integration of technology and its impact on family life might drive new ways of understanding families altogether.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
As family scholars, when we address questions of the impacts of technology use on family life, we begin with the foundation of how the family is understood, its processes, the dynamics of relationships between family members, and how the family is situated within the wider social ecology. On this foundation we can more clearly see ICT is used by families for communication and family life management. ICT enables a variety of processes between individuals in the family, and on behalf of the family, helping achieve the functions of the family. This chapter reviews key family theories and perspectives, and presents newer theories specific to technology use. The chapter ends with a discussion of two relevant models that blend traditional family constructs with the reality and potential of family internet, device, and application use.
Consider these questions about your own family:
• How do you define “family”? What influences how you view and define “family?” What is a “happy family?
• What are the functions or purposes of a/your “family”? Who are its members? What roles do they play?
• Is your family “successful” as a family? Effective? Healthy/functioning?
• What influences your family’s well-being — positively and negatively, internally and externally?
• How has your family changed over time?
Defining Family
The definition of family depends on the perspective of the person doing the defining. Some consider a family to consist of members who are legally and biologically related. Governments define the construct of a family when distributing goods or services, or when allocating rights and privileges. The U.S. Census Bureau, for example, defines family as “a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family.” [NOTE: “householder” by virtue of a name being on a title or lease agreement]. This definition is broader than the same agency’s definition of a family group and family household, which can include nonbiological others and ascribes leadership. Family is sometimes defined by its structure and membership. While some may restrict this to a traditional notion of “immediate family members,” including the parent or parents and children, others consider anyone living with and related to the immediate family., including grandparents and other extended family members. And for others, “family” is a concept borne of connectedness, similarity, and shared values: two or more people who are committed to each other and share intimacy, resources, decision-making responsibilities, and values.“family” is a concept borne of connectedness, similarity, and shared values: two or more people who are committed to each other and share intimacy, resources, decision-making responsibilities, and values.
For the purposes of our discussion of technology use, if we are to have a generalized sense of technology’s influence, it is important that definitions of families are shared across research when comparing studies.
With an understanding of what a family might look like, let’s consider its function. This can seem like an odd question when we all were born into families and are part of families, even if they’ve changed in composition or meaning over the years. The family is such an expected, natural unit of society that to question its function can seem jarring, yet the question allows us to better understand the processes and structures that help the family to be successful — processes and structures that are facilitated or affected by ICT.
Families serve functions to themselves as a cohesive unit, to their members, and to society (including culture). For example, the definition above indicates process words: “commitment,” “sharing” — yet to what end? Perhaps the function that nearly everyone can relate to is the family as providing emotional support, and caring for the physical, mental, social, and (for some) spiritual well-being of its members. Families also perform generative functions for society. In fact, birthing into a family unit and socialization of children is a role most cultures confer on families. In so doing, families provide a value system of beliefs that are passed through generations, maintaining members’ emotional, social, physical, and spiritual well-being.
Readers are encouraged to explore the rich cultural and ethnic dynamics through which families are guided in their norms, traditions, roles, and expectations (e.g., Gardiner, 2017). It is through these caregiving functions and the passing along of traditions that family well-being becomes of interest as an economic value.
As noted by the World Youth Alliance:
The family facilitates the transfer of culture from the older generation to the younger generation, passing on values and the importance of hard work, discipline, and solidarity. The strong examples set by parents, grandparents, and extended family members foster the work ethic and moral character of individuals entering into the workforce, which positively impacts the quality of the workforce and reduces youth unemployment. Thus the important role of healthy family structures in the economic growth of society must be recognized and promoted.
This section reviews several conceptual frameworks common to family science. Those selected neither exhaust the list of family theories, nor are they “best.” They represent some classic family theoretical perspectives that align well to a shared understanding of technology’s application to family structures, processes, and outcomes. Beyond these, readers are encouraged to explore other theories such as feminist theory, valuable in viewing the lens through which society presents images and communication about women’s roles, the subordination of women’s roles, and gender equality and independence. Feminist theory might explore messaging through ICT, and global gender division in household property (including the possession and use of technology) and employment. Social exchange theory, when applied to the family, examines the goal orientation of individuals. It assumes that the individual acts in ways that satisfy goals, and that rational choices in pursuit of that goal consider the benefits and consequences, and size up available resources. With regard to the family, social exchange theory might be used to examine the influence of a family member in creating a crowdsourced fundraiser online, and the balance of perceived potential rewards and constraints (see related research by Kim et al., 2018).
Suggestions on further reading on family theory are offered in the Additional Readings and Resources for this chapter.
Family Systems and Ecological Influences on the Family
Viewing families as open systems, and families as part of a wider social ecology, are key principles in our basic understanding of family life. A Family Systems perspective builds from classic Systems Theory, which views the organism as an ongoing system of interconnected members. In an open system, members influence each other, and each member is influenced by external factors. The family systems perspective focuses on the family as an ongoing system of interconnected members. Extensions of family systems theory include Bowen’s theory of the family and systemic change over generations of interactions and emotional development.
In the systems perspective, the whole is viewed as greater than the collective of individual parts. The family as a distinct unit has its own characteristics, structure, strengths, and weaknesses. The system is dynamic and transactional, sharing information (in the family via communication), and through that sharing affecting the other members, as family subsystems (e.g., a parent and child) or the family as a whole.
Olson’s Circumplex Model (2003) features family operations through processes of communication, cohesion, and adaptability or flexibility. Communication takes many forms — verbal, nonverbal, symbolic, literal (e.g., text, written or spoken language), and figurative. And as with any communication from sender to receiver, articulation and interpretation may vary. Families also demonstrate aspects of cohesion. The cohesion of a system reflects its strength and degree of connectedness as a whole, and across its individual links (e.g., a parent-child subsystem). Connectedness reflects a balance of separateness (or autonomy of its members for growth) and togetherness for comfort, safety, and stimulation for growth. It is excessive neither in member separateness (indicating disengagement) nor member togetherness (reflecting enmeshment). Instead, it values demonstrations of commitment and closeness while respecting member individuality. Cohesion also reflects the strength and resilience of the family, particularly in the face of stress. As an example of technology research framed from a systems perspective, Ferguson and colleagues (2016) examined the influence of employee mobile technology use during time with the family. Enhanced mobile use contributed to work-family conflict and reduced work attention. For the spouse, increased mobile use by the employee (family member) contributed to spousal conflict and decreased commitment to the employee’s organization.
As an open system, the family is able to take in new experiences, grow, and change. A closed system avoids change and maintains the status quo. All families and individuals in families face conflict, so another hallmark of healthy family functioning is flexibility — the ability to work through change and conflict and remain stable, albeit transformed. The strength of the unit is in how well it withstands, processes, and recovers from the stress or conflict. For example, if a family member comes out as gay, an open family system adopts a new understanding of that member on their terms and identity and adjusts. A closed family system rejects a non-traditional (to them) idea of the family member’s sexual orientation. This rigidity is experienced through a lack of change in acceptance, a lack of communication, and a lack of openness to re-identify as a family.
Technology is another example of the need for system flexibility. A family system that is open embraces and understands the role that ICT plays and adopts it in ways that benefit yet don’t diminish the family’s functioning. A closed system stays resistant to using ICT; seeing it as not beneficial, and thus risking the lack of growth or efficiency. In the 2018 podcast interview referred to in the last chapter, Kevin Kelly speaks of the Amish, who selectively choose whether to embrace smartphones. They don’t reject innovation out of hand, but rather ask some community members to experience the innovation for a year to determine if it benefits the whole community.
Flexibility can be also viewed as the necessary, day-to-day adjustments made when dealing with external influences small and large. Whether the conflict comes from a parent and child negotiating how much time the teen spends on their phone, or a family recovering from their home being hit by a hurricane, families need to possess the characteristic of flexibility. Flexibility may be seen in compassion, understanding, and communication between members. It may require shifts in structures and responsibilities, in the allocation of resources, and in the focus of time and attention.
Consider the use of ICT tools that facilitate family communication, yet might negatively affect the family’s sense of cohesion and call for demonstration of flexibility. How might we envision these processes when there are individual differences in family members’ technology use? We can also imagine technology as an external influence or milieu in which the family thrives, as there is a societal shift to a “high-tech,” low-touch reality. How might this influence a family’s functioning? In your family, what might the introduction of smartphones to the family mean to family functioning
As an open system, the family and its members are influenced by their ecology, or surroundings. Contexts can include systems that families are a part of — social systems, belief systems, and extended family systems. Social systems are the neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, and people that families and family members connect with on an ongoing basis. Belief systems relate to the family’s norms, values, traditions, and possibly religious or spiritual elements that guide practice and goals. Extended family can also convey and reinforce culture and traditional norms and values, and can offer resources in the form of emotional, informational, and practical support — support that can be positive, yet can also have a negative impact (e.g., stress).
Readers may want to dive into systems perspectives specific to family stress and coping (Hill, 1958; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982), family resilience, and family strengths (DeFrain & Assay, 2007; Patterson, 2004). While different, these models each reveal characteristics that help families through conflict and crisis. Hill’s (1958) ABC-X model of family stress and coping, for instance, conceptualizes the family encountering the antecedents (A) of stress, responding based on their perception of resources (B), and experiencing the consequences (C). “X refers to the endogenous variable (X) of the ABC-X model as the degree to which the stressor precipitates a crisis to the extent that a family can no longer remain functioning” (Rossino, 2016, p. 1). The double ABC-X model refers to the family’s post-crisis response and adaptation or dysfunction. Individual family differences dictate the perception, response to the stressor, and response to the consequences. As Patterson (2004) notes, family resilience can be viewed as an outcome and measure of family adjustment to stress. It can also be assessed as a process in terms of the meaning families ascribe to stress and the actions with which they respond. Family strengths reflect positive abilities and attitudes toward life and each other.
Families are also greatly influenced by the wider systems they are part of. As they are changed by that influence, they influence others within the family through their interactions. As the family is changed, its internal workings return it to a steady state, or homeostasis (much like the human body when subjected to abnormal conditions that produce stress, like running fast or metabolizing a high amount of sodium). Returning to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective introduced in the previous chapter, we are reminded of the individual as influenced by proximal (nearby, frequently interacting) influences and those more distal, infrequent, and remote. Human development is influenced by the unique composition of the individual through interaction with people, in contexts, through processes over time. The family is a proximal influence on individual development, carrying the unique composition and characteristics of its members, history, and culture, and is influenced by the proximal and distal systems within which it interacts.
That unit can experience the same contextual influences as others, yet respond differently. These influences can include physical settings, time, events, political conditions, climate, and resources made available by location. Settings can influence the resources available to families, and threats to family well-being.
Take, for instance, a family living in a suburb of a major metropolitan city and another living in a remote rural town. On one hand, all families living in a particular place are exposed to the same availability of resources. This is where jurisdiction matters. On the other hand, within that setting, family use of available resources will vary. Navarro and Tudge’s (2022) “technologization” of Bronfenbrenner’s framework identifies the virtual environment as a setting complementary to yet separate from the physical world. The virtual environment offers a location for interaction and exposes the individual to resources. The authors adapt the notion of cultural influences in more distal settings, reflecting the virtual environment. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 5, which focuses on technology influences on human development, they observe that “the rapid adoption of digital technology likely differentially impacts the development of [individuals] depending upon the values and beliefs, resources, and social structure of their society.” (Navarro & Tudge, 2022, p. 8). Events are another influence on the family as a system. As we’ve experienced with the COVID-19 pandemic, events can create worldwide impacts that have ramifications long after. The family is negatively impacted when subjected to influences of poverty, discrimination, and racism, which can reduce access to resources.
A perspective related to systems theory is activity theory, which articulates how social action is mediated through social objects and social organization, affecting thinking and behavior. Activity theory stems from the work of social cognition theorists like Vygotsky, helping explain the individual’s mental capabilities resulting from interaction with the community, culture, and technology surrounding it. The theory’s application to information and communications technology is apparent, yet it also considers others with whom the individual interacts within the system. Activity theory addresses the objective of the system, internalization of the actors, tools used by the actors, division of labor, rules, and conventions. One example of activity theory as applied to technology and human interaction systems examines the use of online communities for professional development (Baran & Cagiltay, 2010).
Additional Perspectives on the Family
Family Development
Among the major natural and inevitable influences on the family are the individual development of its members, and the development of the family as a whole (Carter & McGoldrick, 1988). The family system is intended to foster the development of its members. There is certain predictability with the continual development and change of individuals in the family (e.g., children developing physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally from birth through adolescence), though this still requires flexibility by the family. When the development of a member is impeded, that sense of predictability and order is thrown off.
As we consider development of the family and within the family, think about how family members deal with various roles and developmental tasks as they move through life stages: the initiation of couple relationships, commitment, and formation of the family; transitions to parenting; raising young, tween, and teenaged children; launching those children; and mid-life, retirement, and possible caregiving for elders. Within the family, one member’s efficiency in completing the tasks of development directly impacts the development and activity of other family members. For example, a ten-year-old who is emotionally and cognitively mature may be given responsibility for caregiving to their younger siblings, making it easier for the parents to spend more time at work earning money that provides for the family as a whole. Viewing family development as a response to the developmental trajectory of its members encourages attention to the family process, acknowledges the family as a dynamic system, and focuses on individual and contextual change over time.
This graphic from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) nicely demonstrates the developmental shifts that happen to whole families over time. As it shows, roles change over time. The full family unit of parents and child conveys the responsibilities of parenting and child-rearing. Thirty years later, the full family unit conveys the shift to older parents requiring some level of care by the adult child, even if that means emotional support rather than practical or financial assistance.
Given the multiple influences on individuals within the family, and the stages in which the family itself shifts, viewing change in a family acknowledges influences such as gender expression at each life stage; the health, addictions, and ability status of family members; immigration; and characteristics of race, ethnicity, and culture as carried out by the family, and as society reacts to those identities within the family.
Symbolic Interaction
Symbols offer shared meanings that are expressed through verbal and nonverbal communication. The Symbolic Interaction framework helps explain how we learn about and through roles by communicating with each other about various roles in our society. In families, repeated patterns and behaviors express roles and meaning to members and to wider social systems. While a role in a family includes expected behavior in a given social category (Olson et al., 2014), role making includes interacting with others in ways that help teach the role or change its expression. Women’s caretaking, for example, may be learned from watching women in the family and extended family; these caretaking roles are reinforced by others in the family and wider society.
Emotional bonds are created from activities conveyed by one’s role. Roles also symbolize the importance and power of a family member in fulfilling functions. The power results from an implicit negotiation between individuals in the family. Within an individual family, a woman’s extreme caregiving may convey her power in that family (e.g., the matriarch).
Consider how roles may play out in family member technology use. A son whose role is in sibling oversight and monitoring, for example, may be given a mobile phone early to help him communicate with other family members.
Feminist Family Theory
Within the perspective of internal family roles in which members carry out functions that fulfill internal and external family goals, feminist theory challenges the patriarchal paradigm that proscribes certain roles to women (Allen, 2016). Traditionally women are viewed as caregivers, holding roles through marriage that serve the husband, bear children, provide the dominant role in parenting, complete domestic (household) management, and oversee care for elders. In the feminist framework, roles are equal and women maintain responsibility for financial matters and as decision makers for the family, including holding down employment. This doesn’t mean taking on traditionally female and financial roles, but equal division of labor. Because this perspective challenges the traditional model, it also accepts a degree of conflict in households as a natural course of role negotiation. In this book, discussion of access to technology greatly concern views of women in global societies. There is significant misalignment in access to mobile devices and to the internet by gender, particularly in less developed countries in which fewer people hold access. For example, although in North America where 95% of the population has internet access, there is a 1% difference between men (95%) and women (94%), in South Asia, the difference is much wider with 37% men and 18% women. Feminist theory questions these access rate differentials.
Patterns of Family Communication
As discussed, family communication is a process by which family outcomes of connectedness and cohesion occur. Interactions, and transactive communication, and the conveying of information through verbal and nonverbal actions — these are part of families’ daily lives. Families also communicate care and affection through rituals and traditions. These may be unique to a given family (e.g., birthday, graduation) or may be a family celebration of a wider cultural tradition. Given the uniqueness of the family in society, and the uniqueness of each family, it makes sense that families vary based on their patterns of communication.
A social cognitive perspective on family communication is Keorner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002) identification of patterns, which adapts relational cognition and interpersonal behavior. Their model of patterns identifies two dimensions that represent the family’s shared reality: conversation and conformity. Conversation is communication about topics; conformity is expression of values, behaviors, norms, and beliefs. Families exhibiting low communication interact infrequently, and topics may be limited. Those who are low in conformity represent diverse perspectives and interdependence in interests. Information and influence from external sources are welcome in families who experience low conformity.
Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s work describes climates created by families based on the two dimensions. Those high in conformity yet low in conversation may be protective; when both conformity and conversation are low, the family is laissez-faire. Those high in conversation and low in conformity experience a pluralistic climate, and when both conversation and conformity are high, family patterns are said to be consensual.
Social Construction
Social construction is the development of a belief, construct, or concept based on repeated interaction with the society around an idea. This interaction reinforces certain beliefs and understandings, developing identities over time and through life experiences. Consider how the family might be a social construction — a building up of certain beliefs about something — and the forces that influence those beliefs. Day-to-day interactions with others in our neighborhoods, workplaces, and schools convey information about families.
At a wider level is how the family is represented in the media, in books and literature and stories, and now as passed along by the internet and by social media.
Here’s a short overview of TV families since the 1950s.
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=36#oembed-1
Let’s consider how the family has been presented in various television shows over time. Each link below describes a television show popular in its decade:
In each of these depictions, the family reflects a dominant belief system at the time — in the 1950s, the view of the family as patriarchal, white, and middle class; in the 1970s, the family as blended and heterosexual; in the 1980s, the Black upper-middle-class family of the Cosbys; in the 2000s, family systems made richly diverse (in some ways) through inclusion of age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marriage, remarriage, and gay marriage. Certainly, real-life families vary greatly from these depictions, yet media representations convey the ways in which the larger society defines a family. Our critical lens must explore the voices and faces and experiences missing in these shared constructions. Often, the perspectives of women, immigrants, non-traditional families, families with members who have disabilities, and those with non-dominant gender orientation or cultural and religious traditions are silenced, marginalized, or — possibly worse — presented in a stereotyped way.
Social construction as it relates to technology can be viewed as a response to technological determinism. Mauthner and Kazimierczak (2018) observe that technological determinism would argue that the changes brought about by technology create material constraints to human agency, and determine history and culture. They cite Heilbroner’s (1994) view of the acquisitive mindset, or behavior of maximizing as the mechanism that facilitates technology’s change and impact on history. Mauthner and Kazimierczak observe that technology is independent in driving social change, “but rather from the broader sociopolitical contexts in which they are designed, developed and adopted” (p.23) And so, the individual or community has less agency in the changes brought about by technology. The authors cite Sismondo’s (2010) illustration of the watch as an example of SCOT (the social construction of technology). The watch is crafted to be functional in its ability to tell time, to have esthetic value, to be profitable, to make a statement about the person who wears it, and other perspectives. Even the action of telling time can be perceived as fulfilling different functions – measuring a length of time, maintaining time, acting as a stop watch. In short, the perspective of the watch is socially constructed by those using it. In social constructivist notions of the family, the family is understood within the particular social contexts that define their nature and effects, technology too can be understood within social negotiations and logic. Mauthner and Kazimierczak provide an example of research that integrates social constructivism to technology use and family work balance through Wajcman’s work on gender (p. 23). As will be discussed in chapter 9, technology integration in the balance of boundaries and role demands across work and family spheres is less determined by the mobile capabilities of devices and use of the internet, but through constructed action by users and the social contexts in which they operate.
Social Networks of Families
Social network theory stems from the sociological study of human relationships and the flow of capital across social ties. Social networks are created by relationships, not defined by the boundaries and contents of an established institution. They are characterized by dyadic links and network dimensions (e.g., size, shape, density of interconnectedness), by relational transmissions across connections, and by time and space. They have power through their social and societal influence on individual behavior and the collective behavior of the group. Network structures determine the content, quality, and flow of influence within the network (bridging, bonding, latent social capital, social support). Influence can occur on a small scale (e.g., from person to person, from small group to individual); it can also happen across many interconnected network connections, creating an aggregate influence more potent than the individual connections within whole networks.
The perspective of Moncrieff Cochran (Cochran, 1990a, 1990b; Cochran & Niego, 2002; Cochran & Walker, 2005) on the social networks of parenting applies network theory to one role in the family, yet its principles make it relevant to other dimensions of family roles and influences through relationships. It suggests ways that the larger ecological, structural, and relational dynamics of a family member’s life (in this case the parent) may impact child well-being, working through the parent or operating directly on the child. Echoing the tenets of social network theory, Cochran and Brassard (1978) observed that it is through the structure of those connections and relational processes that networks have the capacity to convey information and models of behavior from the larger society through the parent, and thus to impact parenting behavior.
Network membership is greatly constrained, even imposed by one’s position in society by virtue of such factors as culturalvalues and beliefs, income and education, and geographic location. Christakis and Fowler call this “situational inequality”(2009, p. 31). The other significant influence on network realities is the range of factors that motivate an individual’s recruitment, selection, and engagement of network members. Identifying the forces that influence network formation and engagement illuminates avenues that public policy and programs can follow to affect network membership and involvement.
The social processes conveyed through network interaction — either directly involving the parent, or happening indirectly, as with hyperdyadic spread or broader network effects — contribute to observed parenting behavior. In general, social support through offers of practical assistance, information, and emotional or psychological aid has been studied as a process through which network influences parenting. Buffering, modeling, teaching, direct assistance, and providing opportunities for interaction are dimensions believed to affect parental behavior.
Internet and social media applications of Cochran’s network perspective
Cochran’s model is a useful conceptual guide for research on parents’ social networks and on outcomes of parenting resulting from online and offline experiences. The framework challenges researchers to regard process and structure as keys to social relationship dynamics and meaning. The use of social network sites might provide parents with bridging social capital (that exposes them to diverse child-rearing perspectives, including a blend of lay advice and professional views), and with bonding social capital to maintain close ties, even with those intimate, trusted, and depended on for social support yet infrequently seen. Family researchers may look to network perspectives to consider other dimensions of outcomes that may be the product of social network dynamics and that may have an influence on the child, including parent development and the parent-child relationship. As a mechanism for information, communication, self-expression, and collaboration, the internet holds possibilities to influence the individual development of the parent (e.g., identity validation). And explorations of impacts on the parent can examine how online interactions might have offline benefits either to parents directly, or indirectly to their children.
Before moving ahead, consider some questions that apply technology to the family theories discussed in this section:
• How might the use of cell phones or smartphones figure into family system functioning?
• What might the introduction of smartphones to the family mean to family functioning regarding family member roles?
• How might “rules” related to technology play a part in the enactment of the roles?
• How does the sense of family member development relative to technology use, attitudes, or comfort figure into the family functioning for cohesion? Communication?
• To maintain the family functioning, how might family members need to demonstrate flexibility in technology use or attitudes?
• How is the family conveyed through social media in ways that point to it as a social construction?
Theoretical Perspectives on Media and Communication
Are family theories sufficient to answer our questions about technology use by families? What limits to exploring technology’s impacts might be found in these traditional theories of family life? As will be discussed in the next section, specific perspectives on ICT present ways of understanding innovation in human life that are not adequately addressed in existing theories. While communications theories represent a field of study beyond the scope of this book, selected theories will be briefly introduced here as indicative of perspectives offered on ICT aspects and use, and on the impact of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on human behavior and collective society. Additional authors, such as Dworkin et al. (2018), have discussed these theories relative to their insight on families.
Media Richness Theory
Media richness theory proposes that media use or selection depends on the ability desired to convey messages, particularly those of an emotional or relational nature. As the figure below conveys, richness deepens with formats that approximate the experience of being face-to-face or physical presence. In Simpson’s (2013) research on media richness, media selection is determined by considerations of tool or format experience, perception of tool capabilities, and social circumstances.
Media Multiplexity
Haythornthwaite’s (2005) media multiplexity theory conveys the meaning of intimate relationships through the use of devices by number and variation. According to the theory, relationships are stronger when conveyed through the use of multiple devices and connections. Being friends with your sister on TikTok, texting her, IM-ing her through her Instagram account, and using FaceTime for weekly chats demonstrate the platforms used to maintain your relationship. Balayar and Langlais’ research nicely represents media multiplexity in family relationships. They add the dimension of family perspective — individualistic or collectivistic — as this is an essential factor determining expectations for closeness. From a survey of college students, the authors revealed that those from collectivistic cultures appreciated face-to-face contact with parents, as it correlated with closeness and love. This did not hold for other family member relationships.
Technology Acceptance Model
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) proposes that perceptions of technology as both useful and easy to use have a direct and positive influence on technology attitudes, intention to use technology, and eventual use. (see Figure below)
The TAM is derived from Ajzen’s theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) which proposes that attitude toward a behavior is determined by the beliefs about the consequences of the behavior and by an individual’s effective evaluation of the consequences. Among Family and Consumer Science teacher candidates (Ma & Pendergast, 2008), perceived ease of use was the most significant influence on intention to use technology. Limitations of the TAM, as Davis (1989) describes, are the inclusion but lack of specificity about external variables that influence attitudes directly, and the influence of external variables as mediated by attitude components, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness.
A Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT, Venkatesh et al., 2003) identifies attitudinal and contextual constructs that motivate use, including the perception of success (e.g., the technology is useful to the purpose), effort (e.g., the technology is easy to use), influence from the social context (e.g., encouragement of others), and facilitating conditions (e.g., the availability of training). Personal factors that may condition use include age and previous experience with technology.
The author’s repeated study with parenting and family education professionals employs Teo et al.’s (2008) model of context variables that influence the TAM (e.g., Walker, et al, 2021), discussed later in Chapter 11: subjective norms and facilitating conditions. Translated to the workplace, external TAM constructs are “workplace expectations” and “workplace infrastructure” — technology use by family professionals would be influenced by their acceptance attitudes about technology, whether those attitudes were shaped by workplace conditions of being encouraged to use technology, and being given the resources that help technology be easy to use and seen as useful. Ertmer’s (1999) perspective on technology use also supports extrinsic factors such as training, access to devices, and organizational climate, yet sees them operate as “first order” influences, and views attitudes as second-order influences on use.
Frameworks on Families and Technology
Early in the millennium, advances in ICT use by families had family scholars calling for theoretical models that could shape evolving research and help depict and perhaps predict how new media impacted individuals within families and families as a dynamic, changing unit (Aponte, 2009; Blinn-Pike, 2009; Watt & White, 2000). Research using family theory as a basis for the study of technology integration certainly helps (e.g., Sharaievska & Stokolska, 2015). Recently, a variety of models have been proposed that integrate family dynamics with technological affordances and societal change (Dworkin et al., 2019; Mauthner, & Kazimierczak, 2018). This chapter focuses on two models that characterize family processes within traditional frameworks and that highlight aspects of the technologies themselves that inform selection, use, and impact.
Both models come from family systems and ecological perspectives; they regard ICT as tools external to the family unit that facilitate family processes (e.g., communication, knowledge acquisition) and structures that play out continuously in virtual and “real” worlds. The use of ICT by families is a recursive process in that changes in the technologies themselves can occur (witnessed by the growth in the availability of social and mobile media in response to popular use), resulting in differences in use due to the affordances provided. The recursive nature of ICT use is also seen in changes to family systems and processes as a result of the family interacting with and because of technology.
The figure below depicts changes in rules as a family experiences a member’s technology use. The daughter wants a phone and is offered one with an implicit understanding that she will text her parents when she is away. When this doesn’t happen, the discussion that ensues between the daughter and the parents results in a negotiation and a change in the rules to maintain family connectivity and balance.
Both models also reflect variation in use by individual or family factors and technology characteristics. Lanigan’s (2009) socio-technological model offers a comprehensive view of technology use and family life impacts; Hertlein’s (2012, 2018) is more specific to potential impacts on the structure and processes of couple and family relationships.
Family Sociotechnological perspective
Lanigan’s socio-technological family model (2009) (see figure below): “acknowledges the effect of multifunctional ICT’s on families and the influence of familial, extrafamilial and individual characteristics on how those technologies are assimilated within the family context.” (p. 595). The model highlights factors of the technology that influence its selection and use, including access, scope, adaptability, and malleability of the technology; obtrusiveness; resource demand (e.g., cost); and gratification potential. Family members are motivated to use technology based on their goals and intentions, attitudes, processing styles, personality (e.g., extroversion, social anxiety), and demographics (e.g., age, gender orientation, education). Family factors are largely represented as demographics, location, stage of development (e.g., transition to parenthood, launching), use by individual members, and family processes. Lanigan roots family processes of cohesion, adaptability, and communication in the model from the familiar Circumplex model of the family. Technological, individual, and family factors are encompassed in the extrafamilial context (Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem, 1995).
The socio-technological model can help us better understand “successful” ICT integration in family life. Lanigan observed from her research that “Successful families used the information capability of the technology to enhance family time by learning about community activities and planning vacations and time together…. Less successful families experienced conflict related to the computer. The conflicts resulted from difficulties establishing rules, perceptions that computer use was distancing a family member, and a reduction of family time, communication and emotional bonding…” (p. 604).
Life Course Theory Applied to Family Technology Use
In their 2018 review of the literature on social media and the family, Dworkin et al. observed that frameworks interpreting technology’s impacts on families are limited by not recognizing the impacts of time and context (including social network effects) and in technology itself. They propose the adoption of Elder’s (1998) life course theory to our understanding of the family and technology. The theory emphasizes the role of history on development through time and place, and of life transitions and their developmental impact, with the social networks in which we are embedded conveying the effects of wider macroeconomic and social forces. The individual constructs their path through the life course using personal agency and the opportunities and resources afforded to them. While lifecourse is similar to family development theory in its perspective on lives across time, Aldous (1990) observes that lifecourse focuses more on individual’s interaction with others/groups as they facilitate family event sequences.
Dworkin and co-authors observe life course theory as allowing us to conceptualize change in technology itself as a contextual impact on use by the individual and in turn the family, as well as on the wider social networks afforded by our online and offline interactions — social networks that offer both bonded connections (strong ties) and dispersed, bridging connections to the flow of information and resources. And it allows us to see the individual change in context (including the family context), over time, as introduction to new technologies (whether used or not, and regardless of what degree or by whom) affects internal interactions. Families in the urban U.S. with easy access to high-speed internet, for instance, will be affected quite differently than those in sub-Saharan Africa, where the internet infrastructure doesn’t allow for multiple devices or rapid connection. A life course perspective also aligns well with our recent experiences with COVID-19, as we consider our lives before and after COVID, and workers’ increased desires to work from home and have more flexibility in managing multiple family roles.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework and and approach to social networks and family technology, highlighted earlier in this chapter, lend support to the use of life course theory, and echo the need to see families in a chronological, contextual manner and to visualize the transactional interactions that influence development. As indicated, Chapter 5 will explore Navarro and Tudge’s (2022) adaptation of the ecological model that helps to explicate the person-process-context-time dimensions to explain ICT’s influence in human development.
The chapter ends with a final model that also adapts extant family theory using observations from the virtual world of human communication and interaction — appreciating specific mechanisms of new media and our lives online that exist differently from the real world — and addresses impacts on family structure and processes.
Couple and Family Technology Framework
Hertlein (2012) (see also Hertlein, 2018; Hertlein & Blumer, 2013) offers a multi-theoretical model “to describe how technology influences the way couples and families establish rules, roles, and boundaries and interact with each other and the outside world.” (p.375). The model organizes research literature into elements that integrate perspectives from family ecology (how technology as an environment influence affects the family), structural-functionalist theory (how technology affects rules, boundaries, and roles in families), and interaction-constructionist theory (how technology changes intimacy, relationship initiation, and relationship maintenance).
Hertlein’s framework sheds particular light on the characteristics of new media that differentiate them from other forms of communication and relationship interaction, most often assumed to occur in in-person, face-to-face contexts. She calls these characteristics “vulnerabilities” (p. 376), and highlights characteristics of digital media that can shift the perception of communication, the relationship, individuals in the relationship, and intent. The “Seven As” in Hertlein’s model include anonymity (presence online can be masked), accessibility (easier, 24/7 access to the individual), affordability (the lower cost for means of interaction and entertainment), approximation (social presence, or the feel and representation of face-to-face interaction through text and sensory elements), acceptability (e.g., of using technology as the format for relationship communication), accommodation (enabling the individual to behave like their real vs. their ought self), and ambiguity (problematic behavior resulting from time spent online). The structures of the couple and family relationships are influenced through a redefinition of boundaries, roles, and relational rules. Processes of couple and family relationships are impacted through redefinitions of intimacy, and through alterations in how relationships are formed, initiated, and maintained. As Hertlein (2018, p. 90) observes, “the framework considers the context in which the individual is embedded as well as future decisions to use technology and the manner in which technology is integrated into the family.”
Examples of how ICT can contribute to a change in family structure include the power shift as children show parents how to work a new iPhone (roles), a couple renegotiation of what they share about their relationship on social media (rules) and a parent’s distraction by incoming work messages while helping a child with schoolwork at home (boundaries). Accessibility to potential dates through a dating app can change process by helping initiate relationships. Approximation, or the social presence that videoconferencing can convey, can help extended family retain intimacy (thereby maintaining structure) during periods of separation such as COVID or during transnational living. Additional discussion of this framework will occur in Chapter 4 on couple relationships and ICT.
With these family, media, and blended models as a foundation for our critical perspectives on technology as influencing and influenced by families, we now move to a broader scope on family technology use in Chapter 3: differences in use within and across families. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/02%3A_Ways_of_Understanding__Families_and_Technology/2.01%3A_Ways_of_Understanding_Families_and_Technology.txt |
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Aldous, J. (1990). Family development and the life course: Two perspectives on family change. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 571-583.
Allen, K. R. (2016). Feminist theory in family studies: History, reflection, and critique. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(2), 207-224.
Balayar, B., & Langlais, M. (2021). Technology makes the heart grow fonder? A test of media multiplexity theory for family closeness. Social Sciences, 10(1), 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci10010025
Ballard, J., Weiling, E., Solheim, C., & Dwanyen, L. (ND) Immigrant and refugee families (2nd Ed). Global Perspectives on Displacement and Resettlement Experiences. https://open.lib.umn.edu/immigrantfamilies/
Baran, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). The dynamics of online communities in the activity theory framework. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 155–166.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development, pp. 619–647. American Psychological Association.
Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.). (1988). The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (2nd edition). Gardner Press.
Chibucos, T. R., Leite, R. W., & Weis, D. L. (Eds.). (2005). Readings in family theory. Sage.
Christakis, N. & Fowler, J. (2009). Connected: the surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. Little, Brown & Co.
Cochran, M. (1990). The network as an environment for human development, chapter 14. In: M. Cochran, M. Larner, D. Riley, L. Gunnarsson, and C. R. Henderson, Jr. (Eds.), Extending families: The social networks of parents and their children. Cambridge University Press.
Cochran, M., Larner, M., Riley, D., Gunnarsson, L., & Henderson, Jr., C. R. (1990). Extending families: The social networks of parents and their children. Cambridge University Press.
Cochran, M., & Brassard, J. (1979). Child development and personal social networks. Child Development, 50, 609–615.
Davis, R. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340.
DeFrain, J., & Assay, S. (2007). Family strengths and challenges in the USA. Marriage & Family Review, 41(3-4):281–307. DOI:10.1300/J002v41n03_04
Dworkin, J., Hessel, H., & LeBouef, S. (2019). The use of communication technology in the context of adolescent and family development: An integration of family and media theories. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(4), 510–523. doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12350
Dworkin, J., Rudi, J. H., & Hessel, H. (2018). The state of family research and social media. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(4), 796–813. doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12295
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Boswell, W., Whitten, D., Butts, M. M., & Kacmar, K. M. (2016). Tethered to work: A family systems approach linking mobile device use to turnover intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 520. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000075
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2017). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural human development. Pearson Education.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication and Society, 8(2):125–147. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/13691180500146185
Hertlein, K. M. (2018). Technology in relational systems: Roles, rules, and boundaries. In J. Van Hook, S. McHale & V. King, (Eds.), Families and Technology (pp. 89–102). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-95540-7_5
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. Family Relations, 61(3) 374–387. doi.org/10.1111/J.1741-3729.2012.00702.X
Hertlein, K. M., & Blumer, M. L. (2013). The couple and family technology framework: Intimate relationships in a digital age. Routledge.
Hill, R. (1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 39, 139–50.
Kim, H. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Lee, S. H. (2018). Examining gifting through social network services: A social exchange theory perspective. Information Systems Research, 29(4), 805–828. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0737
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family communication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach. In Engaging Theories in Family Communication: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 50–65). Sage Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452204420.n4
Lanigan, J. D. (2009). A sociotechnological model for family research and intervention: How information and communication technologies affect family life. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6–8), 587–609. doi:10.1080/01494920903224194
McCubbin, H. I., Cauble, A. E., & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crisis. In L. Hamilton, A. McCubbin, E. Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family Stress, Coping, and Social Support (pp. 26–47).
Ma, A., & Pendergast, D. (2010). Innovative pedagogies for family and consumer science/home economics education—Utilizing computer‐based collaborative learning to foster lifelong learning attributes. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 38(3), 273–288. doi.org/10.1111/J.1552-3934.2009.00018.X
Mauthner, N. S., & Kazimierczak, K. A. (2018). Theoretical perspectives on technology and society: Implications for understanding the relationship between ICTs and Family Life. In B. B. Neves & C. Casimiro (Eds.), Connecting families? Information and communication technologies, generations, and the life course (pp. 21–40). Bristol. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447339946.003.0002
Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 1–17. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3
Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2), 144–167. doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1979.00003.x
Olson, D. H., DeFrain, J. D., & Skogrand, L. (2014). Marriages and families: Intimacy, diversity, and strengths (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Chapter 3: Understanding marriage and family dynamics.
Pearce, E. B. (n.d.). The family: A socially constructed idea. Contemporary Families: An Equity Lens. Retrieved April 11, 2022, from https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/families/chapter/the-family-a-socially-constructed-idea/
Rosino, M. (2016). ABC‐X model of family stress and coping. Encyclopedia of Family Studies, 1–6. doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.WBEFS313
Sharaievska, I., & Stodolska, M. (2015). Redefining boundaries in families through Social Networking Leisure. Leisure Sciences, 37(5), 431–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2015.1021882
Simpson, V. N. (2013). Media selection in a text-based digital world: Examining richness, experience, and presence within computer-mediated interpersonal communication. Masters thesis. Leicester University.
Smith, S. R., & Hamon, R. R. (2021). Exploring family theories (5th ed.) Oxford University Press.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 545–569. doi.org/10.1177/016502548600900409
Teo, T., Lee, C., & Chai, C. (2008). Understanding preservice teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00247.x
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021, October 8). Subject definitions. Census.gov. Retrieved April 11, 2022, from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Walker, S. K., Lee, S. K., & Hong, S. (2021). Workplace predictors of family educators’ technology acceptance attitudes. Family Relations, 70(5), 1626–1642. doi.org/10.1111/fare.12583
White, J. M., Martin, T. F., & Adamsons, K. (2018). Family theories: An introduction. Sage Publications. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/02%3A_Ways_of_Understanding__Families_and_Technology/2.02%3A_References.txt |
Social constructions of the family
In the chapter we discussed ways that families have been represented in television shows over the decades. These representations contribute to and reflect a social construction of family. Let’s take a more current view. Take a few minutes to look at the social media accounts, online news, information feeds, and other applications you visit most frequently. Considering the role of media in shaping our sense or construction of the family, what messages and images of families seem most prevalent?What about parenting? Or intimate (romantic couple) relationships? What social constructions of families are presented in our online worlds? Of parenting? Of intimate relationships?Consider your use of these accounts as a child and preteen. What collective messages might you have formed about families from your technology use?
Moving from family theory to theoretical applications to families and technology
When framing questions in new areas, researchers often begin with a well-known concept. Consider each of the following points that summarize some well-known arguments, stemming from theory, about families. For each one, add a question that a researcher might ask when framing the argument in relation to family technology use.
• The family serves functions to its members, itself, and society, and our interest is in aiding the successful completion of those functions. EXAMPLE RESPONSE: Family cohesion provides an emotional sense of connectedness through which each family member feels cared for and valued. What is the role of social media in fulfilling siblings’ sense of connectedness?
• The family serves as an open system — its members influence each other, and each member is influenced by external factors. It is dynamic and transactional, and thrives when it is flexible and yet demonstrates cohesion.
• Family members are all developing humans. The family itself is a developing unit. Those individual and collective changes also influence family functioning.
• Living in shifting contexts, families are particularly influenced by their settings, time, events, political conditions, and so on.
• The family — and its members — are social constructions. How they view themselves and how society views the family changes over time.
Theoretical base of family research on technology (1)
The article below is an excellent example of using Family Systems Theory as the basis for research on technology and the family (in this case, boundaries and social media):
After reviewing this article, see if you can find another piece of research that uses an extant family theory as the basis for its investigation. How might using research examples like this help us better understand technology’s role in family dynamics? How might they help us better understand the theory as it applies to families?
Theoretical base of family research on technology (2)
Identify at least three pieces of research on a similar theme related to families and technology. For example, families’ use of texting for communication, or parent-teen conflict over parental monitoring of screen time. Select research studies published within the last ten years. Examine the theoretical base for the research. Which family, parenting, or other theory is used? How do the studies compare with regard to theoretical base? Are any atheoretical, or do not state a theory? As a result of their efforts, do the authors propose any changes to existing family theory to address what technology offers to family life?
2.04: Blog Prompts
Existing family theory is useful for conceptualizing, describing, and studying family interactions, contexts, and well-being, but is it sufficient for considerations of information communications technology (ICT)? On one hand, we can argue that it is not, given the affordances of technology as they demonstrate various dynamics on roles and relationships. On the other, these theories have withstood the test of time for decades and have been applied to other phenomena facing families. Can it be argued that these theories and frameworks — or at least some of them — could be used?
Identify a sample research article that studies family technology use applied to a fairly traditional family framework (e.g., systems). Using your school library site or Google Scholar, use keywords on family, technology (or insert the name of a specific technology like texting or social media), and the name of the theory (e.g., social construction, family systems, symbolic interaction). Comment on the degree to which the perspective fits the study. Knowing what you do about family theory and dynamics, and about facets of technology function and use, would you recommend any different framework be considered for this study?
The chapter focuses on two primary frameworks for looking at families and technology implications. Applying frameworks to real-life examples is a way to demonstrate and challenge our understanding. Select one of the two frameworks: Lanigan’s socio-technological framework or Hertlein and Blumer’s framework. In the post, provide a brief summary (like a paragraph) of the framework, then describe a real-life example, such as couple relationships and the use of technology, or parent supervision of a child’s technology use. The application may be something personal that will be relevant to you and help you apply these frameworks. Consider what research questions the use of this framework or model might suggest. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/02%3A_Ways_of_Understanding__Families_and_Technology/2.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
One can state, without exaggeration, that the observation of and the search for similarities and differences are the basis of all human knowledge.
― Alfred Nobel
Chapter Insights
• Differences lie within individuals in families, and in families as a whole. These differences, more than anything, illustrate the complexity in characterizing technology use within and across families. They also reveal issues of underlying equity and social justice, and of families and technology.
• “Use” is a widely variable term. It can be operationalized to represent which device and application, for what purpose, for how long, in which way, with whom, and where. To compare “use” effectively is to identify the standard for the definition and measure first.
• Functional differences in technology use may be seen by individuals within the family and by subsets of family members. How siblings use applications together may be far different than how a child uses the application with a parent. These functional differences may represent differences in family dynamics, structure, and roles.
• Family member and whole family variation in technology use depends on their attitudes toward technology and on comfort, skill, and access. Access can vary by geography, economics, education, language, and ability. Situations putting strain on families, such as COVID-19, immigration, or other separations, can reveal access needs that present serious gaps. Attitude, comfort and skill, and digital readiness are directly related to access.
• Ensuring access to technology — specifically, internet service, cellphone service, and accommodations for ease in using technology — is a question that has policy and political implications. Whose responsibility is it to ensure internet access?
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
During the COVID-19 pandemic, headlines brought attention to disparities in children’s academic achievements due to differences in their ability to keep up with school online (Dorn et al., 2021). With remote learning, which depended on children having access to computers and internet in the home, children across the globe who lacked internet access or had limited and shared access to technology struggled to keep up. More recently, the news has highlighted the challenges faced by families fleeing Ukraine during the Russian conflict. For them, having a smartphone with data meant staying connected and accessing resources; in other words, it was truly a lifeline (Cantrill, 2022). It’s difficult to imagine navigating the challenges faced by refugees without being able to call or access the internet.
All families vary by their preferences, functional needs for technologies, habits, and behaviors with media. Specific families face issues with access: a family in a rural area without a high-speed connection or with few cell phone towers can face delays in getting valuable health information or doing business. These modern-day examples highlight differences among families with regard to technology access and use. Even among families in less extreme conditions, differences exist that can mean significant divides. A family in a rural area without a high-speed connection or with few cell phone towers can face delays in getting valuable health information or doing business. Families also vary by their preferences, functional needs for technologies, habits, and behaviors with media. The Federal Communications Commission identifies household differences by light, moderate, and high internet use based on current use of one, two, three, or four devices at a time.
Families also vary within their membership, as individuals demonstrate functional behavioral, attitudinal, and skill differences in the daily use of ICT. If you read that “smartphones are owned by 85% of families in the U.S.,” what would you want to know? Which U.S. families? The majority of all families? The majority of white, middle-class families? Even a sample indicating “representativeness in the U.S.” would need clarification. You might want to know if a family is defined by biological and immediate family, contains extended families, or includes those not directly related. And you might question this statistic based on families’ habits or access to technology.
For family professionals, awareness of these differences can be key to understanding family conflict, communication, and flexibility. It may also direct attention to technology access as an issue for families, when attention might be on school performance or employment. This chapter examines technology use in the family to see how it may differ within families (e.g., in ways that might have an impact on relationships and systemic family functioning), and across families (e.g., how family variation might indicate differences in family well-being by virtue of use or access).
Before we begin exploring family differences in technology use, think of your own family — who is in it, and what are their ages and relationships and roles in the family. Consider how the members of your family would be similar or different in terms of their technology use, comfort, and access. Now think of another family that you know fairly well. How are they similar or different in their use compared to your own family?
Family Differences
No two families are alike, and no two families use technology in the same ways. As discussed in the last chapter, families can be defined by structure, composition, or membership — varying by number, member age, member roles and responsibilities (e.g., two parents, one parent, a grandparent), number of children, and subsystems (e.g., parent + oldest child, father and father). As discussed throughout this book, these differences will reflect the ways in which technology is used by individuals and with family members as well. Families with several children in the preteen and teenage years may have multiple phones; a single parent with an infant would not. As the family is an open system, each is differently influenced by social, belief, and extended family systems (Olson, et al, 2014). These systems may influence their practices, knowledge, value, and needs for using technology.
Families with close connections to extended members (e.g., cousins and grandparents across the country or the world) may include videoconferencing through apps like FaceTime as a nightly practice or regularly text through WhatsApp. Smaller families with all members living in the same household would not. And families vary by demographics, education, household income, language, and geographic location. As a student, you may have experienced how your level or exposure to formal education can influence interactions with settings that integrate technology in learning. Over time, this might influence your skill and comfort. Geographic location can affect access to the internet and to social and practical resources that encourage use.
A note of caution as we proceed. As we examine family technology use, we need to distinguish research that uses data from families from research that uses data on “households.” While households often include families, this isn’t always the case. For example, a U.S. government report on internet broadband access and smartphone ownership may say it describes U.S. “families.” Closer inspection, however, reveals that the data was taken from U.S. households. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as all people who occupy a single housing unit, regardless of their relationship to one another (Population Reference Bureau, 2020). Can we say that this represents “families”? Households may include biological or legal families, but may also contain a group of adults living together or several families. And as you cross continents, a demographer’s definition of “family” or “household” might vary depending on government or bureaucratic definitions. Similarly, research claiming to explore “family” technology practice or impacts requires careful attention to the true population of interest. A single-parent family is different from a family with one child under the age of 18, which is different from a blended family of two homosexual parents of six children ranging from birth through age 18, which is different from an Asian-American family comprised of first-, second-, and third-generation members.
As we discuss technologies used by families , it’s important that we have a clear understanding of what is meant by family, technology, and technology use. With these standards understood, we can explore why differences within and across families matter.
Measurement of Technology Use
Variation in “use” definitions.
Consider your own family once again. If you were asked to observe ICT use by its members over a typical day, what would you look for? Which type of tech your family members use? Which applications they are on, for how long? How your parents’ use for work seems focused on their laptops while your little brother’s time spent gaming is on his phone? Operationalizing the construct of technology use is important, as the term is general and can mean many things. As a result, researchers measure it differently. In Gottschalk’s discussion of videogames in her review on children and technology use impacts, she cites research that assess use as frequency, while another looks at use as the type of game played, and deployment of touch screen technology. Some studies assess use very broadly. In Hamilton’s study on children’s use in Jamaica (2010), use or consumption is a single item: “Frequency of individual use of the Internet in the last 12 months (from any location)” along with many indicators of technology possession. Reflect on your own “use” in the last few hours. What are the many ways in which a researcher might categorize your practice?
A few examples:
• Device ownership: which, how many, how many per person/per family, which model, how many different devices?
• Functions: what is the device or app used for? The function may be refined more specifically, say to indicate parenting behavior: communication with children, number of times reassuring texts are sent to a child, and so on.
• How is technology used to accomplish a purpose? Which purpose? For what benefit or consequence?
• Use behavior: device or application frequency (minutes per day, hours per day, days, interaction events, times the screen is touched, times the phone is picked up
• Use by an individual (to benefit the individual)? Use as shared?
• Where is the device or application used?
• Device application “problem” (e.g., addiction, being a tech Luddite?) or identity affiliation (e.g., feminist expression, Goh, 2013)
Another common oversight is when researchers report “use,” but are really measuring device ownership or application membership. Just because your dad has an Apple iPod Nano he bought in 2005 doesn’t mean that he uses it. Or you were “gifted” with a device (thus ownership), but you rarely pick it up. A related concept is “membership.” Social media applications abound. People download them, and create accounts. But use is not equivalent to membership or having an account. In the graphic below, Twitter users make posts in varying frequencies (McClain et al., 2021). Just under half (49%) post fewer than five tweets a month, while just over half (52%) report posting daily (https://backlinko.com/twitter-users#twitter-users), and the majority of Twitter content is contributed by only 25% of users. Yet Twitter can boast that it has 400 million accounts. Clearly, there are differences between those holding accounts and those who are active users. Preferences and behavior vary. Determining what the researcher means by “use” is as critically important as determining your definition and interest in family. Without doing so, it will be difficult to aggregate research findings for a clear assessment of “use.”
Keep an eye out for advanced methodologies and definitions of “use” as research into the impact of technology on the family continues. Innovative projects such as the Human Screenome Project, for instance, collect rich data from screen captures from individuals’ phones, revealing possibilities for interpreting the interplay between technology-integrated interest and interaction (Reeves, et al., 2019). The implications from this data in better understanding family system and subsystem dynamics are endless.
Definitions of devices, applications, and power
Depending on the individual, the generic term “technology,” or even “information and communications technology” can mean a particular device, or an application or software on the device. A good place to begin with specificity on use is to define precisely what is meant by “technology” devices, applications, or even the internet, when they are included in measurement.
According to Wikipedia, digital media is
any communication media that operate with the use of any of various encoded machine-readable data formats. Digital media can be created, viewed, distributed, modified, listened to, and preserved on a digital electronics device. Digital can be defined as any data represented by a series of digits, while media refers to methods of broadcasting or communicating this information. Together, digital media refers to mediums of digitized information broadcast to us through a screen and/or a speaker.
This also includes text, audio, video, and graphics that are transmitted over the internet for viewing or listening to on the internet. Digital media platforms, such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Twitch, accounted for viewership rates of 27.9 billion hours in 2020.
Social media, on the other hand, is a more specific term. It refers to “interactive technologies and digital channels that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks. It has some common features:
1. Social media are interactive, Web 2.0 Internet-based applications.
2. User-generated content — such as text posts or comments, digital photos or videos, and data generated through all online interactions — is the lifeblood of social media.
3. Users create service-specific profiles for the website or apps that are designed and maintained by the social media organization.
4. Social media helps the development of online social networks by connecting a user’s profile with those of other individuals or groups.
As of January 2022 (Statista), the top three social media services, based on having more than 200 million users each, were Facebook, YouTube and WhatsApp.
Powering use
Just as “electricity” can be considered the power that enables us to watch television, or “gasoline” the thing that currently powers our cars, the internet can be seen as what “powers” our ability to use applications and devices. Wikipedia describes the Internet (or internet) as
the global system of interconnected computer networks that uses the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to communicate between networks and devices. It is a network of networks that consists of private, public, academic, business, and government networks of local to global scope, linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless, and optical networking technologies. The Internet carries a vast range of information resources and services, such as the inter-linked hypertext documents and applications of the World Wide Web (WWW), electronic mail, telephony, and file sharing.
Unless we are using an application “off line” or have “downloaded” a file, much of our use of social media, search sites like Google or DuckDuckGo, videoconferencing on FaceTime, and learning management systems like Blackboard is dependent on our device’s connection to the internet.
A cellular or mobile network (for texting and calls) is “a communication network where the link to and from end nodes is wireless. The network is distributed over land areas called ‘cells,’ each served by at least one fixed-location transceiver (typically three cell sites or base transceiver stations). These base stations provide the cell with network coverage which can be used for transmission of voice, data, and other types of content…. When joined together, these cells provide radio coverage over a wide geographic area” (Wikipedia).
A peripheral is “an auxiliary device used to put information into and get information out of a computer.The term peripheral device refers to all hardware components that are attached to a computer and are controlled by the computer system, but they are not the core components of the computer, such as the CPU or power supply unit” (Wikipedia). Input devices include mice, keyboards, graphic scanners, and microphones. Output devices include monitors, printers, headphones, and speakers. Input/output devices also include external hard drives.
Devices
Portable devices used to perform “information” and “communications” functions include small, handheld machines like cellular (mobile) phones and smartphones — portable devices that combine mobile telephone and computing functions into one unit. Look at your smartphone. What are all the functions that it performs? At the very least you can use it as a calculator, and to make calls, take pictures and videos, and send emails and text messages. Later in the chapter, we’ll discuss differences in access to the internet and to devices like cell phones. Many of these differences fall along demographic lines.
Applications, or Software
During the day we often check our Instagram accounts, or open a file on a document production program like Word. Though we are “on our phone” or “on the laptop,” we’re technically using a specific application or piece of software on that device. According to Wikipedia,
an application program (application or app for short) is a computer program designed to carry out a specific task other than one relating to the operation of the computer itself, typically to be used by end-users. Word processors, media players, and accounting software are examples, and the collective noun refers to all applications collectively. The other principal classifications of software are system software, relating to the operation of the computer, and utility software (‘utilities). Applications may be bundled with the computer and its system software or published separately and may be coded as proprietary, open-source, or projects. The term “app” often refers to applications for mobile devices such as phones.
In technical papers (including reports for a course), we refer to our reliance on particular applications. Because these are intellectual properties, often with trademarks and copyrights, it is important to remember to capitalize them (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, TikTok). This is particularly important as some applications like Canvas (learning management software) are also nouns in the English language that would not be caught in spell checking programs.
Functional Differences in Use
Now that we have some basic terminology for technology, we can consider the various functions technology performs as they may relate to an individual’s or family’s purpose.
• Communication: between couples, parent and child, parents and co-parents, extended family (grandparents). Who, how, with what frequency, and which device for which family member.
• Connectivity: How is this different? What is social networking? What is the value of social networking in family life?
• Information gathering (informal learning): for parenting, decision-making, problem-solving. By whom (e.g., parents, adult children)? On what topics? Using what means? On the internet (info searches)? From others (discussion boards, social media)?
• Entertainment: couple and family time together via gaming, co-viewing media. Most parents monitor the content of the videogames that children play.
• Utilities: banking, health care, travel and transportation, taxes, housing, food, navigation.
• Use of tech outside the family that affects the family: work, school (formal learning by young children, older children), use of technology devices in the family system (parents as learning heroes).
These functions apply to most anyone using technology; they are not unique to the family. Families who play online and videogames together, for example, find it a great way to spend time together. Parents report playing videogames with their children because it’s fun, it’s a good opportunity to socialize with their child, their child asks them to, they can monitor what children are playing and thus exposed to, and they enjoy it (ESRB, 2022). Ninety-four percent of parents pay attention to the videogames played by their children, 71% say videogames have a positive influence on their child’s life, 67% play videogames with their children at least once weekly.
Yet when we view these activities in terms of of fulfilling family roles and the development of individuals within a family, their use can be distinguished from individual, group, or societal use distinct from the family. A function unique to the family is the fulfillment of family roles — parenting, caregiving (direct action and indirect fulfillment), and relationship initiation, maintenance, or possible dissolution. This final function distinguishes technology used by families from others, in so far as use has direct or indirect benefits to family members or the family as a whole.
For example, while Facebook use as a means for social networking has long been a focus for research (e.g., Zhuravskaya, et al., 2020), a study on the transition to parenthood finds its role valuable in creating new network members and resources for social support (Bartholomew, et al,. 2012). As illustrated below, those fulfilling caregiving roles in families demonstrate different information search behaviors than non-caregivers (Fox & Duggan, 2013). The same report indicates that one in three caregivers are likely to use health “trackers” through technology to monitor the health of the person they are caring for.
Yet, naturally, caregiving in families is most considered parenting or childrearing, and chapters 5, 6, and 7 explore the role technology plays in these family roles as distinct from adult-only technology use.
As an example of distinguishing adult technology use from use that holds specific value to the family, in our early work (around 2008) studying parents’ technology use — as parents in the parenting role — it was essential to add specific functions of the parenting role to identify how ICT was used (e.g., Walker, et al., 2011; Walker & Rudi, 2014). It was impossible to extrapolate from information about “adults” in extant research. as not all adults are parents, and adult roles and functions can include tasks that don’t include childrearing. Our study needed to add items specific to the parenting role (e.g., “monitor who my child interacts with” or “validate my observations as a parent.”)
Thinking of your own family, identify examples of family members’ use of technology might fulfill family functions.
Further analysis of family use of technology to fulfill family functions might consider different configurations of which family members are using technology with others. Differences might exist, for example, between parents, co-parents in divorce and separation, parents and children, siblings, family and grandparents, grandchild and grandparent, foster parent and foster child. Such configurations are limited only by the variations of family membership and structure. Thinking of your own family, identify examples of family members’ use of technology might fulfill family functions.
Here are examples from my family. There are three of us, my husband, my 28-year-old daughter (who lives in another state), and myself.
• I text my daughter good morning (parental nurturance; relationship maintenance).
• She Venmos a request for repayment of my plane ticket (practical assistance between family members).
• I may use FaceTime to talk with her during a weekend day as she works on her taxes (family communication, parental assistance in problem-solving, parental guidance to an emerging adult on learning a life skill of adulthood).
• I search Google Flights to find available, low-cost airfares for the wedding of an extended family member (family connectedness).
In each way I use technology, I fulfill my role in the family as parent and family member. Each action could be measured for use by any adult — searching for a flight, talking to others through FaceTime, requesting money. Yet each action can be defined as it relates to a family role and to relationships and family outcomes.
Factors influencing use
Technology attitudes, comfort and skills.
To further understand differences in use is to be aware of external factors that influence use: comfort and skills in using technology (conditioned by a number of factors) and access. Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (1989), discussed in the previous chapter, identifies use as conditioned by attitudes of acceptance, which are influenced by the perception that a technology is easy to use and is useful. Context research supports the idea that external conditions, including resources and encouragement, can make a difference in the motivation to use technology and acquire skills. Technology use varies as well by the individual’s attitude, skill, and comfort.
Consider the people in your life. Are some “techy” and capable of picking up any kind of device or system, while others need assistance when something new is suggested? Do some love using technology and feel a bit addicted to applications, like gaming, while others are suspicious of tech’s influence and use it sparingly or only out of necessity? Now consider how these differences in skill and attitude might affect use. The friend who feels very comfortable with technology will probably use it more, while the one whose skill level is low and/or who worries about its negative effects will use it far less.
In some studies, attitudes toward technology use are a proxy for actual behavior. In behavioral intention models in psychology, feelings about an activity and an intention to do the activity are demonstrated to relate to the actual behavior. Technology acceptance measures attitudes that are favorable or open to the value of technology in one’s life or work. These may be measured through statements like the following, with each rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (adapted from Teo et al., 2017):
• Technology makes work more interesting
• Working with technology is fun
• I like using technology
• I look forward to those aspects of my job that require me to use technology
While these items don’t indicate how a technology is used, as a cluster of items or construct they can indicate favorability toward use, and serve as a point to which factors of influence can compare, such as whether the individual perceives technology to be easy to use (“I find it easy to get technology to do what I want it to do”) and/or if the individual perceives value in using a particular technology (“Using technology will increase my productivity” or “I find technology is a useful tool in my work”). In research with family educators and family professionals, we determined that ease of use and value had a direct bearing on attitudes of technology acceptance (Walker et al., 2021). Other factors related to skill and comfort lie with exposure to external resources and supports, such as technical training and being surrounded by others who value technology.
In 2021, Pew Internet determined that about one-third of adults in the U.S. can be characterized as having “Lower tech readiness” (Vogels et al., 2020). Those who demonstrated lower ‘tech readiness’ are people who are not at all or only a little confident using their digital devices to do the things they need to do online, or usually need someone else to set up or show them how to use new devices. Tech readiness aligns along demographic lines. Older Americans, for example, are more likely to demonstrate lower tech readiness, as are those with less income or education. Yet attitude may co-exist with tech readiness skills. In the same research, the share of Americans with lower tech readiness who say the internet has been essential to them is 27 percentage points lower than for those with higher tech readiness. They too are more likely to use older applications, such as email or calling by phone, rather than videoconferencing or text messaging. And readiness has indirect effects. During the pandemic, 47% of parents with less digital readiness reported difficulty in helping their children with remote learning, compared with 24% of higher readiness parents.
These results mirror earlier research by Pew revealing digital readiness characteristics that correlated with other demographic indicators (2015):
Access
While internet access seems ubiquitous in our modern society, it is not guaranteed. Global data indicate that, on average, at least 77% of the world’s population has at least some access to the internet (Schumacher & Kent, 2020) (figure x below). Countries and regions with more advanced economies report higher rates of use (close to 87%): Australia, Canada, South Korea, the Netherlands, Europe, the Americas, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (ITU, 2019; Schumacher & Kent, 2020). Countries with emerging economies report lower use (47% on average), and those in the least-developed countries — primarily in Africa — report an average of 19%. Across Africa, averages range from 4.7% in Western Sahara to 87.2% in Kenya (Internet World Stats, 2020). The range in Latin America is similarly wide, with saturation high in countries like Argentina (92.2%) and Costa Rica (85.5%), and low in countries such as Nicaragua (30.2%) and Honduras (28.7%). Since 2015, overall access to the internet exceeds household computer ownership, with the ITU reporting that it is no longer necessary to have a computer at home to access the internet (2019, p. 7).
As illustrated by the map below, use of high-speed broadband is significantly lower in some areas of the U.S. compared to others. Similarly, cell phone ownership is higher in countries with developed economies (e.g., over 90% in European countries). Demographic factors such as younger age, higher household income, and education level are related to greater access and higher rates of internet and cell phone use.
Access differences affect the family’s ability to take full advantage of technological efficiencies and benefits.Access differences affect the family’s ability to take full advantage of technological efficiencies and benefits. Access is particularly critical when families are mobile or relocating due to immigration, living transnationally, or separated due to military service or employment. For families experiencing migration, having access to the internet is critical for communication with family members, efficient movement (e.g., documentation at border control), integration into new locations (e.g., finding employment, housing, services), using geolocation services, transferring money, and more (McAuliffe, 2021). Lack of access and and the lack of accommodation to the needs of immigrant family (e.g., translation of applications) affects comfort in using technology and acquisition of basic computer skills. Inequities lead to “knowledge gaps,” particularly in children, and to differences in the acquisition of technology skills needed for employment, settlement, and possible resettlement. For any family, but particularly for those who are vulnerable (such as during transnational living or immigration), gaps in access exacerbate challenges brought about by disparities in income, education, employment, housing and sanitary living conditions, and health care.
Scholars assert that equity will remain a prevalent issue for families in the future (Anderson, et al., 2021). While equity and internet access as human rights are macro-level policy issues, small-scale efforts get technology into the hands of families and children in need. Schools, for example, may distribute devices, routers, and wifi hubs; provide additional technology coaching; and train teachers to be sensitive to equity and access needs when integrating technology in coursework. In California, nearly one-third of school-age children lack access to broadband networks, and lack of access is nearly double for children of color compared to their White counterparts. In addition to the “quick fixes” of providing wifi hubs and internet access in public buildings, the “Broadband for California” bill, Senate Bill 1130, would make “funds for broadband accessible to all communities in the state and ensure that projects built with these funds are future-proof and have more open-access to our communities” (Gonzalez & Steyer, 2020). As this story from Arkansas illustrates, providing reliable broadband in remote communities is a significant challenge politically and practically (Carr, 2021), yet it is worth the effort. Faster connections can mean greater participation in school, family connectivity, employment, and the tasks of daily life for families. Those interested in progress in Minnesota may want to follow the Broadband Task Force of the Office of Broadband Development (mn.gov/deed/programs-services/broadband/task-force/).
Scholars assert that equity will remain a prevalent issue for families in the future….While equity and internet access as human rights are macro-level policy issues, small-scale efforts get technology into the hands of families in need. Beyond geography and economics, other demographic characteristics differentiate use and access. Younger individuals are far more likely to be on social media, use the internet, and own a smartphone. And educational attainment can vary use. With education level established by country, higher access is seen in those who have completed more schooling (Schumacher & Kent, 2020). Variations can be narrow, as in the case of South Korea, where educational level varies use by 4%. In Nigeria, however, a 60% difference occurs: 13% of those with limited education access the Internet, compared with 73% with more education. In every region of the world, to varying degrees, internet use is greater for men than women. Differences are smaller in more developed countries (e.g., 1–2%), but in developing and least-developed countries (LDCs), men’s access exceeds women’s by 10–12% (ITU, 2019). And the gap, as measured between 2013 and 2019, is growing — 7% in developing countries, and 15.9% in least-developing countries (ITU, 2019). Gender differences in mobile phone ownership also exist, mimicking those in internet access.
Questions of access must also consider ability: persons with disabilities may be need accommodation devices and software. And we can consider language: how many applications are available in the language that an individual reads, writes, and understands?
Differences in demographics, ability, and language do more than bifurcate our view of who does or does not use or have access to technology. They also reveal equity differences that affect the ability to take full advantage of technological efficiencies, access to information, connectivity, and interactivity for learning and employment. As noted, access is particularly critical when families are mobile, relocating due to immigration or being refugees, live transnationally, or are separated due to military service or employment (Carter & Renshaw, 2016; Karraker, 2015). During the pandemic, although focus was on family internet access to ensure children’s school participation, homeless families often fell through the cracks (Shapiro, 2020). Shelter wi-fi can be unreliable, and a school’s lack of devices to distribute to students may particularly affect homeless children whose household does not have devices of its own.
There appears to be a reciprocal relationship between access and comfort. The ITU reports that, in 40 of the 84 countries with available data, less than half of the population have basic computer skills (e.g., copying a file, sending an email with an attachment) and in 60 countries fewer than half report having standard skills (e.g., installing software). While lack of access and skills is referred to as the “digital divide,” others characterize the space by the deficits created: the “access gap” or the “knowledge gap” (Wei & Hindman, 2011). Geographic location can make a difference. Those living in more rural areas not only may lack access, but they may be unable to gain the digital skills necessary for work in the 21st century. Wood (2018) reports that large tech-based companies such as Amazon are moving toward exclusively operating in larger, urban cities, creating a further divide between urban and rural regions in technology training and skills. Blum-Ross and others (2018) suggest that varying levels of skills, literacy, and confidence with technology are a new way to understand family diversity.
As observed, the “digital readiness” spectrum runs from those who are unprepared to those who are digitally ready. Approximately half are unprepared, traditional learners, and/or reluctant. They tend to be older and in households with lower income and education. The other half are those more prepared, labeled the the “cautious clickers” and the “digitally ready.” These groups are younger and have higher incomes. Consider why these demographics of age, income, and education may relate to these attitudinal and skill differences. One possibility is that feelings of confidence and skill relate to access, as limited income can mean less exposure to technology (or efficient technology).
As we understand divides in internet access, and see how local and regional efforts are being made to ensure equity, the question of responsibility remains. The graphic below, from Commonsense Media, reveals the digital and academic achievement gaps in K-12 education, and proposes policy action.
In 2021, Pew Research asked a representative sample of U.S. individuals if the government is responsible for ensuring internet access (McClain et al, 2021). The majority (62%) said no. Seventy percent don’t believe it’s the government’s responsibility to ensure that all Americans have cell phone access. Differences in this opinion fall along political views, with Democrats twice as likely to support the government’s role than Republicans. Those with lower incomes are more likely to favor government assistance. What do you believe? Whose responsibility is it to ensure internet access, and what do we mean by “ensure”?
Within Family Differences
Families, particularly those with children still in school, may represent a fairly stable picture of race, ethnicity, education, income, and geography. Yet within the family there will be differences in technology use due to differences in individuals and individual relationships and roles. In the figure below, using data from 2012, we see that parents reported using email and social media more often with extended family, while they were more likely to text their children and the other parent.
Consider the members of your family. Write down each family member’s name and draw a circle around it How would you characterize each members’ use? Consider the functions that technology serves for them, what their use might look like in terms of device ownership, and the frequency with which they use particular applications for school, work, entertainment, and hobbies. Consider their comfort, skill, and attitude with regard to using technology. Then step back and consider the differences within your family. Are you on social media less than your younger sister? But more than your father? Is your brother more likely to be a gamer than other members of the family? Is your younger sister addicted to social media, while you can look at it or ignore it but don’t feel hooked? How do you and your sister talk to each other through ICT differently than you would with your parents? How might they connect with each other, or use technology together (say, for family financial matters) differently than you do for school or for work? What influences those differences? Consider our discussion about comfort and skill, functional interests, role fulfillment, and access. How might models such as the Technology Acceptance Model help explain differences in, say, your use as a family member compared to your mother’s?
As noted earlier, there are some user “type” differences in access that may affect attitudes. Are there be digital literacy or readiness or knowledge gaps within your family?
In our early study of 1653 parents, we clustered them based on their technology use, identifying differences by the number and frequency of devices used, variations in device functions, and attitudes towards technology (Walker, et al., 2011). As you can see in the figure, the majority used technology in moderation, used it for a variety of functions, and had positive attitudes. In the green areas there were a number of parents we called the “omnivores,” those who possessed more devices, participated in a wide variety of activities, and had very positive attitudes about technology. Also in the green zone where those who used technology frequently and used a limited number of devices, along with those who had many devices, used them frequently, and weren’t happy about it. Minimal users seemed happy with their limited use or were indifferent or almost seem to experiment using various technologies. Again, we see wide variation by device ownership, frequency of use, and attitudes. It isn’t unusual for parents as adults in the same household to hold positions at different sections of this attitude-device-action spectrum.
Sophistication mapping of differences in technology use within families can be used to predict potential attitudinal differences and relational interactions. Readers are encouraged to use Hertlein and Blumer’s (2015) family technology-focused genogram to explore family technology dynamics.
Across family differences
Now that you’ve considered the differences in your own family, think about two other families you know well. Perhaps they are families of your friends or your partner, people on your street, or relative’s families. How would you describe their technology use as a family? Consider their roles and relationships, family configurations, and conditions regarding access and skill for each family member (as well as you can). Does the family have a lot of devices? Are they avid gamers? Do they hold jobs or attend school in ways that dictate member use? See, for example, the picture to the right, with the deployed father connecting with his family back home. Or perhaps families that are immigrating to a new country (such as those currently fleeing from the Ukraine or from Serbia). Regardless of the reason for transnational status, families depend heavily on the internet and digital devices to stay connected to each other and to valuable information that help families thrive. Considering your own family and these other two, how similar or different would you say they are in their technology use?
Access
Earlier, we focused on family differences in access to the internet and to cell phone services. As these factors influence individuals within families in terms of their comfort, skill, and outcomes related to technology integration in their lives, they also mean whole family differences. As Karraker (2015) notes, disparities in technology access, and resultant inequalities between groups of families, exacerbate economic inequality, representations of the idea of family, and representations of gender. They diminish family members’ voices in the virtual environment, to the degree that we ask whose norms and values are being transmitted. During COVID, limits on access meant differences in educational achievement that favored higher-income families. And as we consider the economic value to families of having internet access, with the functional ability to help families communicate, purchase goods, find transportation, and make connections for their children’s education and their family’s health, we begin to see the critical importance of an equitable Global Society that ensures access to the internet for all.
We’ve observed the political divisions and differences in opinion about the U.S. federal government ensuring internet access for families. The United Nations Bill of Human Rights identifies access to the internet as a basic human right. From a family science perspective, the question of access holds different meaning. As Karraker (2015) noted, “meeting global families where they live regarding digital communication will force family scholars to continue to examine our very suppositions of what it means to be a family” (p. 70). As we work to understand how family members and families as a whole differ in their use of technology (in terms of functions and desired activities; attitudes, comfort, and skill; and access and exposure), we should ask what this work means to the research we conduct with families, and to the design and delivery of family services. Further, as we discuss in chapter 12, we must attend to public and social policy that attends to access to the internet as a basic human right.
Conclusion
As we are cautious to define family, so too are we cautious in assuming how families use technology. Families are as likely to vary in their use as family members are to vary from one another. The internal dynamics of use differences are critical to our understanding of communication and relationship dynamics, and to the role demands that may be fulfilled through the use of ICT. Across families, we see large differences in attitudes and preferences, and also in factors that policy can address — most importantly, access, comfort, and skill in using technology. It is in these differences that knowledge, digital, and information divides occur, divides that exacerbate inequities in our global society.
In Chapters 4 through 10 we explore specific ways in which family members and subsystems of the family, use technology and the impacts on their individual and collective well-being. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/03%3A_Differences_Within_and_Across_Familes'_Technology_Use/3.01%3A_Differences_Within_and_Across_Families%27_Technology_Use.txt |
Anderson, J., Rainie, L., & Vogels, E. (2021, February 18). Experts say the “New Normal” in 2025 will be far more tech-driven, presenting more challenges. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/02/18/experts-say-the-new-normal-in-2025-will-be-far-more-tech-driven-presenting-more-big-challenges/
Atske, S., & Perrin, A. (2022, February 16). Home broadband adoption, computer ownership vary by race, ethnicity in the U.S. Pew Research Center. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/16/home-broadband-adoption-computer-ownership-vary-by-race-ethnicity-in-the-u-s/
Ayllón, S., Holmarsdottir, H. B., & Lado, S. (2021). Digitally deprived children in Europe. DigiGen working paper series No. 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14339054
Bartholomew, M., Schoppe-Sullivan, S., Glassman, M., Kamp Dush, C. & Sullivan, J. (2012). New parents’ Facebook use at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations 61, 455–469. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00708.x
Biagi, F., & Loi, M. (2013). Measuring ICT use and learning outcomes: Evidence from recent econometric studies. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 28–42. doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12016
Bill Text – SB-1130 Communications: California Advanced Services Fund. (2019). Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1130
Blum-Ross, A., Donoso, V., Dinh, T., Mascheroni, G., O’Neill, B., Riesmeyer, C., & Stoilova, M. (2018). Looking forward: Technological and social change in the lives of European children and young people. Report for the ICT Coalition for Children Online. ICT Coalition.
Broadband Task Force. Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. (2022, April 22). Retrieved April 24, 2022, from mn.gov/deed/programs-services/broadband/task-force/
Cantrill, A. (2022, March 7). Smartphones are a lifeline for Ukrainian refugees. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-03-07/smartphones-are-a-lifeline-for-ukrainian-refugees
Carr, A. (2021, September 22). Microsoft and an army of tiny telecoms are part of a plan to wire rural America. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-22/microsoft-google-part-of-plan-to-get-rural-america-high-speed-internet
Carter, S. P., & Renshaw, K. D. (2016). Spousal communication during military deployments: A review. Journal of Family Issues, 37(16), 2309–2332. doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14567956
Cobo, C., Hawkins, R., & Rovner, H. (2020, March 31). How countries across Latin American use technology during COVID-19. World Bank Blogs. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/how-countries-across-latin-america-use-technology-during-covid19-driven-school-closures
Commentary, G. (2020, July 28). Close the learning gap by providing broadband access to all Californians. CalMatters. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2020/07/close-the-learning-gap-by-providing-broadband-access-to-all-californians/
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340. doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2021, November 11). Covid-19 and education: The lingering effects of unfinished learning. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/covid-19-and-education-the-lingering-effects-of-unfinished-learning
Fox, S., & Duggan, M. (2020, August 14). Tracking for health. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/01/28/tracking-for-health/
Goh, D. (2013). Who we are and what we want. Information, Communication & Society, 16(7), 1019–1041. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2011.649773
Gottschalk, F. (2019). Impacts of technology use on children: Exploring literature on the brain, cognition and well-being (OECD Education Working Papers, NO. 195). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/8296464e-en
Hamilton, H. G. (2010, June 14). Measuring household ICT access and individual use: Jamaica … Measuring ICT Access and Use. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/economic_stat/ICT-Korea/Documents/Hamilton_Jamaica.pdf
Hillman, V. (2020, June 17). Parenting and learning in a time of global pandemic: what policy makers and school leaders should do for children’s education right now and consider the future. Parenting for a Digital Future (blog). https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2020/06/17/learning-during-pandemic/
Household Broadband Guide. Federal Communications Commission. (2020, March 11). Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/household-broadband-guide
Internet World Statistics, (2022). Retrieved from https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm .
ITU (International Telecommunication Union) (2019) Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2019. ITU, Geneva, Switzerland: Place des Nations. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2019.pdf
Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (1970, January 1). Measuring and evaluating ICT use: Developing an instrument for measuring student ICT use. IGI Global. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/measuring-evaluating-ict-use/35923
Karraker, M. (2015). Global families in a digital age. In C. Breuss (Ed.), Families in a digital world. Peter Lang., 55–75.
McAuliffe, M.Ed. (2021). Research handbook on international migration and digital technology. E. Elgar Online. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839100611
McClain, C., Widjaya, R., Rivero, G., & Smith, A. (2021, November 22). Comparing highly active and less active tweeters. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/11/15/2-comparing-highly-active-and-less-active-tweeters/
McClain, C., Vogels, E. A., Perrin, A., Sechopoulos, S., & Rainie, L. (2021, September 1). Navigating technological challenges. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/09/01/navigating-technological-challenges/
Olson, D. H., DeFrain, J. D., & Skogrand, L. (2014). Marriages and families: Intimacy, diversity, and strengths (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 3: Understanding Marriage and Family Dynamics.
Population Reference Bureau (2020) What is a household? PRB. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.prb.org/resources/what-is-a-household/
Reeves, B., Ram, N., Robinson, T. N., Cummings, J. J., Giles, C. L., Pan, J., Chiatti, A., Cho, M., Roehrick, K., Yang, X., Gagneja, A., Brinberg, M., Muise, D., Lu, Y., Luo, M., Fitzgerald, A., & Yeykelis, L. (2019). Screenomics: A framework to capture and analyze personal life experiences and the ways that technology shapes them. Human–Computer Interaction, 36(2), 150–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2019.1578652
Salcedosays:, K. L. B., & Deansays:, B. (2022, January 5). How many people use Twitter in 2022?. Backlinko. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://backlinko.com/twitter-users#twitter-users
Schumacher, S., & Kent, N. (2020, April 2). 8 charts on internet use around the world as countries grapple with COVID-19. Pew Internet and American Life. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/02/8-charts-on-internet-use-around-the-world-as-countries-grapple-with-covid-19/
Shapiro, E. (2020). These families feel forgotten as NYC pushes to open schools. The New York Times. September 14. www.nytimes.com/2020/09/14/nyregion/homeless-school-reopening-nyc.html
Statista Research Department (2022, March 8). Most used social media 2021. Statista. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2007). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00247.x
Vogels, E., Perrin, A., Rainie, L., & Anderson, M. (2020, April 20). Fifty three percent of Americans say the internet has been essential during the Covid-19 outbreak. Pew Internet and American Life. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/04/30/53-of-americans-say-the-internet-has-been-essential-during-the-covid-19-outbreak/
Walker, S. K., Dworkin, J., & Connell, J. (2011). Variation in parent use of information and communications technology: Does quantity matter? Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 40(2), 106–119. doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02098.x
Walker, S., & Rudi, J. H. (2014). Parenting across the social ecology facilitated by information and communications technology: Implications for research and educational design. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 2(2). www.jhseonline.com/#!current-issue/co3j
Walker, S. K., Lee, S. K., & Hong, S. (2021). Workplace predictors of family educators’ technology acceptance attitudes. Family Relations, 70(5), 1626–1642. doi.org/10.1111/fare.12583
Wei, L., and Hindman, D. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and Society, 14(2), 216–235. doi:10.1080/15205431003642707
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 18). Application software. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software
Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, January 2). Base transceiver station. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_transceiver_station
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 13). Cellular network. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 21). Cell site. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_site
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 24). Computer Network. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
Wikimedia Foundation. (2005, January 16). Communication Network. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_network
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 24). Computer. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 16). Computer program. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 23). Content creation. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_creation
Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, April 6). CPU. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU
Wikimedia Foundation. (2004, August 6). Digital Photo. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_photo
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 14). Digital Media. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_media
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 22). Email. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Email
Wikimedia Foundation. (2013, May 8). End-users. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/End-users
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, January 20). File sharing. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, February 23). Hypertext. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext
Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, October 22). Information sharing. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_sharing
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, March 26). Internet. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 18). Internet protocol suite. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 18). Internetworking. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Internetworking
Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, July 25). Internet telephony. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_telephony
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 4). List of social networking services. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_services
Wikimedia Foundation. (2019, April 26). Media Player (software). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_player_(software)
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 21). Mobile device. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 24). Mobile phone. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, January 4). Mobile computing. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_computing
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, February 17). Mobile app. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_app
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, March 27). Network virtualization. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_virtualization
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, January 30). Optical networking. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_networking
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 24). Peripheral. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 19). Power Supply Unit (computer). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_supply_unit_(computer)
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 16). Proprietary software. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 19). System software. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/System_software
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 13). Social Network. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 23). Social Media. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media#cite_note-Kaplan-5
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 23). Social Media. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 23). Social Media. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media#cite_note-SMDefinition-2
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, February 17). Transceiver. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Transceiver
Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, December 19). Utility software. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_software
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 23). User-generated content. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content
Wikimedia Foundation. (2017, June 6). Virtual communities. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_communities
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 16). Video. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Video
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 16). Web 2.0. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, March 17). Website. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Website
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 22). Web application. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 21). World wide web. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, April 22). Wireless. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless
Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, January 14). Word processor. Wikipedia. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processor
Wood, M. (2018, December 6). How rural America is turning into a Digital Desert. Marketplace. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.marketplace.org/2018/12/05/tech/how-rural-america-turning-digital-desert
Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M., & Enikolopov, R. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Review of Economics, 12, 415–438. doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239 | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/03%3A_Differences_Within_and_Across_Familes'_Technology_Use/3.02%3A_References.txt |
Mapping App to Function
Look at your phone (smartphone). Examine the range of apps on the device, perhaps writing down each one. What do you do with each application? What function does it serve? Consider your relationships with friends, partners, and family members. How do you use each application, if at all?
Considering Behavior
What is your behavior with your smartphone? How would you document it? Provide a list of ways that you might observe or track your use. Why might your use matter? In other words, what is the impact of your checking your phone frequently during the day? How much time do you spend on particular apps?
Considering Your Family
Identify each member of your immediate family. List them by name and their role in the family. Considering devices, applications, attitudes, knowledge and skills, and behaviors, identify use for each family member. Looking across your family, how are individual members similar or different in their technology use?
What do those differences mean to:
• Family communication?
• Family connectedness?
• Family conflicts?
• Family strengths?
Access Resources
In this video, a single mother talks about her using the library to access the computers for herself and her children. After viewing the video, consider options for families like this who don’t have home access to the internet. Identify resources in your town or neighborhood for adults to work/attend school, for children to complete homework and school projects, and for families to make connections with others.
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=192#oembed-1
Considering Cross-Family Dynamics
With another person, have a discussion about your families. How might your families be similar and different with regard to technology use, access, and comfort? Are there challenges faced in one family but not another? Are their strengths exhibited by one family and not the other?
3.04: Blog Prompts
In the chapter you were asked to consider your own family’s use of technology — variations in each member’s selection and use of devices and application, their attitudes toward technology, their comfort in using it, and their exposure to it. In comparison with one or two other people, or thinking of family depictions on television, identify similarities and differences in your own family. What did you learn? How might understanding your own family be useful (or not useful) to a wider understanding of the nuances of family technology use?
Karraker (Chapter 3, in Breuss, 2015) talks about the families we don’t see when we consider family technology use. Who are those families? Are they homeless? Migrant families? Mothers fleeing domestic violence? What might their unseen technology needs or uses be? How can we, as family professionals and advocates, better identify and understand their uses and needs?
Walker et al. (2011) identified 9 types of parent technology use based on device ownership, frequency of use of applications, and attitudes toward technology. This was adopted from similar research done with a general population of adults by John Horrigan and associates at the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
1. Why is it useful (or not useful) to see parents as a range of user “types”? What does it mean for family professionals who are employing or designing technology applications for work with families?
2. Why was it necessary to look at adult parents when work with adults had already been done? How are parents different from the general adult population with regard to their roles and technology use?
3.05: Additional Resources and Readings
Technology and Families During Migration:
• Brief report for the United Nations Expert Group Meeting: Walker, S. (2022). www.un.org/development/desa/family/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2022/08/Susan-Walker-Digital-Technologies-Interlinkages-with-Megatrends-and-Regional-Perspectives.pdf
• Additional papers and presentations on families, migration, urbanization, and digital technologies: www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2022egms/migration-urbanization.html
• McAuliffe, M. (Ed.) (2021). Research handbook on international migration and digital technology. UK: Edward Elgar. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/research-handbook-on-international-migration-and-digital-technology-9781839100604.html | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/03%3A_Differences_Within_and_Across_Familes'_Technology_Use/3.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
But love is really more of an interactive process. It’s about what we do not just what we feel. It’s a verb, not a noun.
bell hooks
Chapter Insights
• ICT can facilitate communication, connection and intimacy in couples, yet it can also bring out tensions.
• Couples’ use of technology can vary depending on aspects of the couple by member age, age or longevity of the relationships, and stage of the relationship. These couple differences play out in use of specific technology devices, applications, or functions (e.g., sexting, texting, dating apps, gaming).
• Couples differ in their perspectives about the impact of technology on the quality of their relationship.
• Cybersex is a part of couple intimacy, yet can feel for some or members of couples inappropriate.
• Dating apps and online sites are popular ways that couples initiate relationships, whether for a flirtatious hook-up or to seek a long-term partner. There are advantages and disadvantages toward finding a committed partner. There are potential negative impacts to individual well-being, to wider society.
• Accepted guidelines for healthy couple relationship dynamics (e.g., Gottman) can extend to ICT use.
• It’s natural for couples to experience conflict related to technology. More important is how they resolve or prevent conflict as a demonstration of flexibility. Guidelines can be co-constructed for couples to remain cohesive in the face of technology-related conflict.
• Not surprisingly, technology is a tool for perpetrators of intimate partner violence. There are multiple ways that victims can be harassed with ICT. Professionals need to integrated technology into prevention and treatment strategies.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
The developmental exploration of ICT in the family begins with the beginning of families, or when couples first meet (Eichenberg, et al., 2017). It’s not hard to see the many ways in which technology is used in couple initiation — meeting through dating apps; getting to know each other better through social media profiles and messaging, texting, and video conferencing. Whether a family consists only of the two people in the couple, or includes children or other subsystems, couples use ICT in significant ways that maintain the relationship and fulfill family functions. And they use multiple media in their connections, particularly social media and mobile technology.
The growth of research on couple technology use has led to new theories, and to theoretical adaptations of relationship dynamic models that capitalize on the specific affordances of communication through digital media. Use of ICT is now so prevalent in couple communication that the term POPC, for “permanently online, permanently connected” (Vorderer & Kohring, 2013) has been coined. Use of ICT is now so prevalent in couple communication that the term POPC, for “permanently online, permanently connected” (Vorderer & Kohring, 2013) has been coined. These theories address not only new means for communication, but the wide variations in couples.
This chapter will explore ways in which the ages of members of couples, along with the status and length of the relationship, reveal differences in ICT use and impact. A significant portion of the chapter will focus on using technology during couple “initiation,” specifically the use of dating apps and dating online.
Equally important is our examination of technology as a source of conflict in couple communication. To offer a personal example, when my partner goes to a store and texts me to see if we need anything, there’s a good chance I won’t the text in time because my notifications are turned off. This results in his feeling frustrated. Obviously this won’t prompt our heading to divorce court, but our shared use of texting for communication along with our different perceptions of how to use it together present a complexity we didn’t experience before the advent of mobile phones. Conflict can be much more serious, particularly when technology is used to perpetuate intimate partner violence (IPV).
Background on Couple Relationships
Coupling can mean many things, and doesn’t always refer to a serious relationship or commitment. For some, connecting might be a hook-up for sex, serial dating, or casual dating. For others it’s part of seeking a relationship that leads to commitment and a bond that may be legal, cultural, and involve children or shared property.
In the U.S., the rate of marriage has declined from 10.0 individuals per 1,000 in 1986 to an all-time low of 5.1 in 2020. Americans are waiting until later in life to get married, if they marry at all, and “nontraditional” living arrangements are increasingly common. Seen most among Millennials, these changes are due to a variety of factors, including concerns about the economy, women’s education (with women’s advanced education and earning power, they are less dependent on a spouse), and seeing high rates of divorce among their parents’ generation. In terms of finding a partner (for marriage or not), couples cite challenges with increased mobility, migration, dispersal of social networks, longer commutes, and the demands of work and school life.
Healthy Couple Relationships
While there are myriad theories and perspectives on couple/marital relationships[1], for efficiency we’ll focus on principles from two perspectives.
John Gottman’s research[2] on sound couple relationships uses the analogy of a house, with trust and commitment as the “weight-bearing walls.” At the foundation, the building of “love maps” is a process of getting to know each other, ideally better than others do. On the second “floor,” partners share admiration and fondness for each other, each telling the other what they like about them. On Floor 3 they turn toward one another, not away. This includes knowing each other’s cues for response and attending to them. On Floor 4, working on positive perspectives of each other and themselves in the relationship, partners offer compassion and understanding rather than criticism. Floor 5 involves managing conflict when it arises — accepting the partner’s motives, discussing programs, and practicing self-soothing. On Floor 6 they make dreams come true for themselves, the other person, and the couple as a unit. And at the top, Floor 7 finds couples creating shared meanings through rituals, ceremonies, pet names, memories, and so on — things that identify the two people as a defined unit.
Gottman’s principles easily relate to the discussion of family processes in Chapter 2. Communication aids in relationship processes, fulfillment of roles, and reinforcement of relationship structures, and over time, communication and connectivity aid in relational cohesion. Because the couple, like the family, is an open system, external influences (like the availability of a smartphone during face-to-face conversation) can facilitate conflict, so it is important for partners to show flexibility in adjusting to and accommodating each other’s needs and keep focus on the relationship. Gottman’s own institute offers online resources for couples, including a relationship “check-up.”
Another perspective blends research, including Gottman’s, to characterize couple relationship skills that are predictive of satisfaction and well-being. A review of the research identified skill areas (Futris et al., 2013) which were later were developed into an inventory of relationship quality: the Couple Skills Relationship Index [CSRI] (Adler-Baedler, et al., 2022).
The skill areas of the inventory include:
None of the dimensions of the CSRI specify technology use. Yet each can be imagined as they would relate to use as an individual, in a couple, and through connections with others. Before reading on, consider at least one application of ICT use to each of these areas.
• Self-Care (originally titled Care for Self): efforts to promote individual health and well-being
• Choose: attitudes and efforts related to intentionality and prioritizing the relationship
• Know: attitudes and efforts that promote intimate knowledge between partners
• Care: attitudes and behaviors that promote other-oriented positivity
• Share: attitudes and behaviors that promote a sense of couple solidarity and “we-ness”
• Manage: attitudes and skills for managing stress and conflict
• Connect: attitudes and efforts to embed the couple relationship in support networks (Adler-Baedler, et al, 2022 p. 282)
Jointly, these areas reflect a conceptual framework built on the foundation of a variety of social, ecological, and learning theories applied to couples, predictive of positive relationship quality (e.g., positive feelings, satisfaction, family harmony). Going forward, we’ll explore how ICT is used to convey couple relational dynamics and influence relationship well-being.
As we explore research findings on this topic, a caveat. While significant research on couples and ICT has been completed by the time this book was written (2022), it remains limited. Not all forms of ICT have been studied nor studied to the same degree. Great focus, for example, has been given to dating apps and to texting as a process of communication, and less to videoconferencing, videogames, or virtual reality. Research samples struggle to reveal couple demographic or global diversity, though there is a certain presence of queer couples in published literature. Research on age and couple longevity tends to focus more on younger couples and those in the early throes of a relationship, look at those at the dissolution stage, and explore how ICT can help couples communicate and coordinate around the needs of their children. Couple research is thus ripe for more investigation, particularly as devices and platforms for engagement evolve (including virtual reality dating) and as we further understand potential security pitfalls and privacy threats from individual error (e.g., sharing information about a partner online they intended to keep quiet) and data mining. For the most recent research, readers are encouraged to do Google Scholar/EBSCO or other searches for specific topics, platforms, couple types, and processes of couple relationships.
Advancing Relational Theory with Regard to Digital Technologies
In Chapter 2, we noted that extant theories of family life can help us frame family processes that contribute to well-being, and examine internal and external influences on those processes in our current age of technology use. To be sure, the focus should be less on the descriptive use of ICT by families and more on what these tools and interactions mean to family dynamics and outcomes. Newer theories are being developed to adapt extant frameworks of the family to new technologies.
The Couple and Family Technological Framework (revisited)
Hertlein’s research on the ways in which couples used technology identified benefits to relationship initiation and management, along with challenges such as distancing and ambiguity (Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014). This informed the family technological framework (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013) discussed in Chapter 2. Relationship communication via the “mediated affordances” of ICT (e.g., anonymity, access) can affect perception and understanding of relationships; couple conveyance of rules, roles, and boundaries; and couple relationships as a shifting structure (e.g., from initiation to maintenance). Hertlein’s model has been used to examine a range of couple and family situations, including parenting, videogame playing by couples, and sexual infidelity. A cogent explanation of the 7As applied to sexual dysfunction is presented in Hertlein et al., 2017.
Relational Maintenance
Theories focused on interpersonal relationship dynamics abound in the literature on computer-mediated communication (CMC); many are discussed by Walther and Parks (2002). Some theories explore relationship components and ICT use, including relationship development, perception, and contexts for interaction. Mason and Carr (2022) present an excellent overview of the work to adapt relational theory to the realities of digital technology, and suggest elements to consider in using online technologies to maintain off-line relationships. As with Hertlein and Blumer’s model, they evoke the characteristics and “mediated affordances” of ICT as actors in relational dynamics. With a foundation of social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973), which posits that the reciprocal exchange of information, processed by relational partners over time, helps progress closeness, Mason and Carr describe six dimensions of digital communications that influence relationship maintenance:
1. Lightweight interactions: Instant messaging and social network communication offer brief but frequent exchanges. Yet as the authors observe, given the social exposure and potential for miscommunication, they may come with a cost: “lightweight interactions may be capable of sustaining less developed relationships but understanding its role in more developed relationships might prove more complicated” (p. 250). And while those in close relationships may use multiple media (e.g., media multiplexity), there is evidence that the topic and quality of information across these devices is replicated.
2. Nature of disclosures: Methods of sharing online can be ephemeral (as in Instagram stories), and what is intimate seems up for interpretation. The overly social atmosphere of online spaces has led to the need to determine what information is personal and what is interpersonal.
3. Mass personal spaces: Conveying personal messages in wide social spaces can seem less intimate, given that they are on a platform shared by many, even when messaging is “private.”
4. Social presence: the sense of being with another person even though they are not nearby. ICT modalities allow for sensory and text-based mechanisms for partners to feel the presence of the other.
5. Ambient awareness occurs when individuals receive messages broadcast by others. In a relationship, this allows for the passive observation of information about the other person. Viewing a partner interact frequently with another, for example, can lead to feelings of rejection.
6. Algorithmic proximation: As Mason and Carr (p. 257) succinctly observe, considering online interactions, “individuals in a particular relationship are not the only actors who may influence relational outcomes. Online information distribution and display are now substantively controlled by sophisticated algorithms.”
These elements are observed in richer detail as some of the research on how ICT operates in couple relationships is discussed throughout the chapter.
Technology Use by Couples
With the majority of U.S. households having access to the internet and owning smartphones (U.S. Census, 2021), and rates particularly high in households with younger heads, in urban areas, and across all socioeconomic strata, texting is a key method of communication between couples. As with others motivated to use technology, couples cite efficiency, ease of use, and mobility (Nylander, et al., 2012). Calls and texts enable couples to express affection, forge intimacy, solve problems, and gather information. Couple duration, closeness, and familiarity with using cell phones as a communication device are predictors of positive and continued use. Social media is a mechanism for some couples to communicate about their relationship (Anderson & Vogels, 2020) and to learn more about potential partners. Videoconferencing, virtual reality, and augmented reality offer sensory mechanisms for greater presence. During COVID-19, the news ran a story about an elderly couple who kept in touch using FaceTime, as one resided in assisted living. Other uses of more sensory mechanisms of mediated communication include cybersex, or sex-related interactive behavior that includes viewing pornography, sexting, and web-cam sex.
In a qualitative analysis of college students, with about half in long-term relationships and others in casual relationships, Hertein and Ancheta (2014) identified themes in technology use by relationship initiation, management, and enhancement. Relationship management included technology for seeking information, managing conflict, reducing anxiety, and demonstrating commitment. Relationships were enhanced by using technology to spice up sexual relationships and stay connected when separated by distance.
If a researcher asked you if technology impacted your relationship, what would you say? Might you want the researcher toTechnology’s “impact” on couple relationships depends on the couple’s perspective on what impact means. define what they mean by “impact”? In 2014 research by Pew (Lenhart & Duggan), couples viewed “impact” as something fairly significant, as only 10% of long-term couples (defined as those together for 10 years or more) reported that technology use had any impact, and that impact was positive, with many citing increased connectedness. Higher rates were found in younger age groups, with 21% of those age 18–29 reporting that technology had a major impact. A more recent study from Pew (Vogels & Anderson, 2020) also found little impact from couples viewing others’ posting about their relationships on social media. Although 81% reported seeing what others post about their relationships, within that group most (81%) said it didn’t make a difference in their own relationships, and another 9% said they felt better about their relationships.
There are downsides to using technology in couple relationships, of course. Misunderstandings and differences in use are common. Couples sometimes experience an imbalance, with one partner using a device or application in ways that don’t include the other or to a greater extent than the other. Videogaming, viewing pornography, even “phubbing” — ignoring the partner while with them by focusing on a phone — can create conflict. Technology is sometimes also used to assert an imbalance of power — to a lesser degree, by choosing to hold difficult conversations (or even break up) online rather than in person, and in extreme cases when stalking, harassing, and withholding a partner’s access to technology, as seen with intimate partner violence. The sections below will offer a closer view of couple use, misuse, and impacts.
Differences in couples
Like families, couples have a developmental trajectory and develop over time and in stages. Couple relationships can be defined by time (or length of the relationship) and by stage. Are the partners just meeting? Making a formal commitment? Transitioning to childrearing or another adult life stage, such as home shared ownership? They might be at the end of the relationship and experiencing formal separation or divorce. And couples vary by the age of the individuals. They might be teenagers, young adults, older adults, or seniors, the same age or different ages. And naturally, as with families and individuals, couples can be viewed by ethnicity, race, religion or culture, geolocation, age, gender, health status, education and income, and other demographics. These factors, along with the myriad other factors that influence individual use discussed we’ve so far, can influence how technology is used, how it is viewed as a tool in the relationship, and its impact on the well-being of the relationship.
Consider at least five different couples you know. How might they differ in how each individual in the couple uses ICT in couple communication and relational maintenance? How do or might they differ as couples?
By age of couple members
Younger couples use digital communication in relationships differently than older couples. Teenagers in relationships, for example, use technology for communication and daily check-ins; they report that the immediacy of contact can enhance feelings of intimacy, and that delays can lead to negative feelings, especially when the partner is otherwise visible (Commonsense Media, 2015). They acknowledge that their use of technology in the relationship can breed possible miscommunication and discomfort from feelings of surveillance by the partner, feelings of jealousy, and the potential for boundaries to be blurred.
Though only just over a quarter (28%) of adults who use social media use it to share about their relationships, frequencies vary greatly by age. Nearly half (48%) of adults 18–29 years indicate that it is important to show how much they care about their partner, compared to 10% of those 50 and older. Younger social media users say it is a way to publicly demonstrate affection for their partner, and be aware of their partner’s life (Anderson & Vogels, 2020). Interestingly, non-white couples and LGBT couples are more likely than white and straight couples, respectively, to use social media in this way. Those who are younger are also more likely to see others’ post about their relationships on social media. Compared with 91% of adults age 18–29, 75% of those 50–64 indicate seeing others post about relationships.
Younger adults using social media are also much more likely to check up on exes. While 53% of adults on average report using social media this way, the frequency reaches 70% among those age 18–29. Not surprisingly, a greater proportion of younger adults also report feeling jealous and unsure about their relationship due to their use of social media (34% vs approximately 16% of adults over 50).
Why might there may be differences for those who are together for a shorter amount of time? Might the age of the individuals in a couple be a confounding influence?
By length of the relationship
Long-term couples tend to view and utilize technology quite differently compared to those who have been together for a shorter period of time. In part this is due to couple member age — couples together for less time are more likely to be younger and are familiar with the use of technology for relationship logistics. Shorter-term couples may also be more sensitive to miscommunication prompted by online formats. Relationship length can moderate negative couple outcomes associated with frequency of Facebook use and Facebook-related conflict (Clayton et al., 2013). And longer-term couples may use technology together — sharing email or Facebook accounts — since they were together at the advent of the Internet and social media. Couples who have been together for less time reported feeling closer to the partner due to online or text messaging conversations, they resolved an argument with the partner online or by texting, and they texted the partner while at home together.
By stage of relationship
Why is it more likely that those who are in longer-term relationships share online accounts? Today it is also likely that passwords to streaming services such as Netflix or Hulu are shared. Are there differences between sharing these kinds of accounts and sharing social media, banking, or email accounts?
More established couples use technology to communicate conveniently, seek information, manage conflicts, reduce anxiety, and demonstrate commitment (Hertlein & Anchleta, 2014). They also try to spice up their sexual relationships, and stay connected during distancing separations. The sharing of sensitive information such as passwords or accounts is a key difference by relationship status. Although the majority of couples in relationships indicate sharing a password for a cellphone (75%) or email account (62%), those who are married or living with a partner are far more likely to do so than those in committed relationships. In the case of email accounts, for instance, 70% of those who are married share accounts, compared to 22% of those in relationships (Anderson & Vogels, 2020).
Divorced and separated couples (with children)
Beyond the use of technology to file for divorce (Eichenberg, et al., 2017), or apps to help newly solo parents manage practical challenges after the divorce, technology and communication between separated and divorced couples is a dominant focus for family professionals. Research examines differences in what is used, how, and by whom, e.g., texting, email, and social media (Dworkin, et al., 2016; Russell, et al., 2021, Smyth, et al., 2020). Russell et al. (2021) identified a typology of mediated communication in post-divorce couples with minor children: those extensively using multiple media, those who mixed face-to-face communication with phone calls or texting, minimal communicators relying largely on texting, and very limited communicators using occasional texting. The selection of type of media, frequency, and use relative to desired intent varies. Couples may, for example choose email for more lengthy communication, to share documents, and in cases of conflict (Ganong, et al., 2012), and choose asynchronous forms of communication. Divorced parents may also be more likely to use technology to communicate with and through their children rather than directly communicating with the co-parent (Dworkin, et al., 2016).
In Russell et al.’s (2021) research, divorced couples who use multiple methods of communication were more likely to rateas cooperative partners, while those using more limited methods, and who had limited contact, rated higher as “dissolved duos” or “angry associates.” This reinforces Ganong et al.’s (2012) early conclusion that use and quality of communication in couples post-divorce is dependent on relationship quality (amicable or contentious). Social presence theory may account for the differences in technology selection, with more adversarial couples choosing to be less present through digital media. In tracking high-conflict Australian couples post-divorce over a five year period, however, Smyth et al. (2020) found shifts in technology use, including the use of multiple media, synchronous and asynchronous methods with ex-spouses, and shifts in frequency and intimacy. They questioned whether technology selection in divorced and separated couples may be less static than previously understood.From a legal standpoint, couples may be wary about how they communicate, as digital communication can be archived, retrieved, and used in litigation.
Some divorcing/divorced couples use technology used in adversarial ways. Text messages, apps, and social media accounts are used in evidence in divorce cases. At least one family law firm offers a guide for digital communication and divorce. In many states, post-divorce couples education is mandatory; hopefully it addresses the use of technology in partner and child communication. Some states, such as Texas, require divorced couples to use particular apps to pay child custody or communicate with the partner and children, but non-compliance appears to be an issue.
Video Watching, Gaming, and Cybersex
In addition to texting and the use of social media, technology is used by couples (or by one member of the couple, influencing the other) in additional ways that have an impact on the relationship. This includes watching videos, videogaming, and participating in some version of cybersex, which can include sexting, viewing pornography, or webcam or AR/VR sex. Interestingly, most of these activities are ones couples report doing in their bedrooms — a location with sociocultural importance to intimacy and privacy (Salmela et al., 2019). As with more generic uses of technology for communication in couples, these applications bring both benefits and challenges to the relationship. As with more generic uses of technology for communication in couples, watching videos, gaming and forms of cybersex applications bring both benefits and challenges to the relationship.Gaming, for example, can generate closeness through the sharing of an activity, yet it can generate conflict when one partner is into gaming and the other is not. And sexting can offer a specific type of intimacy, yet have ramifications when used improperly (e.g., as underage pornography, as infidelity).
Video watching
Just as when families co-view media together (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012), couples can feel a greater sense of connectedness and cohesion when they watch TV, movies, and videos together. (NOTE: This isn’t to be confused with “Netflix and chill.” Today the phrase is more of an analogy for having sex.) Recently, viewing videos on TikTok has become a shared activity for couples. Co-viewing media can involve watching together in person, co-viewing separately but at the same time, and viewing common media and texting about it or posting to a social media account the other person follows closely.
This piece in the popular press cites a psychologist’s take on making a long distance relationship work as a “TikTok” couple. While research isn’t cited, the conclusions are reasonable given research on couple emotional contagion, social connectedness, and cohesion (Zilich, 2020). Sharing the platform may put couple members in a good mood and/or lower stress levels, give them a cooperative task that allows them to problem solve and create a joint project (such as doing a “Flipped the Switch” dance video), share an emotional experience (and talk about it), and take a break from their usual routine. This might be especially valuable during long periods of time under restriction, such as COVID-19 or bad weather.
Gaming
Gaming can be a source of connection, allowing partners to share an interest and a source of intimacy. According to the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), in 2021, 42% of videogame players played with a spouse or partner; another 23% reported meeting their spouse or partner through playing videogames. Giving its popularity and accessibility, gaming might be a way for adults with a disability to make connections with others with shared interests. During COVID-19, videogames were especially popular with couples during the long months of quarantine. While most (57%) use a smartphone or a gaming device (46%), those using a smartphone are more likely to play casual games like Tetris, whereas those on devices will play action games. As we’ll discuss in Chapter 9, videogames are also popular with families, and as a way for parents to monitor their children’s online time and to model safe use.
For most couples, game playing has a neutral effect on the relationship (Coyne et al., 2012). Challenges are possible when one partner’s time playing upsets the other’s expectations for time spent together. Some couples experience conflict over the time spent by one member, particularly if it means exposure to others who present a threat to the relationship. In some cases, partners identify aggression brought out by gaming as a source of conflict in the relationship.
Smith (2012), in research on attachment behaviors in committed couples based on perceptions of partners’ videogame use, reports that the male’s violent videogame use and the female’s nonviolent videogame use predicted the perception and that videogames were a problem in the relationship, and this perception predicted less attachment behaviors, which was a fully mediated relationship for both. The female’s view that videogames were a problem negatively predicted both her and her partner’s attachment behaviors, while the male’s view only predicted his attachment behaviors.
Cybersex: Sexting/Cybersex and Pornography
Online sexual activity can influence the couple relationship. When conducted together, online sexual interactions — whether exchanging sexts or viewing online pornography together — enables couples, sometimes geographically separated, to experience greater intimacy in their relationship. Necessary distancing during COVID-19, and concerns about the transmission of disease including sexually transmitted disease, led the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health (2020) to state, “The new ‘really safe’ sex in many cases may require ‘e-sex.’”
Definitions of cybersex vary widely. Beyond sexting, the exchange of sex-related materials, and viewing pornography alone and as a couple, it can also mean use of augmented reality or VR, and of sex-robotics, anticipated to be a future trend (Döring 2017). A review of TMSI (technology-mediated sexual interaction) by Courtice and Shauggnessey (2017) indicates that research in this area tends toward the negative (e.g., cybersex addiction) rather than taking a more neutral approach to studying the behavior. A small portion of individuals develop cybersex addiction (Giordano & Cashwell, 2017, suggest 10%), yet Eichenberg et al. (2017) observe that much of the research is self-reported and that many using the internet for sex don’t see their use as a problem, so accuracy in prevalence is hard to gauge. And critical consensus of the research finds it lacking (Banerjee & Rao, 2021; Courtice & Saughnessey, 2017). Banerjee and Rao (2021, p. 7) observe:
Besides cross-cultural and cross-country, research should focus on cultural effects on virtual sexuality and effects of cybersex on psychosexual health. Longitudinal mixed-method studies and exploring lived experiences related to partnered and solo sex are essential to formulate policies and guidelines that can be rooted within the participant perceptions.
Because if we are moving toward more than increasing our understanding of family life through research, to practice and policy, including requirements around consent between couples, it is essential that the work be both rigorous and representative of the phenomenon as facilitated by cyber-technology.
Sexting
While sexting — sending sexually provocative texting or images via digital technology — is not an activity that the majority of couples participate, it represents normative couple behavior and intimacy and is present in a significant minority. Research with 615 demographically representative couples in the U.S. and Canada revealed that most (71%) didn’t sext, 14.5% were “word” sexters, and 14% were frequent or hypersexters (Galovin, et al., 2018). In that study, sexters were more likely to be younger (though older than adolescents) and homosexual, and to use media and view pornography. Pew research in 2014 similarly revealed sexting in younger age groups. Those between 18–24 were most likely (44% of the subsample) to receive sexts, whereas those 25–34 were most likely (22% of the subsample) to send sexts. That said, occasional reports in the media single out individuals such as Anthony Weiner, a former New York congressperson who was given 21 months in jail for sending sexts to a 15-year-old, or cases of a school teacher or coach. Sexting is also related to couple duration and stage. Those more likely to receive sexts are those who are single, those not in a relationship or those whose relationship is 10 years or less.
A meta-analysis of sexting research (Kosenko et al., 2017) found a positive relationship between sexting and sexual activity, having unprotected sex, and number of sexual partners. Galovin et al. (2018) determined that relationship satisfaction among sexters wasn’t significantly different from non-sexters, though they were more likely to express sexual satisfaction in the relationship. Other relationship variables for sexters were less positive, in measurements of commitment, ambivalence, and conflict.
Still, partner context appears to matter greatly. Those in trusting, safe relationships (whether gay or straight) may have a different sexting experience than others. And Courtice and Shaughnessey (2017) indicate that relationship impact research is so variable that it’s difficult to offer firm conclusions.
One aspect of sexting that is not variable is the existence of state pornography laws. Each state has laws around sexting, particularly around sending or receiving messages to a minor or a person under the age of 18. These laws can catch individuals unaware; for example, an 18-year-old sending a picture of a 16-year-old is considered pornography. Non-exclusive factors that determine if “a visual depiction of a minor constitutes a ‘lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area’” under 18 US Code §2255(2) (E),4 the definitions section of the statutory scheme (Id. at 830),” include:
1. whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area;
2. whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive (i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity);
3. whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
4. whether the child is fully or partially clothed or nude;
5. whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity; and
6. whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer (Id. at 832). (Strassberger, et al, 2019).
It is essential that teenagers and those who may be in relationships with teenagers are acutely aware of state laws regarding the sending of sexts to underage minors. Sexting and adolescents is discussed further in chapter 5.
Viewing pornography
Pornography viewing is another mechanism for potential couple satisfaction, particularly as it might enhance foreplay. The internet makes it easy to find just about any type of porn, while also ensuring certain anonymity. It’s reported that 25% of all internet searches relate to pornography, as do 35% of all internet downloads. Yet viewing pornography may also lead to conflict, particularly when one partner views it in the absence of the other (Gingrich, 2017).
Men are more likely to view porn than women. A study from the Wheatley Institute examined heterosexual individuals and paired couples in committed relationships, (defined as seriously dating, cohabiting, or married; Willoughby et al., 2021). There were clear gender differences about viewing hard-core pornography (defined as featuring depictions of actual sex acts that display full nudity), with men either married or never married reporting nearly double the frequency as women. Married (51%) and dating (36%) women reported never viewing pornography at higher rates than men. Younger men (under 30) were also more likely to view pornography. Other research supports these gender differences in pornography viewing in couples. Unmarried men and women in couples report viewing porn at about the same frequency. It’s interesting that men and women aren’t very good at estimating what the other does. Whether it’s viewing hard-core or soft-core porn, women underestimate the percentage of men who view it, and men overestimate rates of women as viewers.
Across all gender and couple status groups, attitudes toward viewing pornography were positive in the Wheatley study for the majority (about 80%), particularly when asked about viewing as adults (whether married or unmarried). Far fewer individuals were positive about teenagers viewing porn. More men than women also saw viewing porn as helping foreplay (50–60%, depending on couple status, compared to 40–50%).
Does viewing pornography introduce conflict to the couple? Or might it positively contribute to couple intimacy, particularly since sexual satisfaction is a component of a happy relationship? Reviews of the research show mixed results (Webster, 2022). There is evidence that supports that viewing pornography together positively contributes to couple satisfaction. In the Wheatley study, couples who did not view pornography had high ratings on measures of stability, commitment and relationship satisfaction. Ratings were positive yet lower in couples who did view pornography, and lowest for those who did not view it together and when porn viewing by a partner was frequent. Sexual satisfaction was rated similarly whether or not couples viewed porn.
In the Wheatley study, about 20% of couples said viewing pornography contributed to conflict. In a 2021 US study, a minority of couples report that viewing pornography (alone or together) contributed to conflict. Men may hide their viewing (identified in about 25% of the sample), a partner’s viewing may bring out insecurities in the other, or viewing may signal that there are issues in the relationship that are not being discussed. Webster (2022) observes that couples in conflict may turn to pornography as a way to avoid conflict. On the data that correlates viewing with marital dissatisfaction, Webster (2022) and Gingrich (2017) observe research limits identifying the direction of the relationship: do those who have poor relationships turn to porn, or does viewing porn contribute to poor relationships? Considering homosexual and heterosexual couples, couple impact of partner viewing of pornography (the man in a heterosexual relationship) depends on context (Gingrich, 2017). Viewing porn can affect men’s feelings of intimacy, sexual satisfaction, and perception of sexual freedom with partners when men have a positive level of partner disclosure. Attachment level also appears to matter. Men with insecure attachment may turn to viewing pornography as a way to disengage and avoid perceived challenges with partners.
Technology-Related Conflict and Resolution
While ICT can enhance communication efficiency and personal connectedness, it’s clear that it can also produce conflict for couples. Consider a possible conflict that might arise between a couple. How might technology relate to that conflict, and how does it influence the couple’s relationship? Whether it’s looking at a partner’s phone, checking on exes through social media, or feeling jealous or underconfident in the relationship based on the partner’s social media use, younger adults are more likely than those in other age groups to report these challenges, as are those who are not married but in relationships. Hertlein and Ancheta (2014) identified themes in couple interference and technology that will be used to structure this section. The themes are validated by the work of other researchers exploring couples’ technology use (e.g., Vaterlaus and Tulane’s study of married couples, 2019).
Issues observed
Distancing
Messaging by text or by sext can seem impersonal to some, removing the individual’s self and interest in the communication. Phubbing in couples (also labeled PPhubbing, or Partner Phubbing), a type of technoference (McDaniel & Coyne, 2016) has been widely studied. As indicated below, even among married and committed couples, over half indicate that their partner is distracted by their phone. Nearly as many report feeling bothered by the amount of time spent on the phone.
Negative effects of phubbing in couples include perceived effects on intimacy, reduced relationship satisfaction, reduced sexual satisfaction, diminished sense of quality time, and effects on partner mental health. Wang et al. (2019) examined married couples in China and found that phubbing related to depression and negatively related to relationship satisfaction. There was also an indirect relationship to depression based on the impact on satisfaction, meaning that as a partner’s satisfaction in the relationship decreased due to phubbing, they felt depressed.
Another study with married couples in China (Chen et al., 2022) looked at the transmissive effects of phubbing, or one partner ignoring the other after they have been ignored. It is fairly common for couples to pick up each other’s behavior due to their interdependence and time together. The Wang et al. study found that men were likely to start phubbing when their wives did it, but women were not. The authors observed that this could be an effect of gender role socialization. This study also validated the connection between phubbing and relationship satisfaction, but demonstrated that lower satisfaction was an influence on phubbing.
Women in the U.S. are more bothered than men by being ignored. While percentages are rather low overall (16% being the highest of all groups), for all media — phones, social media, and videogames — women are more likely to report feeling dissatisfied when their partners are on these devices.
Long-term German couples, ranging in age from 29–72 and averaging 22 years together, were studied for personal (attachment anxiety), gender, and relationship influences on phubbing (Bröning & Wartberg, 2022). The behavior was more likely in younger couples. Authors interpreted this as the long-term couples being stable in their relationships, communication, and coping and conflict resolution patterns. Attachment orientation was highly correlated with phubbing perceptions. In other words, long-term couples that have developed an increased sensitivity toward each other due to an insecure attachment orientation may perceive phubbing as more damaging to the quality of the relationship.
Couples can also avoid issues by focusing on their phones, or address challenging topics by asynchronous text rather than having a face-to-face conversation. Even having a phone out while spending time together can feel like a distraction and interfere with the feelings of intimacy (Turkel, 2015).
Impaired trust/Breaking boundaries
Couples indicate that it’s easy for their partners to hide texts or sexts to others, and to hide online activity, including social media (e.g., following an “ex”). This can create concerns over infidelity, also called “digital jealousy” (Eichenberg, et al., 2017). It should be noted, however, that definitions of infidelity using the internet are somewhat “messy,” to use Vossler’s (2016) term. Some common factors include attempts toward privacy, using access and anonymity features of the internet, and abrupt discovery. Vossler’s review suggests that couple impacts of cyber-infidelity are similar to those from infidelity offline: partner distrust, relationship conflict, and potential dissolution.
Couples, especially younger ones, may use social media to gather information about their partner’s activities. And as social media is a popular way to check up on exes, knowing this can lead existing partners to feel jealous or suspicious.
Looking at a partner’s phone or social media account can break boundaries, and doing so without permission is a sure way to damage trust. Regardless of age, commitment status, or other demographics, nearly ¾ of couples (71%) agree that it is not appropriate for a partner to look through another partner’s phone without their knowledge. Still, one-third (34%) of couples admit to doing so (Anderson & Vogels, 2020).
Lack of clarity
The final area of challenge for couples is lack of clarity. As we’ve discussed, users vary widely in their access, attitudes, comfort, and skill related to technology. One partner, for example, may spend more time on their phone and frequent social media, while the other tries to avoid social media all together. Differences in texting patterns, especially, can contribute to miscommunication. When a message isn’t returned, or is returned late or with an ambiguous wording, a partner can question the motivation or misinterpret the message (Vaterlaus & Tulane, 2019). Ambiguity in text messages is a common issue, as is the use of emojis (Miller et al., 2017). When couples get into significant issues through texting (e.g., confrontations, apologies), one or more members can feel uncomfortable (Novak et al., 2016).
Talking about it
Most couples don’t discuss social media use as a possible relationship issue, though individual partners may have implicit rules that need to be discussed. Digital jealousy appears not to be medium-specific, and is dependent on individual couple perception of cheating (Eichenberg, et al., 2017). Interview research with committed couples regarding technology use as integrated into daily life offered a process model of how boundaries and rules are negotiated (the definition of “committed” was left up to the couples; no time length or status marker was supplied by the researchers; Pickens & Whiting, 2019; Cravens & Whiting, 2015). The authors suggested that professionals, understanding this process, can offer suggestions to help couples with conflict resolution.
• Step one: identify the online issue, including past issues or inappropriate behaviors
• Step two: appraise the online issue, implicit rules, explicit rules, and rule consensus
• Step three: discuss the online issue, providing evidence, justifying the behavior, or explaining the perspective
• Step four: achieve resolution for monitoring and successful communication, or explore consequences that might lead to breaking up
Couples might want to ask:
• Are there any websites that you believe would be inappropriate for me to visit?
• When I use a social media site, are there groups of users or specific people with whom you would be uncomfortable with me interacting?
• Is there any information you feel should or should not be posted online about me you or our relationship?
• Do you consider pornography to be a violation of our relationship?
Couples therapist Veronica Marin (2017) offered the following relationship tips:
1. Make your partner feel more important than your phone, spending at least 20 minutes a day of screen-free time together.
2. Check in before posting anything about the relationship.
3. Set expectations for texting.
4. Comment online as though in real life.
5. Don’t snoop on a partner’s behavior; give your partner the benefit of the doubt when, for example, they’re friending an ex.
6. Address discomfort quickly. If a a partner is snooping or microcheating, discuss reasons rationally.
Serious conflict: Intimate Partner Violence and technology
Cyberstalking, psychological abuse, technology restriction, and technology-facilitated sexual violence are forms of intimate partner violence with technology, or tIPV (Duerkson et al., 2019). Cyberstalking can include sending threatening messages, selling or purchasing items online in the victim’s name, pretending to be someone to communicate with the victim, and creating a webpage or advertisement with the victim’s information. Using multiple media in stalking creates the sense of what Woodlock (2016) calls “perpetrator omnipresence” (p. 592).” Cyberstalking can include sending threatening messages, selling or purchasing items online in the victim’s name, pretending to be someone to communicate with the victim, and creating a webpage or advertisement with the victim’s information (Eichenberg et al., 2017). This can cause isolation, humiliation, and fear. Affordances of the internet, texting, and social media enhance the cyberstalkers’ ability to track others and access user preference data, and provide anonymity. Using multiple media in stalking creates the sense of what Woodlock (2016) calls “perpetrator omnipresence. (p. 592)” Online stalking can continue for long periods, and the ability to separate from stalker contact is challenging for victims.
tIPV is prevalent among victims of intimate partner violence. A review of records from survivors of IPV between 2012 and 2016 revealed that 60–63% indicated technology-related abuse (Messing et al., 2020). Yet tIPV is also not clearly or consistently defined, and domestic abuse agencies may not yet recognize the power or potential of technology to produce consequences to the victims similar to those that take occur IRL. Assessing technology-based abuse, Messing et al. asked: “Has your partner used technology or social media to monitor your interactions with other people?” and “Has your partner used technology or social media to monitor your whereabouts?” and in a separate sampling, “Has your abusive partner used technology to harass, stalk, impersonate, watch over or threaten you?” While their quantitative analysis offered statistics, their qualitative analysis illustrated the subjective nature of online behavior that can muddy the ability to assess it. For example, some may refer to monitoring as stalking, while others relate it to a neutral or loving motivation (e.g., ensuring safety after a drive in dangerous conditions).
In a survey of Canadian college students, Duerksen et al. (2021) looked at predictors of tIPV. Social media was more prevalent as a medium for perpetrating violence, as it offered more ways to harass a victim, although it is also riskier in that it’s more public. The researchers also found that in-person harassment and technological disinhibition were predictors of tIPV. The authors suggested that rather than technology creating more aggressors, it gives those with the propensity to stalk and harass additional means, particularly those comfortable with using technology.
The prevalence and likely increase in the use of technology for IPV requires that agencies and professionals working in this area integrate ICT in their strategies for prevention and treatment. The Canadian government includes technology-facilitated violence in its list of types of IPV. Others also offer guidance. As Woodlock (2017, p. 399) observes, “If women are to use mobile technologies safely, technology-facilitated stalking needs to be treated as a serious offense, and effective practice, policy, and legal responses must be developed to address the use of technology as a tactic for abuse.”
Dating Apps and Online Dating Sites
Did technology facilitate the initiation of one of your relationships? How did it help? Did it present any challenges?
People have long sought assistance in finding a romantic partner (Schwartz & Pellotta, 2018). Family and religious institutions have played matchmaker, and arranged marriages continue in some cultures and are even popularized as reality television (see, for example, Netflix’s Indian Matchmaking). Friends offered introductions, and clubs or religious gatherings were convenient ways to find and vet partners. Adventurous seekers used to place personal ads in print newspapers (e.g., “single white female ISO single mixed-raced male”). In the 1980s, video cassette recorders (VCRs) enabled videodating, with people recording personal ads.
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=600#oembed-1
Early research indicated that online technologies facilitated couple connections through shared interests (such as through virtual gaming; these are naturally forming connections), networked friends (networked relationships), intentionally sought relationships (targeted relationships), and digitally assisted relationship initiation, such as meeting in person then continuing online/through text (Sprecher, 2009). With the advent of the internet and social media, sites such as eHarmony and match.com and matchmaking services like It’s Just Lunch offered efficient and somewhat tailored connections to others. And Grindr, an app for gay men, streamlined mate selection among the early dating apps developed around 2009 (Schwartz & Pelotta, 2018).
Eichenberg et al. (2017) identify different formats for finding dates online (p. 250):
(1) single exchanges where flirt contacts dominate,
(2) partner exchanges which correspond most closely to the traditional contact advertisement,
(3) erotic dating/casual dating portals that aim to provide non-binding sex contacts,
(4) niche providers, i.e., specialized platforms with the objective of connecting people with specific interests and preferences, and
(5) social dating (e.g. Tinder), usually operated via smartphone, and including the special feature of users having the opportunity to display contacts in their immediate proximity.
As evident in this chart from Pew Research[3] (Anderson et al., 2020), 30% of U.S. adults, and 52% of those who have never been married, report ever using a dating app or site. There is greater use by those who are younger, correlating to exposure to dating apps and culture of use among peers. The median age of those using a dating site was 38; compared to 29 among those using a dating app. And as indicated below, LGBT adults were nearly twice as likely to report ever using a dating app or site.
There are other ways of finding dating partners online, of course, including using social media to get information about someone or to ask someone for a date. Not surprisingly, social media is more popular with teens, who say they show interest by “friending” or “liking” a post or by sharing, though this is now likely to occur through more popular platforms like Instagram and TikTok.
With the growing frustration with dating in the 21st century (at least according to this report), do these apps help? They’ve seemed to enter the public perception as an option for finding dates, with reactions widely varied as to whether they have a positive or negative effect (Anderson et al., 2020). Perceptions of their safety vary as well, though those who voice more concern have never used a dating app.
Reasons for use
The major reasons that people use online dating include meeting those who share similar interests or hobbies, meeting people who share beliefs and values, finding someone for a longterm relationship or marriage, having a schedule that makes it hard to meet interesting people in other ways, or meeting people who just want to have fun without being in a serious relationship (Eichenberg, et al., 2017). COVID-19 and its imposed isolation made finding dates a particular challenge.
Online platforms can help users overcome barriers in relationship initiation. These may be physical barriers such as geographic proximity, or psychosocial barriers such as shyness. Asynchronous conversation can give individuals time to prepare a response, and can accommodate those with different schedules. Online initiation also enables a presentation of self in ways that minimize “gating features” (McKenna et al., 2002) such as physical appearance or voice quality that affect initial impressions. Although dating sites and applications include features that approximate reality through photos, videos, and videoconferencing, at each step of the relationship formation process, individuals have agency over the degree of personal information they divulge.
Online sites may be more effective for those seeking others in “thin markets,” or niche markets (Scwartz & Pelotta, 2018), or seeking those harder to find in real life. For example, if someone lives in a rural area and is looking for an LGBTQ partner, it may be easier to find that person through an online site. Online sites may also be more effective from a safety standpoint. In the above example, online sites are often safer, especially in rural communities, as in-person encounters may be met with a hate crime.
Though dating apps can be efficient and offer control, there is a heavy need for self-branding and self commodification (Hobbs et al., 2017). Indeed, Bauman (2013) argues that the security of relationships has been compromised by technological change, specifically in the way that our use of the internet and digital technologies has created a game of commodification — or the selling and packaging of the self. For some, this type of exposure can ultimately be harmful to that self. Dating apps can also introduce possible miscommunication, misrepresentations, and damage to new relationships or to an individual. [4]
Finding happiness
Consider Hertlein and Blumer’s couple and family technological framework, discussed in Chapter 2. How might dating apps and online sites exploit the 7A’s: accessibility, affordability, anonymity, acceptability, approximation, ambiguity and accommodation? How might experiences with dating apps affect relationship processes, such as initiation maintenance, that lead to commitment and intimacy? Would they affect a change in structure through a redefinition of rules, boundaries around the couple’s system, or roles?
Are dating apps effective? Just as we might have to define the “impact” of technology on a relationship, so too might we need to define “effective” with regard to dating apps. If someone is looking to meet someone for casual dating, or for a “hook-up,” effectiveness is far different than for someone looking for a long-term, committed relationship. And while the personal dimension of effectiveness may relate to perceived success in matching, the mechanics of dating app effectiveness (e.g., algorithms for matching, software programming code) are a behind-the-scenes consideration.
Satisfaction
In debates held in the undergraduate classes that informed this book, many agreed that initial and sustained connections taking place online are very similar to those ocurring offline: two people meet each other through a conveyance that offers filtering — through friends, at a known neighborhood bar, activities, through an online service that provides information. In nearly all classes, students offered evidence of marriages resulting from the use of dating apps (including students’ mothers or fathers in second marriages), and satisfaction with the outcome depending on intention.
In Pew’s 2019 research, the majority (61–71%) of those using dating apps reported positively that the apps help in finding someone who is physically attractive, has shared interests, that they wanted to meet in person, and who shared their ideas for a relationship (Anderson, et al., 2020). Within these numbers there were differences by gender (e.g., men finding it harder to find someone who shared their interests), and education (e.g., those with less education reported less success). Two-thirds (66%) of online daters have gone on a date with someone they met on sites, and 23% of online daters have entered into marriages or long-term relationships with someone they met. Older research following couples who met online indicates that their marriages or committed status relationships were as stable and happy as others. In one study, online couples married sooner after their first meeting, compared with others (Baker, 2004), and were positive about their futures together. In another, couples who met through social media, using networked connections, did not have a higher risk of divorce or separation than those who met offline (Hall, 2014). And in a third study from a national survey in the U.S., couples who met online dated more and had a lower rate of separation than those meeting offline (Aditi, 2014).
In Hobbs et al.’s research (2017), daters said that while apps may be superficial, they’re pleased when they are selected by another person. The majority said that apps gave them a feeling of control in finding partners, and 87% said it gave them more opportunity for finding partners by expanding the size and scope of their social network. Just over half (55%) reported that it helped them find a date or, for 25%, a sexual partner. Nevertheless, participants indicated that they would prefer face-to-face searching. Qualitative investigation within this study revealed that, for some, using the dating app had a therapeutic benefit. After experiencing a personal setback, the representation of the self they wanted to be offered validation and encouragement.
Satisfaction also appears to be related to understanding how apps work (i.e., how matches are made) and an awareness of digital data sharing. In Pew’s 2019 research, just over half (58%) of those who used dating apps indicated knowing the realities of “match-making.” (Turner & Anderson, 2020). The majority (69%) of those reporting positive experiences understood the matching process. They were more likely to report that using the apps had a mostly positive impact on their dating and relationships, which may or may not include believing in the effectiveness of the algorithm. Pepper Schwartz, a sociologist and academic who worked as a consultant on a dating app’s creation (Scwartz & Pellotta, 2018), observes that “the majority of these sites offer no hard evidence to show that their algorithms can actually procure better dates, partners, marriages, sex lives, etc. than human judgment alone.” (p. 62). Perhaps positive perception leans toward efficiencies in finding people and filtering a vast (or, in some cases, expanding a limited) pool.
How dating apps work
How companies’ algorithms create matches is uncertain. Heilwell’s reporting on the topic points to the artificial intelligence (AI) that uses data provided by the user, “likes” by the user, and “likes” about the user, in addition to data from add-on services (which helps make the apps free). Tinder incorporates data about use of the platform (location, activity), and platforms like Hinge track likelihood of exchanging phone numbers and satisfaction after dates. Heilwell also notes that data from other users of the app can inform who is matched with a singular user in something called “collaborative filtering.”
Understanding how apps work may also involve seeing the gamification elements that keep them interesting. Bumble, for instance, makes matches disappear after 24 hours if they aren’t contacted. Other game-like features include continuous scrolling, delivering prospects at a certain time, and, of course, the thrill of “matching.” While making dating apps fun to use, these elements can also make them quite time-consuming. The amount of time that people spend on dating apps leads to questions of their actual time-saving nature.
Challenges
For all of their efficiencies and effectiveness (perceived and real), dating apps can create challenging experiences. Early critics were concerned that the open nature of dating online, as with social media in general, would lead to less civil behavior, and some users — particularly women and LGBTQ users — do feel harassed and unsafe There are concerns as well about data sharing and privacy. And even just using the apps can lead many (45% in Pew’s study, Anderson et al., 2020) to feel fatigued and frustrated. The “paradox of choice” can stymie the ability to choose from such a vast array of matches. Eisenberg et al. (2017) observes that finding people online sets up an unrealistic expectation of the “optimal partner,” making relationships seem superficial and non-binding.
Safety and civility
Interestingly, most users of dating apps (70%) feel that it’s common for people to lie about themselves to seem more desirable (Anderson et al., 2020). Fifty-four percent of online daters say that someone else has seriously misrepresented themselves on their profile, and 28% have been contacted in a way that made them feel harassed or uncomfortable. A breakdown of those reporting negative interactions is shown below. Across the four questions asked in Pew’s research, LGBT daters were significantly more likely to report having experienced harassment. While these behaviors can also occur in offline encounters, networked, efficient internet can make the fall-out from use of dating apps a greater possibility.
Another issue of safety lies with the internet’s efficiency and speed in finding information (or people) that align with specific search interests. Eichenberg et al. (2017) write about “barebacking” (a metaphor for having unprotected sex), and those who search online to heighten the risk of infecting themselves with HIV or other sexually transmitted disease).
Data sharing and privacy
Like other interactive applications, dating apps collect user data, including age, gender identification, gender preferences, religion, political affiliation, and location (Heilwell, 2020). And users share videos, photos, and potentially their activity on social media. While visiting an app, data from other sites visited is fed to the app and used for marketing purposes and sales to third-party companies. Those concerned about privacy and data sharing report less positive experiences with dating apps. In the Pew study, 58% of users reported concern about data sharing. In nearly the same frequency as those reporting knowledge of how the apps work (approximately 67%), those concerned over privacy and data sharing reported having negative experiences and viewed the apps as having a negative impact on their relationships. Slightly greater concern was expressed by older users (30 and up).
With this overview of ICT use by couples within the family and in couples on the way to building family, we now move to children’s use of ICT across the complex trajectory of their development from birth through young adulthood. With a systems perspective of families, as you read, consider how other members of the family are affected and affect the impacts of ICT and children.
1. Students may pull from resources in their courses on intimate relationships, family theory, couple and family therapy, contemporary families and couples, gender studies, and family sociology to apply to this chapter.
2. Readers are encouraged to explore the Gottman Institute site for information, training opportunities, and additional resources: www.gottman.com.
3. Readers are encouraged to visit the full report from Pew Research, which provides an array of statistics on perceptions and experiences with dating apps in the US.
4. Misrepresentations through dating apps have become fodder for social media, the news, and reality programming. Examples include “Catfish” and “The Tinder Swindler.” | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/04%3A_Technology_Use_and_Couple_Relationships/4.01%3A_Technology_Use_and_Couple_Relationships.txt |
Adler-Baeder, F., Futris, T. G., McGill, J., Richardson, E. W., & Dede Yildirim, E. (2022). Validating the couple relationship skills inventory. Family Relations, 71(1), 279-306.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Andalibi, N., Bentley, F., & Quehl, K. (2017). Multi-channel topic-based mobile messaging in romantic relationships. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW), 1-18.
Banerjee, D., & Rao, T. S. (2021). “#Intimacy” at times of COVID-19: The renewed impetus behind cybersex. Journal of Psychosexual Health, 3(1), 13-17.
Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. John Wiley & Sons.
Bradford, A. B., Dobry, S., Sandberg, J. G., & Coyne, S. M. (2019). Baby with the bathwater? Examining the relationship between videogame use and relationship outcomes and the moderating effects of attachment behaviors among married casual gamers. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 45(4), 699-718.
Brody, N. & Caldwell, L. (2017): Cues filtered in, cues filtered out, cues cute, and cues grotesque: Teaching mediated communication with emoji Pictionary, Communication Teacher, DOI: 10.1080/17404622.2017.1401730
Bröning, S., & Wartberg, L. (2022). Attached to your smartphone? A dyadic perspective on perceived partner phubbing and attachment in long-term couple relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106996.
Chen, Z., Gong, Y. and Xie, J. (2022), “From phubee to phubber: the transmission of phone snubbing behavior between marital partners”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1493-1510. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2020-0150
Courtice, E. L., & Shaughnessy, K. (2017). Technology-mediated sexual interaction and relationships: A systematic review of the literature. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32(3-4), 269-290.
Coyne, S.M., Busby, D., Bushman, B.J., Gentile, D.A., Ridge, R., & Stockdale, L. (2012). Gaming in the game of love: Effects of videogames on conflict in couples. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 61(3), 388–396. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00712.x.
Cravens, J.D., and Whiting, J.B. (2015). Couples’ Communication of Rules and Boundaries for Social Networking Site Use. In C. Breuss, Ed. Family Communication in the Age of Digital and Social Media. Peter Lang.
Döring, N. (2017). From internet sex to robotic sex: research status and challenges for sexology. Journal of Sex Research ( Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung). 30, 35–57. doi:10.1055/s-0043-101471.
Ducharme, J. (2019). Digital rules you should follow when you’re in love. time.com/5516735/healthy-digitalrelationship/
Duerksen, K. N., & Woodin, E. M. (2019). Technological intimate partner violence: Exploring technology-related perpetration factors and overlap with in-person intimate partner violence. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 223-231
Dworkin, J., McCann, E., & McGuire, J. K. (2016). Coparenting in the digital era: Exploring divorced parents’ use of technology. In G. Gianesini & S. L. Blair (Eds.), Divorce, separation, and remarriage: The transformation of family, (contemporary perspectives in family research), volume 10 (pp. 279–298). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Eichenberg, C., Huss, J. & Küsel, C. From Online Dating to Online Divorce: An Overview of Couple and Family Relationships Shaped Through Digital Media. Contemporary Family Therapy 39, 249–260 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-017-9434-x
ESA (Entertainment Software Association) (2021). Essential facts about the videogame industry. https://www.theesa.com/resource/2021-essential-facts-about-the-video-game-industry/
Futris, T. G., & Adler-Baeder, F. (2013). The National Extension Relationship and Marriage Education Model: Core teaching concepts for relationship and marriage enrichment programming. The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. http://www.nermen.org/NERMEM.php
Galovan, A. M., Drouin, M., & McDaniel, B. T. (2018). Sexting profiles in the United States and Canada: Implications for individual and relationship well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 19-29.
Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M. Feistman, R., Jamison, T., & Markham, M.S.. (2012). Communication technology and postdivorce coparenting. Family Relations,61(3), 397-409.
Gingrich, R. (2017). Pornography and Committed Relationships: How Pre-existing Factors within a Dyad Change the Effect of Pornography on Heterosexual and Homosexual Couples. Actus: The Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Scholarship. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=auctus
Giordano, A. L., & Cashwell, C. S. (2017). Cybersex addiction among college students: A prevalence study. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 24(1-2), 47-57. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00054/full
Hertlein, K. M., & Chan, D. (2020). The rationale behind texting, videoconferencing, and mobile phones in couple relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 56(8), 739-763.
Hertlein, K., M., Nakamura, S., Arguello, P., & Langin, K. (2017). Sext-ual healing: application of the couple and family technology framework to cases of sexual dysfunction. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32(3-4), 345-353.
Hertlein, K. M., & Ancheta, K. (2014). Advantages and Disadvantages of Technology in Relationships: Findings from an Open-Ended Survey. The Qualitative Report, 19(11), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.46743/ 2160-3715/2014.1260
Hipp, C. J., & Carlson, R. G. (2021). The Dyadic Association among Technoference and Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction of Young Adult Couples. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 47(5), 508-520.
Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 271-284.
Labor, J. S., & Latosa, A. C. (2022). From locked down queer love: intimate queer online relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Gender Studies, 31 (6) 770-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1979482
Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2014, February 11). Couples, the Internet and social media. Retrieved from pewinternet.org/Reports/2014/Couples-andthe-Internet.aspx
McAuliffe, M.Ed. (2021). Research handbook on international migration and digital technology. E. Elgar Online. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839100611
McDaniel, B. T., & Coyne, S. M. (2016). “Technoference”: The interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational wellbeing. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/
McKenna, K. Y., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9-31.
Macaranas, A., Venolia, G., Inkpen, K., & Tang, J. (2013, September). Sharing Experiences over Video: watching video programs together at a distance. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 73-90). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Marin, V. (2017). How to navigate social media boundaries in a relationship. New York Times. August 29. www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/smarter-living/navigating-social-media-relationships.html
Mason, A. J., & Carr, C. T. (2022). Toward a theoretical framework of relational maintenance in computer-mediated communication. Communication Theory, 32(2), 243-264.
Messing, J., Bagwell-Gray, M., Brown, M. L., Kappas, A., & Durfee, A. (2020). Intersections of stalking and technology-based abuse: Emerging definitions, conceptualization, and measurement. Journal of Family Violence, 35(7), 693-704.
Miller, H., Kluver, D., Thebault-Spieker, J., Terveen, L., & Hecht, B. (2017, May). Understanding emoji ambiguity in context: The role of text in emoji-related miscommunication. In Eleventh international AAAI conference on web and social media.
Murray, C. E., & Campbell, E. C. (2015). The pleasures and perils of technology in intimate relationships. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 14(2), 116-140.
Novak, J. R., Sandberg, J. G., Jeffrey, A. J., & Young-Davis, S. (2016). The impact of texting on perceptions of face-to-face communication in couples in different relationship stages. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 15(4), 274-294.
Nylander, S., Fådal, J., and Mottaghy, S. (2012). Couch Mobility: The Cell Phone’s Most Important Feature at Home is Mobility. In CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1973–1978. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2223738
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a High‐Speed Family Connection: Associations Between Family Media Use and Family Connection. Family Relations, 61(3), 426-440.
Pickens, J. C., & Whiting, J. B. (2020). Tech talk: Analyzing the negotiations and rules around technology use in intimate relationships. Contemporary Family Therapy, 42(2), 175-189.
Rosenfeld, M. (2018). Are Tinder and Dating Apps Changing Dating and Mating in the USA? In Van Hook, J., McHale, S. M., & King, V. (Eds.). Families and Technology. Springer International Publishing. Pp. 103-117.
Russell, L. T., Ferraro, A. J., Beckmeyer, J. J., Markham, M. S., Wilkins-Clark, R. E., & Zimmermann, M. L. (2021). Communication technology use in post-divorce coparenting relationships: A typology and associations with post-divorce adjustment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(12), 3752-3776.
Salmela, T., Colley, A., & Häkkilä, J. (2019, May). Together in Bed? Couples’ Mobile Technology Use in Bed. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-12).
Schwarz, P and Velotta, N. (2018). Online Dating: Changing Intimacy One Swipe at a Time? In Van Hook, J., McHale, S. M., & King, V. (Eds.). Families and Technology. Springer International Publishing. Pp. 57-88.
Smith, J.M. (2013). The Relationship Between Video Game Use and Couple Attachment Behaviors in Committed Romantic Relationships . Masters Thesis. Brigham Young University. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4605&context=etd
Smyth, B.M., Ainscough, G. & Payne, J. (2020) Modes of Communication between High-Conflict Separated Parents: Exploring the Role of Media Multiplexity and Modality Switching, Journal of Family Communication, 20:3, 189-205, DOI: 10.1080/15267431.2020.1754826
Sprecher, S. (2009). Relationship initiation and formation on the Internet. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6-8), 761-782.
Strasburger, V. C., Zimmerman, H., Temple, J. R., & Madigan, S. (2019). Teenagers, sexting, and the law. Pediatrics, 143(5).
Troitskaya, O., & Batkhina, A. (2022). Mobile application for couple relationships: Results of a pilot effectiveness study. Family Process, 61(2), 625-642.
Turkle, S. (2015). Stop googling. Let’s talk. The New York Times, 27.
Turner, E., and Anderson, M. (2020). Roughly six-in-ten online daters in the U.S. are concerned about data collection. Pew research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/29/roughly-six-in-ten-online-daters-in-the-u-s-are-concerned-about-data-collection/
Twist, M. L., Belous, C.K., Maier, C.A., & Bergdall, M. (2017) Considering technology-based ecological elements in lesbian, gay, and bisexual partnered relationships, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32:3-4, 291-308, DOI: 10.1080/14681994.2017.1397945
Vaterlaus, J. M., & Tulane, S. (2019). The perceived influence of interactive technology on marital relationships. Contemporary Family Therapy, 41(3), 247-257.
Vogels, E., (2020). About half of never-married Americans have used an online dating site or app. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/24/the-never-been-married-are-biggest-users-of-online-dating/
Vogels, E., and Anderson, M. (2020). Dating and relationships in the digital age. Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/05/08/dating-and-relationships-in-the-digital-age/
Vossler, Andreas (2016). Internet Infidelity 10 Years On: A Critical Review of the Literature. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 24(4) pp. 359–366.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. Knapp& J. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wang, Xingchao & Xie, Xiaochun & Wang, Yuhui & Wang, Pengcheng & Lei, Li. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences. 110. 12-17. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.014.
Webster, K. A. (2022). Pornography Use And Its Effect On Marital Quality. Dissertation. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4925&context=doctoral
Weinstein, A. M., Zolek, R., Babkin, A., Cohen, K., & Lejoyeux, M. (2015). Factors predicting cybersex use and difficulties in forming intimate relationships among male and female users of cybersex. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 6, 54.
Willoughby, B., Rhoades, G., and Carroll, J. (2021). THE PORN GAP: How is Pornography Impacting Relationships between Men and Women Today? The Wheatley Institution, Brigham Young University. Available at https://wheatley.byu.edu/00000183-2328-dc42-a7f7-7ba86d810001/the-porn-gap.
Woodlock, D. (2017). The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 584-602.
Zillich, A. F. (2020). Socially Shared Television Viewing: Preconditions, Processes and Effects of Co-viewing and Social TV. In How We Use the Media (pp. 133-156). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/04%3A_Technology_Use_and_Couple_Relationships/4.02%3A_References.txt |
Couple Conflict and Technology
Using this table, think of the range of ways in which technology is used by individuals and by couples for communication, entertainment, information gathering and sharing, tasks of daily life and work, and so on, and the range of types of technologies, devices, and applications. Consider the potential conflicts that might arise. Describe them, using words from the frameworks that indicate the effects and influences of technology.
Couple Differences #1
The chapter addressed couple differences by member age, relationship stage, and relationship longevity. Select at least three couples that vary in these ways – couples who are older (like your parents or grandparents) and younger; couples who are early in their relationship and those together for ten years or more; couples who are at the initiation phase and those who are committed. Interview them about their technology use — how it’s used for communication, how the relationship demonstrates levels of trust (e.g., sharing passwords and accounts), where there might be sources of conflict or misunderstanding.
Couple Differences #2
A theme throughout this book is global diversity and differences in access. Identify research on couple technology use representative of non-White, non-U.S. couples. Use another characteristic of couples discussed in the chapter: couple status, age, socioeconomic status, presence of children, a purpose for using technology (e.g., couple initiation and use of dating apps, post-divorce, sexting, gaming). Reflect on how easy or challenging it was to find research on this topic, the volume of research available, who is doing this research, and what the findings tell you about couple technology use compared with what we’ve covered in this chapter (that predominantly focuses on couples in the U.S.).
Dating Apps #1: Effectiveness of Dating Apps
People meet through dating apps like Tinder and Grinder more than ever before. Yet are these apps effective for finding a long-term partner? Effectiveness can include feeling comfortable in the process of meeting others, and apps expose possible challenges to privacy and identity switching (e.g., catfishing). Debate the pros and cons of using dating apps for a) casual connections/mutual interests and for b) finding a potential partner for a committed relationship.
How do they compare to more IRL (in real life) ways of finding people?
Dating Apps #2: The paradox of choice?
This short video from CBS Mornings (2019, November 11) focuses on the impact of having too many choices in dating apps and the potential for de-individualization. View the video. Based on your own experience, or those of friends or group members, do you agree with this? Disagree?
Dating Apps #3: Serious threats to LGBTQIA+
This article speaks to the choices faced by many in the queer community when using dating apps: finding ways to connect while avoiding technology that exposes individuals to harassment and worse (particularly in countries with policies that do not support gender fluid lifestyles and sexual practices).
Consider the benefits and potential consequences raised in the article. Speak to friends who are queer, or reflect on your own experiences. What are avenues you’d suggest for safety and well-being when finding ways to connect?
Technology and Intimate Partner Violence: Bringing the CDC into the 21st Century
This page from the Centers for Disease Control offers helpful information, resources, and guidance regarding intimate partner violence. But while it was last reviewed in late 2021 (as of this textbook’s writing), there is no mention of technology — not in the definition, the prevalence data, or the discussion of consequences. The bottom of the page offers guidelines in six areas. Given what you’ve read in this chapter and what you know from your own experience and from using technology, how might you adapt those guidelines?
4.04: Blog Prompts
In this chapter we examine the use of technology in couple communication and look at differences within and across couples. The Pew Report reading reported that, in 2014, the majority of committed couples said that technology did not have an impact on their relationship. They reported using technology in multiple ways, with use varying by age, but didn’t see this use having an impact. What might couples be considering when they hear the word “impact” in a survey question? And how might they interpret impact related to a) the strength and quality of their relationships and b) the use of technology? Consider Hertlein and Blumer’s conceptual framework as a resource to help identify “impacts” as we might view them from the perspective of family science.
A key consideration about our presence in the online world is the meaning we begin to ascribe to others. Anthony Weiner, a former legislator in New York who was denounced for his “sexting” with others (not his wife), said that the exchange felt like a game, that it was superficial. What might the use of dating apps and technology, which so easily allow us to swipe left and dismiss people, do to our views of others? Does this use have a lasting effect on our expectations of others or the value we place on them? Or are we looking at things far too seriously?
Increasingly, couples are bringing technology concerns to therapists’ offices as an element of conflict for resolution. As family professionals, we want to prevent challenges in couple relationships. Given Gottman’s or other professionals’ considerations of what a healthy couple relationship is and can be, if you were leading a workshop on campus, what might you recommend to protect, strengthen, and preserve couple relationships in terms of their individual and shared technology use? What topics would you cover? What skills would you want participants to gain from attending?
Throughout the book we cover the many advantages and efficiencies of ICT, most of which are enabled on our smartphones. For individuals attempting to flee an aggressive, potentially violent partner, phones can be a lifeline to resources. Yet they can also be the way for intimate partner violence (IPV) to be perpetrated, in ways not possible in the past. In your blog post, weigh the pros and cons of ICT in situations of IPV and take a stand for ways that ICT can be used safely and effectively. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/04%3A_Technology_Use_and_Couple_Relationships/4.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
Passion rebuilds the world for the youth. It makes all things alive and significant.
― Ralph Waldo Emerson
Chapter Insights
• Normative development is both universal in developmental tasks from birth through young adulthood in children, yet unique to the individual.
• Information and communications technology may have a positive or negative influence on physical, socio-emotional, psychological, and cognitive/learning domains of development in each age group.
• Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework is updated by Navarro and Tudge to address technology’s influence across the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystems and as represented through processes by the person in context over time.
• ICT’s impact can manifest through exposure, interaction, and displacement.
• Technology is increasingly integrated into education and learning, which has a direct bearing on the development of children, particularly during their experiences in school settings. At the same time, there is concern that technology use may have a negative impact on brain development and activity, and on learning.
• Recommendations for children’s safe and effective use of technology are promoted by groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics. These recommendations vary for young children ages 0–5 and for children and teens. A major study identified ICT impact differences in teens who were “family-engaged” and those who are “high risk.” It too offers recommendations for healthy teen use.
• The age at which most children possess smartphones is younger than the age most parents believe a child is ready. There are factors that parents can look to that indicate a child’s readiness for smartphone use.
• Children’s privacy may be compromised by their use of technology, and may impact their development. Across the ecology of children’s lives, individuals and society are responsible for ensuring that children’s data is safe, their identities are protected, and their accounts and time online are secure.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
Interest in children’s use of technology and its effect on their well-being and development has captured our collective interest perhaps more than any other topic on technology and the family. According to UNICEF (2017), children and adolescents under the age of 18 make up about one-third of internet users worldwide. Yet, as we’ve discussed, use is not a uniform concept, nor is technology a stable phenomenon. As a relatively new phenomenon, interests vary. Populations born in the 1990s and later are growing up with ICT; they know no other life and are digital natives. Older millennials and earlier generations (including the author’s baby boomer generation), in contrast, saw the internet and personal and mobile digital media come into our lives; we are, as Marc Prensky put it, digital immigrants. Technology is a marvel and a mystery we view within an ever-shrinking sense of the “before times,” our lives before the internet. We know how we went to school, met our partners, navigated our way in a new city, and looked up the definition of a word without personal computers and the internet. We see the ease at which younger millennials and genZ-ers adopt (and depend on?) devices, use the internet, succumb to the pleasures and trappings of social media, and are advantaged in their learning by new educational technologies (for those so privileged). And we wonder…
• about children staring at screens and the effect the exposure to blue light has on their brains and sleep.
• about preteens absorbed in social media apps on their phones at all hours of the day, and about the interactions with others who might influence their self-esteem and self-confidence and possibly contribute to depression. Their exposure to graphic images and pornography might be confusing and may be an early influence for later high-risk behavior, and misinformation may frustrate eager learners.
• about teenagers inside on gaming devices for hour after hour, and wonder if it is displacing the joy and understanding of nature. Their social media use exposes them to shared images of celebrities that contribute to self-comparison and body consciousness.
• about young adults using Venmo to instantly send money and ApplePay to cover the cost of coffee and wonder if these efficiencies are displacing learning skills for financial management.
In short, excessive time spent on screens, exposure to specific content, and interactions with those who threaten safety raise concerns about technology’s influence on development, life skills, and achievement, as documented by groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics. excessive time spent on screens, exposure to specific content, and interactions with those who threaten safety raise concerns. Yet to approach children’s use of technology wondering only about its harm is to seek half the story. Yet to approach children’s use of technology wondering only about its harm is to seek half the story. Might these efficiencies and opportunities stimulate creativity and identity expression in ways earlier generations never experienced? Imagine the empowerment of the teens affected by the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, who used their voices through social media and internet presence to speak out against gun violence. Might the current generation indeed be better off because it has access to a boundless world of information, a universe complementary to a place-based world for interaction and learning, and limitless information sharing? And as with all questions aimed at large groups, for whom might the benefits be greater? Or smaller? And what conditions encourage those effects?
The chapter addresses ICT use and developmental impacts for children from birth through 18, the age defined by the UN Convention of Rights of the Child (UNICEF, nd), and through emerging adulthood (19–25 years).[1] Including young adulthood not only contributes a unique period of development to the discussion (Arnett, 2007), but represents continuity in the parenting experience for many families.
The chapter focuses on the breadth of human development in multiple domains[2], technology use by age, and impacts on the child’s developmental well-being. In most cases, use and impacts derive from research and reports on the specific age group (e.g., middle childhood, adolescence), though they may pull from cross-age data (e.g., the EU Kids Online study includes ages 9–16). Following the ecological focus of this book, the chapter applies this approach to human development, and to implications for families, practitioners who work with children and families, and the wider community, society, and institutions.
As scholars have observed, this digital ecology in which children use and are impacted by technology is not linear; interactions have transactional and dynamic effects. Conceptual frameworks that lay out the ecological, transactional nature of technology’s use and impact on children encourage readers to formulate questions about influences on use and on outcomes that the text may in fact answer. If they don’t, these are likely excellent research questions that individual readers may want to pursue through discussion, a literature search, or a project.
The family-perspective focus of this book encourages us to emphasize the benefits and challenges that reflect parenting interests (Auxier, et al., 2020; Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020) and parenting influence (CommonsenseMedia, 2016; Coyne, et al. 2017; Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020; Wartella, et al., 2013). This includes the wider ecology of children’s lives and the internet as part of those lives — and of their families — as a critical component of focus. As Sonia Livingstone and co-authors observed (2015)
As the internet has become a routine part of children’s lives, embedded into their lifeworld in a host of increasingly taken-for-granted ways, research is called to examine children’s engagement with the world not only on but more importantly through the internet. Arguably, the question is no longer just that of children’s relationship with the internet as a medium, but also with their relationship with the world as mediated by the internet in particular and changing ways. (p. 9)
An overview of impacts on development
This video from the New York Times nicely conveys concerns about children’s access to the internet and to social media when their development hasn’t prepared them to understand what they are exposed to.
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=465#oembed-1
Despite age warnings and guidelines, children find ways to view inappropriate social media and YouTube channels. And even when they are on sites tailored to their age group, they can see advertisements that are inappropriate. In part, this results from technology companies mining data from children’s technology use, and interpreting it in ways that promote age-inappropriate messages. From a macro or industry perspective, the video also highlights that tech companies do know how to program software to keep children safe.
In 2017, the UNICEF report Children in a Digital World summarized technology’s impacts (pp. 4–5):
1. Digital technology has already changed the world, and as more and more children go online around the world, it is increasingly changing the experience of childhood.
2. Connectivity can be a game changer for some of the world’s most marginalized children, helping them fulfill their potential and break intergenerational cycles of poverty.
3. Digital access is becoming the new dividing line, as millions of children who could benefit from digital technology are missing out.
4. Digital technology can also make children more susceptible to harm both online and off. Already vulnerable children may be at greater risk of harm, including loss of privacy.
5. The potential impact of ICT on children’s mental health and happiness is a matter of growing public concern, and an area ripe for further research and data.
6. The private sector — especially the technology and telecommunication industries — has a special responsibility and a unique ability to shape the impact of digital technology on children.
These observations reflect technology’s potential impacts on all domains of child development: physical growth, cognition, learning, and psychological, social, and emotional development. They align with the ages and stages of development: early childhood (birth to age 5), middle childhood (5–12), adolescence (13–18), and emerging adulthood (19–25), which supports a lifecourse perspective (Casimiro & Nico, 2018; Lim, 2016). They reflect differentiated effects depending on the child (e.g., age, gender, susceptibility, personality, health status), the context of use, type of device or application, degree of exposure, and the quality of interaction, and may reveal possible displacement effects (i.e., what the child is not doing while using technology). They commit the technology industry to action that promotes children’s development in design, dissemination, and data gathering. And they reflect the realities of research in the area, which is prolific yet incomplete (Gottschalk, 2019).
The figure below presents the dominant interest in children’s development as the basis for observation and exploration in research, and for the application of findings in practice and policy.
Perspectives on Human Development
To set the stage for the chapter, and for our understanding of human development in context and the influence of technology at multiple levels, we review Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological perspective of human development with an updated perspective specific to children’s technological realities. This review both contemporizes standing theory and lends itself to identifying frameworks for research, policy, and industry action.
General overview of human development
Individual perspectives on human development refer to the domains of cognition and learning, physical change, socio-emotional growth, and psychological functioning. Each domain operates as a whole, and trajectories of growth in each follow universal dimensions (i.e., those normative aspects expected of all human beings) expressed in unique ways depending on the DNA of the individual and the contexts that facilitate that expression. During puberty, for example, the expression of secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts and body hair due to increasing levels of gonadal steroids is normative in individuals who were assigned to be female at birth (AFAB). Yet the the timing of when breasts and body hair develop, and the expression of breast size and hair thickness, are unique to the genetic material of the individual. So while we regard developmental expectations across ages of children that are somewhat predictable, we also respect that there is variation and great individual difference.
An ecological focus
Studies of individual development through interaction with technology can focus on a physiological level and one quite unique to the developing organism. For example, a researcher might study eye gaze, visual scanning, and face recognition on video images in very young infants (e.g., 6 months, Smith et al., 2021). Or sleep quality and duration might be examined in children related to blue screen exposure and the suppression of melatonin (Hale et al., 2019). Because children do not grow up in a laboratory under constant conditions, research on human development also tries to control for and understand the influence of context (e.g., nurture vs. nature). The child’s context encourages questions about conditions that influence these outcomes. In the case of blue screens and sleep, might the timing or the content of the media (as influenced by actors in the child’s setting) play a role? Individual difference theories propose that sleep disturbances may drive technology use: isn’t it possible that children with poor sleep (due to context influences such as stress) turn to their computers, which exacerbates sleep challenges?
When talking about interpreting quantitative data on the impact of educational technologies and children’s learning, Scott McLeod (2022) stated in a discussion forum of ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education):
One of the challenges of education is that everything is always so contextual. Kids vary, families vary, institutional climate and history vary, our educators vary… everything varies — quite significantly — across schools, culture, geography, time, and context. In other words, what works for one school may not for another, simply because of context or timing (and vice versa). Teasing this out is incredibly challenging but “why did it work (or not)?” is a much more important question than “did it work (or not)?”
With clear respect to the ongoing research on technology’s impact on the biological and physiological processes of the developing organism, our focus on developmental outcomes places focus on contextual influences.
Neo-ecological perspective: “Technologizing Bronfenbrenner”
A critical contribution to the study of human development and the role of technology was offered in 2022 by Navarro and Tudge. By “technologizing Bronfenbrenner,” the authors make two important enhancements to the traditional model that nests systems of interactions as processes that occur over time. As noted in previous chapters, Bronfenbrenner’s model features contexts of interactions, most proximal to the developing individual (microsystem), including the mesosystem (two or more microsystem interactions), exosystem (interactions that influence development yet one of which does not directly contain the individual), and microsystem (wider forces such as culture or public policies) that have an indirect yet potent influence on development. For their first adaptation, Navarro and Tudge identify two parallel and interacting microsystems.
The internet is added as an environment for personal interaction alongside the physical. Their proposed virtual setting is defined as
A virtual microsystem is a pattern of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person on a given digital platform with particular relational and symbolic features that invite, permit, or inhibit, engagement in proximal processes within that environment. (p. 4)
Unique characteristics of the virtual microsystem include synchronous and asynchronous interactions, which affect the individual’s availability and presence; interactions that operate publicly and are persistent due to the ability of platforms to store data that can be retrieved; and interactions that occur with limited interpersonal cues. They observe that the individual can exist in virtual and physical microsystems at the same time, and that interactions in which the individual engages define the opening and closing of virtual microsystems.
Then, after accepting Bronfenbrenner’s definitions of the mesosystem and ecosystem as inclusive of the digital world, they adapt the macrosystem with an integration of Tudge’s (2008) definition of culture:
A group of people who share a set of values, beliefs, and practices; who have access to the same institutions, resources, and technologies; who have a sense of identity of themselves as constituting a group; and who attempt to communicate those values, beliefs, and practices to the following generation. (pp. 3–4)
The adapted macrosystem effects indicate how “the rapid adoption of digital technology likely differentially impacts the development of adolescents depending upon the values and beliefs, resources, and social structure of their society” (Navarro & Tudge, 2022, p. 8). They offer the example of lower-income teens from Ghana using the internet for health information — a finding contrary to most research supporting the behavior in higher-income children — as a response to a more sexually repressive culture. Ghanian teens seek out the internet for information that is not otherwise available to them. Government censorship of the internet, as in China, is another culturally specific influence from the macrosystem. And certainly a key marcrosystem force is the digital divides created by differentials in access to the internet and to devices.
The second contribution from Navarro and Tudge’s technologic adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s framework focuses on the person-process-context-time construct Bronfenbrenner used to explain how development occurs across influences from proximal and distal systems. In so doing, they integrate examples of personal characteristics that influence systems interactions, and also serve as outcomes, sub-labeled as force, resource, and demand. Time characteristics include micro time, meso time, and macro time, and then proximal processes, or “the conduit for synergistic interrelations between the characteristics of the person and their environments across time” (p. 11). They assert that proximal processes can take three forms: symbolic, relational, and complex, and observe that
development is the result of the multidirectional interrelations, or synergy, between these constituent elements. Person characteristics, context, and time are interdependent; all three forces synergistically shape “the form, power, content, and direction of the proximal process” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 798), which in turn influence elements of the person, context, and time. As such, operationalizing neo-ecological theory requires scholars to embrace longitudinal designs and to gather data not only about people and their environments but also about the interactions and activities going on within them. (p. 13).[3]
EU Kids Online Framework
The research framework adopted by a set of researchers in the European Union conveys a related notion of contextual influence on children’s technology use as an interaction across multiple settings. The framework model is provided in the figure below.
A primary interest of the EU Kids online study is children’s well-being related to the risks they encounter through online interactions. Risks can be aggressive, sexual, value-related, and commercial, and with each the child can be a receiver, a participant, and an actor. In their framework, children’s online practices, skills, opportunities, and risks can be viewed as virtual microsystem interactions. Those interactions may include one or more in their social setting (e.g, parent, peer), and may be both virtual and physical, which would identify them as mesosystem interactions in Navarro and Tudge’s framework. Interactions by others in the exosystem can influence the child’s online practices and skills — through, for example, actions taken in the child’s community to make computers available at a public library, thus enhancing children’s digital ecology. The country level in the EU Kids framework offers multiple macrosystem actors: technology provision and regulation, culture, media and values, and societal inclusion. With the direction of influence from settings as synergistic, the researchers promote the interdependent nature of the settings, processes, and individuals.
With these ecological, dynamic, and technologically focused frameworks establishing the multi-context influences on children’s development, and with the child’s own behavior as a focus, we explore each age and stage of development and the current knowledge of technology use, influences on use, and impacts on child well-being.
Young Children and Technology
Development overview
This excellent short video on brain development is from Harvard Center on the Developing Child.
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=465#oembed-2
The period of development from birth[4] through age 5 is one of the most dynamic of a human’s life. The rate of the body’s physical development body is rapid, and early development of large and fine motor skills occurs, though as with body length and weight, further development occurs at later ages.[5]
Most exciting is the development of the brain. Very early neural connections establish pathways for lifelong learning that affect both brain functioning and brain size. Children’s environment is critical to the development of these neural pathways, as environmental stimuli encourage initial and deeper connections. Children’s neural connections develop paths for future learning during a critical time period of plasticity (Gottschalk, 2019). With brain development, young children gain abilities with executive functioning (sense of organization of information, retrieval, memory), language and literacy, and a sense of self. These are aided by their abilities to move about and use their hands, mouth, and ears to explore and gather information.
Yet comfort with and attachment to their caregiver are key to children’s natural exploration for learning. Through social interaction early in life that conveys a sense of consistency and trust, children develop a connectedness that encourages their confidence. As they explore and have opportunities to interact with others, children gain an interest in being social and move from “parallel” play (playing alongside) to “cooperative” play (playing with others), and to understanding social rules. Through this exploration, the brain continues to develop, and develop stronger neural connections. These early years also prompt an early sense of oneself. A child’s identity begins to form and they roughly understand themselves as unique individuals in the world, and apart from their caregivers. Positive interactions with others in their world reinforce the sense of belonging and self-worth, encouraging exploration and growth.
Overview of developmental achievements in early childhood
• Physical: Rapid brain and body development. Early neural connections establish pathways for lifelong learning. Early development of large and small motor skills.
• Cognitive: Early learning with brain development. Gaining abilities in executive function, memory, language, and literacy. Exploration and curiosity can mean adult perception of misbehavior.
• Social/Emotional: Establish early nurturing connectedness (attachment) with a primary caregiver which offers a sense of confidence and trust for exploration and growth. Early socialization develops through interactions with others, including peers.
• Psychological: Early development of a sense of self, self esteem, and self-concept.
Young children’s technology use
Country government agencies recommend no screen exposure for children under 2 (see table below). Guidelines for very young children center more on limiting exposure rather than recommending use, up to 60 minutes for children 3–4 years, providing that there is adult interaction during use. (Gottschalk, 2019; WHO, 2019). Nevertheless, young children’s time with screens is reported to be just under one hour for children to age 2 (.47), and 2 hours 39 minutes for children 3–5 years, with the majority of time on TV (Commonsense Media, 2017). Young children’s exposure to digital technologies may begin months after birth (WHO, 2019). Auxier et al. (2020) report that nearly half (48%) of children under 5 have used a tablet and 55% have used a smartphone. Of parents who stated that their child 12 years or younger has used a smartphone, 6 in 10 reported the child began engagement with a smartphone before the age of 5, and roughly 1 in 3 reporting their child began before age 2 (Auxier et al., 2020). YouTube is popular with very young children, with up to 80% having watched it, and 25% watching it several times a day. Black and Hispanic parents reported higher rates of YouTube viewing several times a day. These parents are also more likely to report concerns that their young children are exposed to potentially negative images and messages, such as sex, violence and drug use, and gender and racial stereotypes. (Commonsense Media 2017). U.S. parents also report that approximately 5% of children under 5 use social media (especially TikTok and Snapchat), and 29% say their young child interacts with a voice assistant (e.g. Alexa, Siri), primarily to play music (reported by 79%). Throughout this chapter and in later chapters (e.g., cCapter 7 on parent-child relationships and technology), we explore parent and family contexts that influence young children’s technology consumption.
Technology use in early childhood education and child care settings
While much of the research on young children’s technology use is gathered from parents, many children attend child care and/or early childhood education and are exposed to digital devices and the internet by teachers directly or indirectly (e.g., from teachers’ personal use around children). many children attend child care and/or early childhood education and are exposed to digital devices and the internet by teachers directly or indirectly (e.g., from teachers’ personal use around children). According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 2019 parents reported that 59% of children 5 years or younger and not enrolled in kindergarten were in some type of nonparental care. Of these, the majority (62%, or 37% of the total) were attending a day are center, preschool, or prekindergarten (center-based care). Smaller numbers were cared for by a relative (38% of those in care) or in a private home by someone not related to them (20%).
A recent review of the literature by Undheim (2022) categorized technology in early childhood center settings as screen-based, not screen-based (e.g., 3D printers), Internet of Toys (IoT), and exploratory technology (e.g., digital telescopes). The studies focused on either the children’s perspective or the teachers’, and were primarily concerned with the pedagogical value or use of the technologies. They also observed discussion of access differentials between home and school, and teachers’ knowledge, skills, and beliefs. Both areas are considered disconnects in children’s valuable use of digital technology (e.g., teachers who have open attitudes and skills are more likely to provide meaningful interactions and sustained learning). The author observes that the majority of the studies lean toward a more positive view of children’s learning and play with technology, and rarely lend a critical eye to use. Some of the effects of children’s technology use in early childhood settings identified from research are discussed in the next section. [6]Discussion of teacher competence and skill with technology is discussed in Chapter 11.
Interests in young children’s development related to technology
Brain development and its related functions of language and problem solving, exposure to content that may be challenging for children to understand, the quality of sleep ,and body weight are all key interests in research on technology use by children from birth to age 5. For preschool-age children (2 ½ to 5 years), there is some demonstrated benefit of well-constructed media in acquiring alphabet recognition and learning sounds, and in greater emotion recognition, empathy, and self-efficacy. Young children are creators with technology, producing stories with rich narratives, characters, and representations of their social understanding (Undheim, 2022). A key to these benefits is the interaction and presence of an adult.
Research also indicates that excessive TV watching reduces language, cognition, and socioemotional development, largely due to reduced parent-child interaction. There is concern that early behavior with TV watching will establish a habit in children. The quality and content of TV is another consideration, particularly when children are exposed to content that is not prosocial. Children who form a habit of passive TV or screen viewing also are at risk of early obesity. Not only is passive viewing a sedentary activity, but it exposes children to commercial content that promotes lack of exercise and high-calorie eating. And sleep issues have been observed in young children who have media in their rooms. Diminished sleep is observed when infants are exposed to blue light from screens, which suppresses endogenous melatonin. The content of what is viewed can also create an elevated heart rate, making it hard for young children to sleep. A focus on screens can negatively affect babies’ need for reciprocal interaction for learning language, a sense of self, and executive functioning (Ernest et al., 2014; Gottschalk, 2019).
Recommendations to date
The table below lists guidelines for young children (and older groups) as stated by professional agencies in the U.S., Canada, and selected countries. No screen time is recommended for infants and toddlers (under the age of 18 months), except for occasional video chat (per the AAP). As noted, any programming should be intentionally selected for quality, and interactivity with an adult is key. If we consider the multiple advantages of a caregiver reading a book with a child, the value of using technology with a young child is evident. When reading with a caregiver, children better understand language and the context of language and literacy, they can be scaffolded to apply content from existing text and their questions can be answered, and the emotional connection when reading and responding with another reinforces neural pathways. With screens, having a peer or parent is especially important to help cognition. Research indicates that it’s not the medium (video screens) that is a barrier to learning, but the lack of a partner to help children make sense of what they are seeing and interacting with (Lytle et al., 2018).
Screen time recommendations (from Gottshalk, 2019)
Country/institution Infants/toddlers Early childhood School-age – adolescence Other recommendations
AAP (United States) (AAP, 2020) None, except video chatting (under 18 months) 1 hour of high quality programming, co-view Consistent limits on time and type Turn off screens when not in use; ensure screen time doesn’t displace other behaviors essential for health
Canada None <1 hour <2 hours (CSEP only) Limited sitting for extended periods (CSEP); adults model healthy screen use (CPS)
Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP, 2017)
Canadian Paediatric Society (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2017)
Australian Government Department of Health (Australian Government Department of Health, 2017) None (under 12 months); <1 hour <2 hours (entertainment)
New Zealand Ministry of Health (Ministry of Health, 2017) None <1 hour <2 hours (recreational) Adapted from CSEP guidelines
German Federal Ministry of Health (Rütten and Pfeifer, 2016)
None 30 minutes 1 hour (primary school) – 2 hours (adolescents) Avoid as much as possible; avoid screen time completely for children under 2, including background television
A shorthand version of recommendations for young children by the American Academy of Pediatrics states:
• No screens under age 2.
• Limit to 1 hour a day (2–5 yrs).
• Use technology along with children.
• Limit their exposure.
• Observe what it’s displacing.
• Limit when they use (not close to bedtime).
• Limit where they use.
Experts agree that children must be prepared for technology use in their future (Ernest et al., 2014). To do so, we must view the internet and mobile, digital devices and applications realistically in terms of both their benefits and ways they can be detrimental. This requires ongoing synergy between research, practice, and policy, so that information and action from one sphere inform the others. The report also observed that caregivers and educators can help children recognize how their identities, knowledge, skills, and values are shaped by forces around them (social, cultural, and political), by how they are represented in the media, and by their online interactions.
The Erikson Center for Technology and Early Childhood offers guidelines for media literacy in young children. These may serve as goals or indicators of success:
Erikson Center Media Literacy Guidelines for Young Children[7]
• Children will learn to intentionally access, select, and manipulate media.
• Children will learn to engage and explore with media in a way that is supportive of their overall development and learning.
• Children will learn to comprehend media messages and practices.
• Children will learn to critically inquire about media and their use of media.
• Children will learn to evaluate the content and impact of media in a developmentally appropriate way.
• Children will learn to create and express ideas using media.
To encourage these skills in children’s worlds, Erikson CML also provides recommendations for caregivers and practitioners. These are general reflections on understanding oneself as a learner and teacher, and underscore the AAP’s recommendations. Additional information for both of these groups is provided in Chapters 6 and 7 (for parents) and 11 (for practitioners).
With regard to research priorities, the EU Kids online framework (2015) includes the following areas:
1. Factors relating to children’s identity and resources, beyond demographic variables.
2. New modes of access to the internet, as this becomes more mobile, personalized, and pervasive.
3. A multidimensional analysis of digital skills and literacies and their significance for well-being.
4. A rethinking of the “ladder of opportunities” to identify whether and when children undertake more ambitious creative or civic online activities.
5. New kinds of online risks, including risks to personal data, privacy issues, and online reputation management.
6. The interplay between children’s digital practices and proprietary policies and mechanisms.
7. Children’s desire to experiment and transgress boundaries, to grasp children’s agency online.
8. Extending the analysis of how parents mediate their children’s internet use to the potential importance of other socializing agents.
9. Extending research on use of digital media from 9-to 16-year-olds to much younger children.
10. Research on socio-technological innovations in smart/wearable/ubiquitous everyday devices.
11. The implications of digital engagement as it may reconfigure (undermine or enhance, alter or diversify) children’s well-being in the long term.
12. Connecting the research agenda on children’s online access, risks, and opportunities to the broader agenda of children’s rights — provision, participation, and protection — in the digital age.
Middle Childhood and Technology
Development overview
Middle childhood[8], ages 6–12, has been called a “latency” period of human development. Compared with the dynamic rate of growth in the early years, and the rapid changes that occur during early, middle, and late adolescence, skeletal and muscular growth and dexterity happen at a slower rate. Cognitively, learning moves to the operational stage, with abilities to organize and use logic to solve problems. Many children at this age enjoy playing games with rules, collecting, and developing a type of expertise. They are also often eager to explore and learn new things. Socially, exposure to peers is significant during middle childhood, as the majority of children begin formal schooling. They also have opportunities for afterschool programs, clubs, sports, and other activities with peers. As children are learning to cooperate with others, they may be subject to bullying and other expressions of power. Psychologically, children in middle childhood are continuing to develop an identity of themselves, as a part of the family, yet also as unique individuals.
Overview of developmental achievements in middle childhood
• Physical development: Slower body rate of growth; fine and large motor skills continue to be refined. Puberty at the end of this stage.
• Cognitive/brain/learning: Thinking becomes more logical and ordered; able to use if-then perspective; expertise, moral development, and ethical behavior.
• Social/emotional development: Peer socialization; exposure to bullying from the assertion of power in peer groups.
• Psychological: Strengthening a sense of gender identity, self as separate from family.
Technology use
Interest in activities, stronger peer relationships and time spent in school/on school subjects encourage children 6-12 years old to use a variety of devices and explore a range of applications. School-age children are prevalent media users, with 80% using a tablet and 63% using a smartphone (Auxier et al., 2020). Even so, only 22% of parents feel it’s OK for children under 12 to own a smartphone. They are more tolerant of children having a tablet, with 65% reporting that a tablet is acceptable for children under 12. As indicated in the chart below, over half of school-age children age 5–8 and 9–11 have used all five types of devices listed. Larger use differences between school-age and younger children exist for computers and gaming devices.
A 2021 report from Commonsense Media indicates that average screen time use by tweens (ages 8–12) increased 17% from 2015 to 2021, from 4 ½ hours to 5 hours 33 minutes. As observed with teens (and discussed later in the chapter) screen time is greater among boys, children who are Latino, and those in families with less income. YouTube is popular with children, with 89% of parents reporting that their 5–11-year-old watches videos on YouTube (Pew). Just over half (53%) report that their child watches YouTube at least once a day. Commonsense Media reports that “tweens watch an hour of online videos per day.”
Social media is popular with children ages 9–11, with parents reporting 30% on TikTok, 22% on Snapchat, and 11% on Instagram. Commonsense Media (2021) reports that 11% of 8–12-year-olds are on Snapchat and 10% on Instagram (their data was drawn from children, not adults). That said, small portions of children 5–8 years (i.e., 3–11%) are also reported to visit these sites, despite age warnings on the applications (Schaeffer, 2021). Parental acceptance of screens also changes during this age: 67% are tolerant of children under 12 having a tablet, though the majority of parents (73%) believe that 12 or older is the age at which it is acceptable for children to have their own phone (Auxier et al., 2020). And with regard to voice-activated devices, just over one-third (36%) of parents with a child 11 or younger reported that their child had engaged with a voice-activated assistant such as Siri or Alexa. Functions of these devices for children include playing music (82%), providing information (66%), and hearing a joke or playing games (47%).
Impacts
Technology offers a number of potential benefits for children ages 6–12:
• Exposure to new ideas, increased awareness of events and issues, information that reinforces interests.
• Access to information about health and body changes as puberty approaches.
• Enhanced communication with family and friends, especially those geographically separated; enhanced access to support networks through social media.
• Aiding in learning in school and beyond: tablets, media devices for content creation, digital stories, blogs, etc. (digital ecology).
• The expression of identity through interest exploration, creative pursuits, and expression.
For children gaining enhanced access to technology during middle childhood, “connected learning” promotes the value of interactive, mobile, creative technologies and children’s learning (Ito et al., 2020) and encourages the pursuit of interests across the “learning ecology” (Barron, 2006) through opportunities and relationships.In contrast to learning that takes place in a formal classroom, connected learning builds on learner interests through relationships (with those who will promote deeper understanding) and opportunities (to explore additional ways of understanding and deeper content).
As observed by the Connected Learning Research Network (Ito et al., 2020), connected learning takes root when:
• organizations sponsor and legitimize the interests and identities of diverse youth,
• learners are engaged in shared practices such as creative production, research, or friendly competition,
• these practices are guided by shared purpose such as contributions to communities, social change, or solving real problems, and
• learning is connected across settings through brokering, coordination, and openly networked platforms (p. 5).
In Chapter 8 we discuss a family podcast in which a father and his two children talk about Star Wars. [9] Because of the relationships and opportunities afforded through both children’s interests that integrate technology (one in music, the other in video production), the family’s experiences enable the children to “connect” their learning across multiple spheres — including application in traditional schooling. Readers interested in learning more about connected learning may want to visit the Connected Learning Alliance. The boom in learning technologies used in the classroom — and teacher competencies to ensure pedagogical value — speak to the promise of digital engagement throughout the school years. Technologies used for learning in elementary and secondary schools are discussed later in this section.
Online and videogames are very popular with children in middle childhood. Jessica Navarro, the technology and human development researcher mentioned previously, writes of her son’s experience with playing the online game Fortnite (2021). She admits feeling leery about his play when the hype pointed to the exposure to first-person shooter activity and violence. Yet observing him play with friends, including new friends met online, showed her the value of the game for developing collaboration skills (social) and problem-solving (cognitive), checking two of the developmental domain boxes. An interest in games with rules, and the development of eye-hand coordination during this age, can make participation in online interactive games a positive experience. And very recent research by the National Institutes for Drug Abuse (NIDA) identified a relationship between playing videogames for 3 hours by 9 and 10 year olds and benefits to cognitive tasks involving impulse control and working memory (NIDA, 2022). That said, and as Navarro observes, the online chat features of these games can also expose vulnerable children to bullying and contact with adults (McInroy & Mishna, 2017) and to violence, which can influence the acceptance of oppression and lack of empathy (Ernest et al., 2014). Parental controls can help moderate what children are exposed to, and by monitoring children’s play and, especially, their response to the play, parents can be aware of the value or possible consequences these games afford.
Impacts — Exposure to screens
A primary developmental concern at this age is an over-reliance on screens that leaves children exposed to threats they may not have the cognitive abilities to reason through or social maturity to handle (Gottschalk, 2019). Long hours on computers also contribute to physical health concerns about childhood obesity, blue screen exposure and sleep deprivation, and weak posture. DeMoor et al. (2008) lists three primary areas of concern in internet exposure as content, contact, and commercial. Passive viewing and exposure to influencers on social media (contact) are linked with childhood depression, stress, and anxiety. Concerns have been lodged about children’s lack of privacy and the potential for commercial applications and, as discussed in the next section, even school software to track children’s use, user patterns, and user preferences.
With regard to content, a 2021 report from Commonsense Media looked at representation in the media that children consume, important given that the majority (70%) of parents surveyed wanted their children to be exposed to more diverse images (with higher percentages among parents of color). Parents also wanted media content to expand and be inclusive of other kinds of diversity (individuals with physical, neurological, or learning disabilities, those with diverse body types, and those from different socioeconomic levels). Parents’ media concerns stemmed from the way they felt people were represented in programming to their children. Many parents perceived White people as more likely to be portrayed in a positive light compared to the portrayal of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and LGBTQIA+ individuals.
Learning and Technology
Schools have long integrated multimedia and interactive media to encourage collaboration, creativity, and exploration, and to connect with students at a distance. Greater attention to educational technology has occurred in the last 30 years as computers and the internet, then laptops, then Chromebooks, and now tablets, SMART boards, and smartphones are used in the classroom, and as teaching through virtual environments complements and sometimes replaces face-to-face instruction. Reviews of the research indicate that, when used appropriately, instructional technology can enhance feedback and communication with students, and motivate peer collaboration, individual creativity, and self-expression (Hamilton & Hattie, 2021). UNICEF’s 2022 What Makes Me? report identifies learning technology as a successful modality for children’s active and multisensory work that promotes core capacities. Students are likely to continue interactions outside of school, and parents can feel more engaged and involved.
“From the plethora of media comparison research conducted over the past 60 years, we have learned that it’s…the instructional methods that cause learning. When instructional methods remain essentially the same, so does the learning, no matter which medium is used to deliver instruction” (Clark & Meyer, 2011, p. 14; as cited in McKnight et al., 2016, p. 195).
Research also indicates that devices and applications are merely tools; the quality of the teaching with these applications is key to effective learning. Research reviews about instructional technology and learning report that the motivation to learn is key. Instructors are critical to this motivation — in the ways in which they adapt technology through learner-centered approaches, emphasize how people learn, differentiate and individualize instruction, and use technology to facilitate learning processes (p .195, McKnight et al., 2016). In addition, teachers who use instructional technology find their work to be more efficient — particularly in student communication and grading homework — giving them more time to focus on instruction. How well teachers implement instructional technology is greatly dependent on their ability, training, and resources (discussed further in Chapter 11, and in Hamilton & Hattie, 2021).
The wider infrastructure of schools can create a culture that integrates technology as a pedagogical tool and embraces teaching strategies with technology. Associations like ISTE (International Society of Technology in Education, iste.org) offer tremendous resources, learning opportunities, and community forums for teachers to identify materials and strategies for effective instruction. Standards for teaching training and licensing and for school integration provide guidance for the entire field of formal pre-K-12 education in the U.S. and globally.
Possible pitfalls of educational technology
As with most issues, however, learning technologies in education are not always the ideal solution. A significant challenge is that of access. Individual households, schools, and school districts vary by geography and income in their ability to ensure children’s access to devices and the internet (Hamilton & Hattie, 2021). The ability of parents and educators to support children’s learning with new technology also varies greatly. An example of this is the software Prodigy™, with English and math games for children. While it provides a fun and immersive experience, families and schools may be unable to upgrade children’s free accounts to a premium (cost) version, marketed to users. Using a premium version entitles children to exclusive rewards, leaving those unable to upgrade to feel like they are missing out. Groups like Commonsense Media recommend that schools jointly create community strategies with families to make decisions that benefit children while being balanced with cost considerations.
Privacy and data sharing are other issues with learning technologies used by schools (Lieberman, 2020). When selecting software for children’s learning, schools vet quality, cost, usability, and security. They are obligated to let parents know how student data is being used, regardless of where teaching occurs. Laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) offer guidance when selecting software. Yet the rush to putting lessons online during COVID-19 and as schools provide more distance learning options on tight budgets can mean using free programs that are less transparent in their practices. In 2020, Education Week reported that “Most U.S. states earned a ‘C’ or lower grade from a 2019 survey of student data privacy protections by Kiesecker’s organization and the Network for Public Education.” As discussed in Chapter 12, school districts take children’s privacy and data use from education software seriously and offer policies on their websites, in school community handbooks, and in teacher training. It is essential that education technology companies be consistent and clear in their policies, and adhere with legal tenets of privacy laws.
Access to learning technologies
Issues of children’s access and the digital (or knowledge) gap are of worldwide concern. Inequities in device and internet access challenge children’s learning and achievement (Katz, 2017; Katz et al., 2018; Perez, 2021; Resta, 2020; Resta et al., 2018; Zhang & Livingstone, 2019). Differences in access affect children’s participation in learning and at school, the creation of valuable social connections, and the forging of a unique identity. Lack of access also adds a disadvantage to children with special needs, who already struggle to find technologies with necessary accommodations. Schools may distribute devices, routers, and wifi hubs, provide additional technology coaching, and train teachers to be sensitive to equity and access needs when integrating technology in coursework (Perez, 2021). And a new bill (Emergency Broadband Benefit) from the U.S. Congress offers short-term assistance to pay for internet access for families and students (US FCC, 2021). On the public awareness side, children’s media scholars Livingstone and Blum-Ross (2020) advocate that a step toward equity is to move our collective concern away from screen time quantity and more strongly embrace quality dimensions of technology use for active learning, socialization, and development. This can shift attention to the need for all children to have access to beneficial technology.
Children with Special Needs
Technologies can aid reading for children with vision challenges, and vocabulary and problem-solving skills for children with developmental delays (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020). Adding Wii games for children on the Autism spectrum benefits physical development, learning social cues, and developing social skills (Ernest et al., 2014). Commonsense Media reports that videogames can be tailored to specific needs, and games produced for general populations can aid children in acquiring communication skills, providing them ways to challenge themselves and learn how to ask for help.
Beyens et al. (2018) summarized a review of four decades of research on technology’s impact on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to indicate only a marginal relationship, calling it more “theoretically than empirically grounded” (p. 9878). They called for continued research into individual differences that affect susceptibility (e.g., sex, temperament, age) and especially into context and condition variables that may play a role in technology selection, content exposure, and use, including parent variables. “Research has shown that parents factors, such as parental ADHD, parental temperament, parenting stress, family conflict, unresponsive parenting, and chaotic parenting are negatively linked to ADHD behaviors, and responsive parenting can suppress ADHD-related behaviors” (p. 9879).
Recommendations for middle childhood and adolescence
The American Academy of Pediatrics offers these recommendations for parents of children and adolescents (which includes children in middle childhood):
• Monitor access to devices and use, on balance with physically healthy practices for brain and body.
• Treat media as other environments: set limits, monitor for safety and well-being.
• Be a good role model.
• Promote the value of face-to-face communication.
• Provide warnings for safety (privacy, predators); keep lines of communication open if children/teens experience concerns.
• Focus on appropriateness and quality of engagement.
• Make and communicate media plans with all family members.
• Understand limits and potential harms. Do your homework on apps and games children and teens use.
During this age period, many children will seek and/or acquire a smartphone. Is there an appropriate age for children to have a smartphone? Or is a determination based on knowing the risks and rewards and on a child’s display of the ability to responsibly handle one? Children’s smartphone ownership is discussed later in the chapter. And parent engagement through consistent and attuned communication with children in middle childhood and late, is key to their healthy use. As noted, children ages 6–12 will be exposed to messages and images and information that they don’t understand. It is essential that they have at least one adult they feel safe to go to for questions and conversation about technology.
Adolescents and Technology
Development overview
The developmental changes that occur during adolescence are so dynamic and pronounced that development scholars divide the period into approximate age ranges: early adolescence (11–14), middle adolescence (14–17), and late adolescence (17–20).[10] The significant activity of puberty can affect the expression of primary and secondary sex characteristics, hormonal expression leading to an interest in having sex, body changes, skeletal growth, and continuation of brain development (though it’s not complete until later into early adulthood; see figure below).
Adolescents’ contexts are, primarily, in middle and secondary school, exercising their cognitive abilities and continuing peer associations. Expression of identity is key and can encourage the joining of “cliques” and crowds as a way to fit in and understand oneself. The growing sense of confidence in oneself can also unleash under-confidence, expressed as power through bullying others.
Overview of developmental achievements in adolescence
• Physical: Brain development continues (still not complete), body changes in puberty affects hormonal reactions, and interest in sex; opportunities for high-risk behaviors; skeletal and muscle growth is completed.
• Cognitive: Thinking becomes more reasoned and abstract; hormonal response can generate high-risk behavior.
• Socio-emotional: Peer associations, romantic associations; looking ahead; taking on added responsibility in jobs;, anticipating life post-secondary school (military, college, employment, etc).
• Psychological: Identity development (as separate from family); hormonal responses affecting mood; awareness of mental health challenges.
Technology use
Phones and computers are nearly ubiquitous in the lives of teens, who use them extensively for connections to friends and family, for schoolwork and jobs, and for daily life tasks. Most (95%) have smartphones, and 80% have a gaming console. A 2022 report from Pew indicates that these percentages have increased since 2015 (Vogels et al., 2022). Most teens (95%) have smartphones, and 80% have a gaming console. While the majority of teens in the U.S. report having a computer (90%), those whose parents have less education or income are more likely not to have a computer (Anderson et al., 2022)…Among 13–18-year-olds, the average total screen time is 8 hours and 39 minutes. This is an increase of 1 hour per day between 2019 and 2021. As noted in Chapter 3, these socioeconomic disparities in technology access had negative implications for children and teens’ academic participation during COVID. And use varies by gender and ethnicity. Commonsense Media reports that boys spend more time than girls online, as do teens who report non-white ethnicities. Among 13–18-year-olds, the average total screen time is 8 hours and 39 minutes. Light users are on screens for approximately 2.5 hours/day; heavy users for 13.3 hours/day (Commonsense Media, 2021). And use has increased in recent years. In 2019, teen screen time averaged 7 hours 22 minutes. Commonsense Media reports that the rate of increase is greater in the last two years than in previous years.
Teens use a range of social media, with a preference for YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat (Vogels et al., 2022). In just seven years, teen interest in Facebook dropped from 71% to 32% according to the 2022 study from Pew. Boys report more interest in Reddit, Twitch, and YouTube; girls prefer Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok. While 62% reporting using social media daily, daily entertainment is also sought through streaming videos (77%) and watching television (49%) (Commonsense Media, 2021). Yet even though teens report spending nearly an hour and a half each day on social media, a minority indicate that they like doing so “a lot” (34%). Listening to podcasts as a regular activity is reported by about one-fifth of teens. And gaming is popular with 59% of teens, with active players spending three hours a day on average, and teens in general reporting 1 hour, 46 minutes. The Pew study reports that a majority of teens say their social media use is about right (55%); 36% say it’s too much.
Global data on teen technology use is available from the EU Kids Online study and the Global Kids Online study, which track children’s use in Europe, South America, countries in Africa, and the Philippines. The EU Kids study follows 9- to 16-year-olds (approximately the middle of the two age groups surveyed by Commonsense Media), and the 2016 report from the Global Kids study featured data from 9–17-year-old children from the Philippines, Serbia, and South Africa, and internet-using children age 13–17 from Argentina. These data offer a more universal understanding of technology use by children and teens, with differences to what is observed in the U.S. based on socioeconomic, cultural, and governmental factors.
For example, in a study of Nigerian teens age 13–18 years old in rural and urban areas, most reported access to a shared or personal mobile phone, which was the dominant form of internet access (Uzuegbunam, 2019). A minority purchased their own phones (23%); the remainder reported purchases by their families. However, the researcher determined that use was fairly gendered. Technology for personal development and for self-learning was mainly by privileged male youth in urban cities. The teens also reported the use of social media as positive yet, as with other teens, indicated technology’s power to distract, expose them to bad messages, and encourage cheating on tests. While some parents do monitor teens’ technology use, the research indicated that many parents and teachers lack the skills and literacy to support children’s evolving digital practices.
Texting and using social media for peer communication and for connections with romantic partners are significant for teens. Sexting, or sharing sexual images and language, is fairly common. Madigan et al.’s (2019) research review representing data from the 22 studies in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, South Korea, and South Africa indicated that 8.4% forward a sext without consent, 12% receive a sext without consent, 15% send a sext, and 27% receive a sext. Flirting this way via smartphone (the device used in most cases of sexting) is obviously not common, yet its occurrence is usually consensual. However, sexting laws prohibit sharing personal images of individuals who are minors. Fines and laws can be harsh for those who send sexually explicit or nude photos electronically, whether though text, email, or social media. Some states have specific laws regarding sexting between minors, which are less harsh than those — like Minnesota — whose laws around sexting and minors are related to child pornography. This page provides more information about the statute in Minnesota laws. Writing for Pediatrics (from the American Academy of Pediatrics), Strasberger et al. (2019) cite the data and implications of sexting in teens, and argue for the differentiation of behavior between consenting adolescents and behavior that is clearly in the realm of child pornography and abuse.
Impacts
Despite legitimate concerns on behavioral trends observed with teens and technology, as ICT has become ubiquitous in their lives, the majority of teens do not report negative outcomes (Commonsense Media, 2021). [11] Interaction through dating apps, texting, and social media are commonplace and now expected environments for intimate relationships — a healthy part of teens’ socialization. James et al. (2017) report that, for 13–17 year olds with a social network profile, the applications used intersect interests across their lives, and contribute significantly to adolescents’ identity formation, sense of agency and autonomy, and academic achievement. For adolescents and young adults worldwide, proficiency with technology also means preparation for jobs of the future that will rely on automation (Anderson et al., 2022; Blum-Ross. et al., 2018).
Teens’ use of social media is a good example of research findings that are “variable” in being positive, yet qualified. James et al.’s 2017 review of the research identified positive impacts on well-being through self-confidence, self-esteem, being outgoing, feeling less shy, and reporting less depression. This is often due to social media’s ability to help teens maintain friendships and meet new potential friends with shared interests. With regard to empathy and narcissism, in general teens display more emotionally empathic communication online than adults, yet they are also more likely to think of their activities online from a self-focused perspective. And during COVID-19, teens who found support online, despite the number of hours they used screens, reported positive mental health, based on a study of 700 11–17 year olds in Peru (Magiss-Weinberg et al., 2021).
As with children in middle childhood, concerns for teens’s technology use rest with psychological effects due to social comparison, anxiety, low self-esteem, and being the subject of bullying (UNICEF, 2017). These effects also are more prevalent for teens who are vulnerable. concerns for teens’s technology use rest with psychological effects due to social comparison, anxiety, low self-esteem, and being the subject of bullying (UNICEF, 2017). These effects also are more prevalent for teens who are vulnerable. Variability occurs depending on the content of what is being shared, the quality and quantity of content, and responses from others. For example, when a social media user seeking support is ignored, the user afeels worse. Research by Commonsense Media (2018) revealed that adolescents age 13–17 who scored lowest on the socioemotional wellbeing scale (SEWs) reported the importance of social media in their lives higher than did other teens; they were also more likely to report being bullied or feeling bad and left out. Recently, a young teen’s suicide was attributed by a London coroner to her consumption of self-harm-related social media. Problematic behavior with technology (e.g., feeling addicted to one’s phone) can have negative consequences with relationships. And devices such as mobile phones, with the ability to text and access social media at will, can inhibit intimacy and present challenges through the perception of 24/7 connectedness.
Analyses of literature on videogame violence supports a relationship with players’ longitudinal demonstration of violent behavior, even after controlling for previous demonstration of aggression (Prescott et al., 2018). And researchers found a racial component: a strong relationship for White children, a weak relationship for Asian children, and an unpredictable relationship for Latino children. They echo other scholars calling for continued research on factors or individual differences that relate to the results.
researchers encourage widening the scope rather than narrowly targeting technology as the sole culprit in investigations of effectsAdditional researchers encourage widening the scope rather than narrowly targeting technology as the sole culprit in investigations of effects. Adolescents face a range of influences on their health and mental health. Writing for Nature, researcher Candice Odgers (2018) reports how teens are faring in the “digital age” by offering a broader view than data linked specifically to phone use. She reports on broad indicators like high school graduation rates and academic achievement, and on downward trends in pregnancy, violence, alcohol abuse, and smoking. As noted in Chapter 1, it’s crucial to consider how technology fits into children’s and families’ lives as a whole. Odgers addresses the debate around benefits and consequences of technology use by teens, and returns to a biological truth: developing organisms will respond in unique ways to their environments, and measured impacts in one ecological domain are likely influenced by influences from another. Indeed, and as noted above, some teens will demonstrate negative impacts from exposure to social media, videogames, time online, and use of their smartphones. Yet Odgers’ read of the data is that this reflects “a new kind of digital divide, in which differences in online experiences are amplifying risks among already-vulnerable adolescents.” Her recommendations are that we fret less about technology use and teens as the issue, and focus more on the wider societal influences on their lives that encourage the mental health and academic and behavioral conditions they bring to their online experiences.
Aiding this viewpoint, a recent study with 4,000 teens age 13–18 and their parents (Moreno et al., 2022) identified two “classes” of risk for teen technology use and impact. Family-engaged adolescents reported better well-being, sleep, and physical activity. For these teens there was a tighter family connection in ownership and family communication, and parent technology use (specifically social media) was low. “At-risk” adolescents were those reporting higher levels of depression, anxiety, and poor body image; they were more independent in their technology access and parents’ social media use was high. As decades of research on families has observed, sociocontextual stress from living with poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and more creates conditions that pull parents away from their ability to fully attend to children’s needs.
Reports such as this help focus on the characteristics of teens for whom technology may be an added vulnerability, while the research into specific effects (for whom, which type of technology, under which conditions) continues.
Expanding our understanding of effects of technology and adolescent development
Groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics in the U.S. bundle recommendations for healthy adolescent technology use with those for children. These recommendations lean heavily on responsible use, use that is developmentally appropriate, and strong and constructive influence from educators and caregivers. An AAP article specific to medical connectivity with teens recommends applications that are user-centered in their design, address disparities in internet and device access, and are created with an awareness of challenges to data ownership, confidentiality, and data privacy. Their comments close by saying “Pediatricians should neither shun new technologies nor accept them wholeheartedly without review but always advocate for and consider the best interests of adolescents by carefully balancing the risks and benefits of using and recommending these technologies to optimize health outcomes, including physical, emotional, and social well-being, in this vulnerable population.”
The findings of the SMAHRT and Center for Scholars and Storytellers study described above underscore the heavy contributions by family in shaping teen’s technology use and outcomes. It recommends that devices are family-owned rather than individually owned, that households maintain patterns of communication about technology use, that parents are aware of their own use as they serve as models of behavior, and that a family focus on technology begins early in a child’s life.
James et al. (2017) and Hamilton et al. (2021) make the following research recommendations to better understand use of technology in general and applications like social media specifically:
• Individual differences in media use and its effects (who)
• Example research question: How does social media affect teens and communities differently on the basis of the intersection of different identities (e.g., race, gender) and context (e.g., home, peers, school, nation)?
• Timing and fluctuations of media use and its effects (when)
• Example research question: How do patterns of social media use fluctuate across individuals? Are teens using social media more at different times?
• How, where, when, and for whom does digital media use support positive well-being outcomes, social connectedness, and empathy?
• Media content, tools, functions, and meanings (what)
• Example research question: What specific social media experiences are teens having since COVID-19?
• What kinds of digital technologies promote patterns of use that support positive well-being, social connectedness, and empathy?
• Materials for studying media effects (how)
• Sample methods of interest: objective measures for social media; longitudinal, experimental, and intensive monitoring study designs
• Moving beyond correlational and self-report studies to gain more accurate insights into youth’s uses of digital media and their outcomes
• Including the wider lens:
• How can parenting, educational supports, and policy further support known positive well-being and social connection outcomes?
Young Adults and Technology
Development overview
The post-adolescence period is a dynamic one, perhaps best characterized as “launching.” After 18 years under direct care and supervision in the family home, most young adults transition to living separately and independently, fulfilling the expectations that they can accomplish the responsibilities and decision-making of adulthood and gain financial independence. The Urban Dictionary might boil this down to “adulting.” For many, this means post-secondary education for job training or a college degree, military service, taking a “gap” year to explore the world, moving directly into employment, and/or starting a family. Yet events can conspire to challenge individual plans. Consider the draft to military service in Vietnam in the late 1960s (this affected many young men, including the author’s brothers and cousins) or, more recently, economic shifts and COVID-19. At no time since the Great Depression have young adults lived at home in the U.S. in such high numbers (Arundel & Ronald, 2015; Fry, et al., 2020).
Consider what it means to be an adult. What would you be able to do that indicates that you are self-sufficient? Emotionally and socially, what do you imagine adulthood to be like? What role might technology play as you develop skills and abilities, identities, and connectedness that indicate adulthood?
Arnett has characterized young adulthood as a unique period of human development. It overlaps with adolescence and adulthood, and is finely indicative of developmental transitions in identity, role responsibility, and cognitive and physical change post-childhood as they overlap from adolescence through to late adulthood (Arnett, 2007). In fact, the technological revolution has motivated a deeper understanding of this age period as unique from adolescence and full adulthood. Successful launching can result in a healthy sense of oneself as separate and unique, or “individuated.” In completing this process, the individual understands and forges relationships (especially with parents) that respect the sense of separateness, yet maintain the sense of belonging and connections.
Technology use
To a large extent, young adults age 18–29 continue technology use patterns established in their earlier years (Mollborn et al., 2021). So given teens’ interest in social media, gaming, and communication, it’s not surprising that young adults are more likely than their older adult counterparts to be active and comfortable with use in daily life, including schooling and for work (Vaterlaus et al., 2019). The majority of young adults (71%) use Instagram, which is significantly more popular than with older age groups. YouTube is popular with nearly all (95%) young adults, though high percentages of nearly all adult age groups appear to view YouTube (Pew, 2021; Schaeffer, 2021).
Among young adults, technology use varies when used for academic and non-academic purposes (Swanson & Walker, 2015). And variation occurs depending on who the young adult is talking to. A recent study by Lee and Dworkin (2022) identified four communication group types among digital media users connecting with mothers, fathers, and friends. Those with the friend-oriented pattern were associated with psychological well-being, and the multimedia group associated with stronger social well-being. Chapter 7 further discusses technologically facilitated relational dynamics in families with young adult members.
Young adults are a well-studied population when it comes to their technology use, given that many technology scholars are in higher education and have easy access to 18–24-year-olds who attend college and can be research participants. In part, this challenges our full understanding of the age group, as it skews towards a portion of young adults. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 40% of those age 18–24 enroll in college (NCES, 2022). From a family perspective, studying young adults in college is beneficial to understand the role technology plays in family connectedness during a time of formation of a separate identity (e.g., Lee et al.’s 2009’s discussion of the “electronic umbilical cord”). Going to college represents a normative shift in context and in responsibilities that may encourage changes in technology use.
Mollborn et al. (2021) argue for a lifecourse perspective when exploring technology use in this age group, beyond assuming the continuation of behavioral patterns from adolescence. They determined that prior patterns of parenting had a significant influence on young adults’ technology use. Rather than having a discrete influence on frequency of technology use at a particular age (e.g., parent presence encouraging young adults to use technology more frequently for parent-child communication), parents’ greater impact came through from the ways their prior parenting messaging helped shape young adults’ emotional response to the use of technology. Indeed, the researchers found that context and demographic factors were quite malleable when examining predictors of use in young adulthood.
Impacts
Research generally supports technology’s role in aiding the relationship between young adults and their parents, grandparents, and siblings, and that multiple types of devices may be used in maintaining relationships (validating media multiplexity theory) (Hessel & Dworkin, 2018). Young adults appear to support their individuation by the strategic use of applications and devices that are both more and less familiar to parents to maintain family and other connections, respectively. Male and female college students with problematic mobile phone use show weaker relationships with their parents and their peers (Lepp et al., 2016). Still, Molvin et al. (2021) observe that methodologies used to understand technology’s actual impacts in this age group may need to be modified to allow for more individualized perspectives. They note, “As traditional role-based markers of adulthood have become more variable and difficult to attain, [methods may need to capture] self-focused understandings to achieve an internal sense of becoming adult.”
Challenges with cyber-victimization continue into young adulthood. Holmgren et al. (2020) examined experiences with cyber-victimization (i.e., being the recipient or victim of hurtful or mean online messages) in a sample of college and non-college young adults. One-fifth reported experiences with cyber-victimization, and within that group, significant relationships between cyber-victimization and lower levels of social and emotional wellbeing, and higher levels of externalizing and internalizing behavior. This suggests that when these experiences occur through online behavior, they can disrupt the young adult’s ability to form social capital.
Recommendations to date
What are your recommendations for healthy technology use in young adulthood? How would they be the same or different than when you were in high school?
Unlike with other age groups, recommendations from researchers and scholars for safe and healthy technology use among young adults are skewed to a set of the population. The dominant focus on young adults in college indicates the need to widen the scope to be more fully representative of technology use and impacts across young adulthood. Similarly, setting-specific recommendations for young adults usually focus on college/post-secondary education (e.g., Educause, 2018).
In the undergraduate course that inspired this text, young adults (students in the course) offered a list of recommendations on healthy technology use for their age group. While they are in college, they also represent a wide range of life experiences, cultures, expectations for their futures, and socioeconomic backgrounds. In their recommendations, they encouraged young adults to consider:
• the life challenges and benchmarks of adulthood that they seek (e.g., financial independence, employment after college),
• the relationships they want to sustain (e.g., family) or acquire (e.g., a committed partner), and
• the general meaning of technology in their personal lives and the ways it operates to support physical, cognitive, psychological, and socioemotional growth (or not).
As you can see from this summary of group contributions, it can be hard to condense recommendations for self (personal), self (social),and self (professional/student) into a cohesive list.
Special considerations for children and teen technology use
The COVID-19 Pandemic
In the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic closed schools and universities worldwide, requiring that children and teens, like many of their parents, continue work and “do school: online and usually from home. Pandemic conditions continued through the 2020–2021 school year, easing up to some extent with a slow return to “normal” face-to-face or hybridized operations during the 2021–2022 school year.
Those reading this book will be quite familiar with the experience of life during COVID-19 (and are encouraged to share it and talk about it with others).
What the pandemic conditions meant to children’s development and learning during the quarantine and long after is a question that researchers will be exploring for decades to come. Specifically, those interested in children’s technology use are answering questions about their use, shifts in behavior, effects on school participation and learning, effects on development across all domains, impacts on social relationships (including family relationships), and much more. Already there is evidence based on access to technology and on economic differences.
Technology use during COVID-19
Parents reported that children’s screen time increased during COVID-19, and some reported that their monitoring and moderating of that time decreased (McClain et al., 2021). Among parents with children in kindergarten through 12th grade, 72% reported their children spending more time on screens during the pandemic. Outside of the time children spent with technology for schools, when parents considered the other time their children were online, 39% said that their enacting rules decreased. For the majority of the sample (43%), the rules didn’t change.
Only about one in five adults ages 18–29 say they feel closer to friends they know well compared with before the pandemic. This share is twice as high as that among adults 50 and older. Adults under 30 are also more likely than any other age group to say social media sites have helped a lot in staying connected with family and friends (30% say so), and about four in ten of those ages 18–29 say this about video calls. Screen time affected some negatively, however. About six in ten adults under 30 (57%) who ever made video calls during the pandemic say they at least sometimes feel worn out or fatigued from spending time on these calls, and about half (49%) of young adults say they have tried to cut back on time spent on the internet or their smartphone.
School participation and learning technology
Undoubtedly, participation in school during COVID-19 was more challenging for children in households with less income. This chart from Pew Research (McClain et al., 2021) reveals the technological challenges faced by children based on family income. Adequate wifi and devices were issues for children. A sizable portion of parents also reported being unable to help their children with homework.
More evocatively, Hillman (2020) asserts that families’ experiences and children’s learning from school involvement during COVID-19 can help us reimagine education and move away from traditional classroom and teacher-led systems to the kind of connected learning (or learning webs) that address individual needs and interests:
Ultimately, we must re-position the role of school as a place that not only makes but also lets learning happen. We need to re-think children’s learning goals and expectations. We need to reimagine the kind of curriculum that they need, to not only the current circumstances but also unimagined futures shaped by new norms of socializing, working and learning that we have yet to design and get used to.
Commonsense Media offers guidelines to families to support children’s learning and the overall amount of screen time when their school is partly or fully online.
Mental health impacts
Reports of children and teens’ mental health during COVID-19 indicated that, for many, quarantine conditions exacerbated depression, anxiety, feelings of isolation and loneliness, and more. Not surprisingly, many turned to social media for social connectivity and entertainment, which may have only exacerbated issues, particularly when users were exposed to hate speech and bullying. A report by Commonsense Media, Hopelab, and the California Health Care Foundation investigated this issue, finding a higher prevalence of depression among LGBTQ+ youth, and reporting that those with mental health challenges were more likely to use social media (Rideout et al., 2021). Yet they also reported the constructive ways in which teens used the internet and social media to find information to support their mental health, to use telehealth options, and as an outlet for personal expression.
Getting a smartphone
A decision facing many households is when to get a child a smartphone. Most parents (73%) believe that it’s acceptable for children 12 and older to have a phone (Auxier et al., 2020). Nearly the same number (71%) perceive that widespread use of smartphones could cause more harm than benefit for children (Auxier et al., 2020). Yet the prevalence of children with phones at earlier ages is high. Families who get phones for children before age 13 do so largely so that they can get in touch with their child, and their child can easily get in touch with them (Auxier et al., 2020). Most parents also want to track the whereabouts of their child for safety. In families where parents are separated, phones can be ways to coordinate with children between households. About 25% do it for the child’s entertainment (Auxier et al., 2020), and a very small minority (6%) give into peer pressure from other families giving their children phones or from peers who encourage a child to have a phone.
Should there be an age policy regarding when children can possess a smartphone? Age policies are set for children’s interaction online (e.g, COPPA), in movie ratings, for when teens can drive, vote, and purchase alcohol, and in any number of policies and laws for their and society’s well-being. Children under 12 primarily use phones to text, and about half download apps, play pre-installed games, access websites on the internet, and do live video calling (Neilson, 2017). Yet there are warnings about children being exposed to sexting and pornography at early ages (Chen, 2016), and about exposure to screens in ways that interrupt sleep (Commonsense Media 2020). If we are to believe Twenge’s research, exposure to smartphones will encourage children’s depression, weaken academic performance, and delay interest in normative tasks of adolescence like learning to drive. Unlike family technologies like televisions and computers that can be located in common areas, smartphones are mobile and can be used anytime, anywhere.
Yet as reported earlier, Odgers (2018) questions whether negative effects reported for teens’ use of technology are not actually indicative of exacerbated consequences of teens’ wider social and societal experiences. And studies that observe family or cultural factors in establishing screen use by children and teens call to question not only the level of impact (on the individual), but the source of influence (e.g., individual behavior, family, school). A number of experts assert that a specific age is not a primary factor in considering when to give child smartphone, but rather how parents and families use technology, set boundaries and rules, and tailor to the unique needs and interests of the child (Anderson & Jiang, 2018; Chen, 2016; McInerny, 2017). Or might it be that smartphone ownership can be similar to setting a policy “sliding scale” based on child age for staying home alone. For example, a Dakota county (MN) law concerns the ages at which children can be left alone as a gradation of time (e.g., children 7 and younger not alone for any period; children 10-13 alone for fewer than 12 hours).
The recommendations listed below are paraphrased from a post by the Harvard School of Education Usable Knowledge site (When to Give Your Child a Smartphone ). They have been arranged to address sensitivity to the individual child, the family context, and wider social influences.
• Cater the rules to each child, and allow the rules to evolve as your children age. Each child is unique in their developmental abilities and interests. Some are interested in connecting with others using a smartphone; others are not. Some may be demonstrate responsibility for the care of an item like a smartphone, including what it exposes the child to, and others may not. Knowing your individual child will be an excellent guide to their ability, interests, and need for a phone.
• Talk about technology with children. Build awareness and help children learn how to regulate their relationships with devices. Smart phones are only one device; there are many available to children. The conversation about how children see technology being used in their school, home, and friend environments can start early. Introducing responsible and ethical device use is also an opportunity for education. This will give them a voice in setting rules and being accountable.
• Start young. As conversations about other dimensions of safety and responsibility start early and develop with the child, so too can the safe and responsible use of technology. This helps put children in the mindset of wanting to learn more and to share their knowledge with others.
Family level
• Family values. Phone use in and out of the house by all members, and child phone ownership, should reflect the family’s values. Family members can jointly establish rules that reflect the interests of all.
• Understand options. Knowledge of different types of technologies available to children and families can aid parents in knowing how to control access and keep children safe. Having options available during the conversation about phone use enables parents and children to find more tailored solutions. Commonsense Media offers a guide to setting up the child’s phone.
• Modeling behaviors. Children learn through observation and parental modeling of phone use, so parents should model appropriate technology usage. This includes digital ethics, use of devices at home, and use while in the presence of others. Samual (2017) observes that parallel to the data linking phone introduction to negative consequences among children is data showing the uptake in phone use by parents. They ask if the negative consequences seen in children may relate to their parents being distracted.
• Texting your child. Parent behavior around texting can do more than model patterns to emulate; it also can directly impact the child’s space and be a distraction or impinge on their sense of agency if it exceeds what children are comfortable with. Relatedly, divorced and separated parents can be conscientious about phone use by the child as being private, and not as a tool for indirect communication to the other parent.
Community level
• Understand child’s needs in school and the community. Smartphones are used for many functions by children and teens besides texting and social media alone. Computers, applications, and other media devices also figure into children’s learning and social ecology. Having an awareness of the range of ways that technology is used in the child’s evolving life is essential for families to have open discussions about shared use, use in the household, and ownership.
• Participate in policy and advocacy on smartphone practices. An added recommendation is for parents and children to be involved in the settings that affect their use, and the impacts of that use. This can mean school, institution, or organization policies, and addressing governmental and industrial actions that establish and maintain laws regarding technology safety for children.
Cyberbullying
According to the Cyberbullying Research Center, cyberbullying is the “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices” (from Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying). Elements of cyberbullying include the following:
• Willful: The behavior has to be deliberate, not accidental.
• Repeated: Bullying reflects a pattern of behavior, not just one isolated incident.
• Harm: The target must perceive that harm was inflicted.
• Use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices: This, of course, is what differentiates cyberbullying from traditional bullying.
And a child may be a victim of cyberbullying if they:
• unexpectedly stop using the computer,
• appear nervous or jumpy when an instant message, text message, or email appears,
• appear uneasy about going to school or outside in general,
• appear to be angry, depressed, or frustrated after using the computer,
• avoid discussions about what they are doing on the computer, or
• become abnormally withdrawn from usual friends and family members.
A review of research over the period of 2015 to 2019 identified an increase in the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization (Zhu et al., 2021). A review of research over the period of 2015 to 2019 identified an increase in the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization (Zhu et al., 2021). The researchers examined studies representing countries and regions including the U.S., Europe, and East Asia. Victimization reports ranged from 14 to 58%, with verbal violence as the most common type of cyberbullying. Other types of violence included group bullying, impersonation, account theft, and visual bullying (sharing images of others). Lynott (2020) reported that, during COVID-19, two-thirds of teens in Ireland were bullied through private chat apps like WhatsApp. Risk factors related to cyberbullying victimization or perpetration included demographic characteristics such as age (older adolescents as bullies), gender (girls are more likely to be victim and bully), and past experience (those who were bullied are more likely to bully). Other factors offer mixed results. While some studies, for example, report that non-white students are less likely to engage in cyberbullying, others don’t find this trend. Other risk or protective factors studied include geographic location (e.g., living in urban environments), technology behavior (e.g., time online) and mental health status. Parenting and the parent-child relationship appears key to both behavior and risk, with children who have strong communication with parents and a secure parent-child relationship less likely to bully and experience consequences of being a victim.
The researchers caution about the correlational nature of the existing research and the need for more causal mechanisms to be determined. They also identify systemic approaches to address cyberbullying. Individual action starts with addressing adolescent emotional management capabilities, and with parents, schools and institutions support the development tools tailored to the digital environment and digital capabilities. Organizations such as Commonsense Media and the Cyberbullying Research Center offer guidance for the prevention of cyberbullying and constructive practices to address it.
At a macro or policy level, violence that occurs in virtual environments has encouraged new understanding of and reframing old laws. This lawsuit against a school district, brought by the parents of a young woman who committed suicide after being cyberbullied, is indicative of situations calling for attention to cyberviolence. This map of the U.S. provided by the Cyberbullying Research Center (updated in 2017) indicates laws related to criminal sanction (e.g., assault statutes), school sanction (e.g., allowing the school to discipline), school policy (e.g., allowing the school to have bullying policies), and off-campus activities (allows the school to intervene in cases of bullying off campus that contribute to classroom disruption). Yet as indicated by this article about Chicago schools’ attempt to protect students from violence by monitoring social media, question of privacy, the internet, and children’s safety are topics of debate.
Privacy (including ‘sexting’)
Privacy and online safety are major issues facing everyone who uses the internet. Use of online technologies enables telecommunication companies’ access to personal data — data that can be collected, tracked, shared, and sold to market products to individuals, leave users open to security threats, and create a digital footprint that individuals have little control over. These issues are particularly critical for children, whose level of development and ability to reason through online threats and seek out protections can leave them vulnerable. They also impact parents and educators who are responsible for children’s safety online and who must authorize consent, either directly or indirectly (giving children permission). Commonsense Media reports that online safety is relevant not only to children’s use of personal devices and apps, but in schools and from school-issued devices as cybersecurity breaches also occur (2021). The market for children’s digital advertising was \$1.2 billion in 2019. The majority (60%) of connected devices don’t provide necessary information about how they collect or use personal information. And nearly the same percentage of early teens ages 12–15 believe it’s easy to delete their information online.
Although there has been incremental improvement, Commonsense Media reports that “ the state of kids’ privacy is far below parents’ expectations, and products used by children are not nearly as privacy-protecting as they should be” (p. 2). This is largely due to weak privacy-protecting practices by many companies, despite legal requirements. Companies’ practices as a whole are inconsistent, unclear, don’t define safeguards talent to protect children, or lack a privacy policy. This can lead to distrust by educators, parents ,and school districts. Commonsense Media offers a privacy/safety rating on software, and their report anticipates that ratings will shift depending on companies’ compliance with policy changes. They conclude their 2021 report by saying
Unfortunately, there is still far too little attention paid to the privacy and security practices of technology platforms that affect tens of millions of children on a daily basis. It is vital that educators, parents, and policymakers engage in an open dialogue with companies to build solutions that strengthen our children’s privacy and security protections. (p. 4)
Public policies concerning childhood privacy
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA, US] and the General Data Protection Regulation [EU] dictate that social networking sites be accessed only by children 13 and older (Blum-Ross et al., 2018). In January 2020, the California Children’s Privacy Act went into effect. This provides more stringent protections than COPPA related to notice and consent, children’s rights, enforcement, and other items, making it closer to the protections offered by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Recently developed, the 5 Rights Foundation advances protections for children’s well-being, particularly as article 25 of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child extends children’s rights to online environments. Privacy principles for children recommend that children not be tracked or profiled online, nor subject to ads based on their online activity; that children be able to easily modify the personal information they choose to share; that families educate themselves on privacy options and agree not to share children’s information without their consent (Commonsense Media, 2021).
Internet Gaming Disorder
Legitimate concerns have been raised about videogames fostering addiction, seen in approximately 1–3% of those who play videogames. Signs of internet gaming addiction (Petry et al., 2015) may begin to surface in those children vulnerable particularly to the gamification and competitions embedded in the software.
As listed in the DSM-V, the proposed symptoms of internet gaming disorder include:
• Preoccupation with gaming
• Withdrawal symptoms when gaming is taken away or not possible (sadness, anxiety, irritability)
• Tolerance, the need to spend more time gaming to satisfy the urge
• Inability to reduce playing, unsuccessful attempts to quit gaming
• Giving up other activities, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities due to gaming
• Continuing to game despite problems
• Deceiving family members or others about the amount of time spent on gaming
• The use of gaming to relive negative moods, such as guilt or hopelessness
• Risk, having jeopardized or lost a job or relationship due to gaming
Under the proposed criteria, a diagnosis of internet gaming disorder would require experiencing five or more of these symptoms within a year.
With this significant overview of child and youth development related to ICT use, we now explore the ways in which technology is used by parents and in support of their parenting.
1. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an exhaustive look at existing research on technology’s effects on children, adolescents, and young adults. Reports from UNICEF (2017), the ICT Coalition for Children Online (Blum-Ross et al., 2018), WHO (2019), the European Commission (Chaudron, et al., 2017), OECD (Gottschalk, 2019), Pew Research, Commonsense Media, the TEC Center at the Erikson Institute, Ernest et al. (2014), and more produced every year, offer summaries from U.S., international and global studies.
2. Because each section offers only the briefest review of human development, links to detailed pages of developmental information by stage are provided. Readers are also encouraged to refer to open-source textbooks on human development, such as https://open.maricopa.edu/devpsych/.
3. Readers are encouraged to review Navarro and Tudge’s original article and consider how their own research questions on technology’s influence situate in this neo-ecological framework.
4. Naturally, development begins before birth. This review will not consider influences from technology during the prenatal period on children’s development, though the idea is fascinating, isn’t it?
5. For an excellent review of young childhood development through the lens of media literacy, see Child Development 101 from the Erikson Institute Technology in Early Childhood Center. For this and other sections, "developmental overview” also links to a page from the Centers for Disease Control.
6. Readers may also follow early learning technology research centers such as the Erikson Technology in Early Childhood for ongoing research.
7. For the entire document please see https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TEC-MediaLiteracy-Framework.pdf
8. A useful overview of development during middle childhood can be read at https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002017.htm.
9. Children of the Force: childrenoftheforce.com
10. See the American Academy of Pediatrics’ division of the stages, with developmental information here: https://www.healthychildren.org/Engl...olescence.aspx
11. This doesn't include awareness of the dangers of texting while driving. While statistics support distracted driving with phones as an issue for adults as well, teens are less likely to wear a seat belt, and vehicle accidents are a leading cause of death for teens. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/05%3A_Technology_Use_and_Impacts_in_Children_Youth_and_Young_Adults/5.01%3A_Technology_Use_and_Impacts_in_Children_Youth_and_Yo.txt |
Anderson, M., Faverio, M., & McClain, C. (2022, June 2). How teens navigate school during COVID-19. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/06/02/how-teens-navigate-school-during-covid-19/
Anderson, M. and Jiang, J. (2018) Teens, social media and technology. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
Arnett, J. J. (2007). Emerging Adulthood: What Is It, and What Is It Good For? Child Development Perspectives, 1(2), 68-73. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00016.x
Arundel, A. and Ronald, R. (2015): Parental co-residence, shared living and emerging adulthood in Europe: semi-dependent housing across welfare regime and housing system contexts, Journal of Youth Studies, doi: 10.1080/13676261.2015.1112884
Auxier, B., Anderson, M., Perrin, A., and Turner, E. (2020, July 28). Parenting Kids in the Age of Screens. Pew Internet and American Life. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens/
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A Learning Ecology Perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224.
Beyens, I., Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2018). Screen media use and ADHD-related behaviors: Four decades of research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), 9875-9881.
Blum-Ross, A., Donoso, V., Dinh, T., Mascheroni, G., O’Neill, B., Riesmeyer, C., and Stoilova, M. (2018). Looking forward: Technological and social change in the lives of European children and young people. Report for the ICT Coalition for Children Online. Brussels: ICT Coalition.
Blum-Ross, A., & Livingstone, S. (2020, November 10). How families of children with autism greet the Digital future. Parenting for a Digital Future. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2020/11/25/autism-and-the-digital-future/
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of child psychology, 1.
Casimiro, C., and Nico, M. (2018). From object to instrument: Technologies as tools for family relations and family research. In Casimiro C. and Neves B. (Eds.), Connecting Families: Information and Communication Technologies, generations, and the life course (pp. 133- 156). Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2867xm.14
Chen, B. (2016, July 21). What’s the right age to give a child a smartphone. New York Times www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/technology/personaltech/whats-the-right-age-to-give-a-child-a-smartphone.html
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Commonsense Media. (2021). The Common Sense Census: Media use by tweens and teens. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/8-18-census-integrated-report-final-web_0.pdf
Common Sense Media. (2021, October 19).The inclusion imperative. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-inclusion-imperative
Common Sense Media. (2020). How do screens — such as TV and smartphones — affect my kids’ sleep? Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/articles/how-do-screens-such-as-tv-and-smartphones-affect-my-kids-sleep
CommonsenseMedia (2018). Social media, social life. Teens reveal their experiences. San Francisco: Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/social-media-social-life-2018
The Common Sense Census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media. (2017). Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-kids-age-zero-to-eight-2017
CommonsenseMedia (2016). The Commonsense Census: Plugged-in Parents of Tweens and Teens, Commonsense Media. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-plugged-in-parents-of-tweens-and-teens-2016
Coyne, S. M., Radesky, J., Collier, K. M., Gentile, D. A., Ruh Linder, J., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reich, S. M., and Rogers, J. (2017). Parenting and digital media. Pediatrics, 140, s112–s116. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1758N
Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., and Summers, K. (2019). Problematic cell phone use, depression, anxiety, and self-regulation: Evidence from a three year longitudinal study from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Computers in Human Behavior, 96, 78-84.
De Moor, S., Dock, M., Gallez, S., Lenaerts, S., Scholler, C., & Vleugels, C. (2008). Teens and ICT: Risks and Opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/TA/synTA08_nl.pdf.
Ernest, J. M., Causey, C., Newton, A. B., Sharkins, K., Summerlin, J., & Albaiz, N. (2014). Extending the global dialogue about media, technology, screen time, and young children. Childhood Education, 90(3), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.910046
EU Kids Online. (2018). http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/eu-kids-online
Fry, R., Passel, J. and Cohn, D. (2020, September 4). A majority of young adults in the U.S. live with their parents for the first time since the Great Depression. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/04/a-majority-of-young-adults-in-the-u-s-live-with-their-parents-for-the-first-time-since-the-great-depression/
Gottschalk, F. (2019). Impacts of technology use on children: Exploring literature on the brain, cognition and well‐being (OECD Education Working Papers, NO. 195). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/8296464e-en
Hale, L., Li, X., Hartstein, L. E., & LeBourgeois, M. K. (2019). Media use and sleep in teenagers: What do we know? Current Sleep Medicine Reports, 5(3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40675-019-00146-x
Hamilton, A., & Hattie, J. (2021). Not all that glitters is gold – cognition education group. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://cognitioneducationgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Not-All-That-Glitters-is-Gold.pdf
Hamilton, J. L., Nesi, J., & Choukas-Bradley, S. (2021). Reexamining social media and socioemotional well-being among adolescents through the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic: A theoretical review and directions for future research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 662–679. doi.org/10.1177/17456916211014189
Hessel, H., & Dworkin, J. (2018). Emerging adults’ use of communication technology with family members: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 3(3), 357-373
Hillman, V. (2020, May 5). Parenting and learning in a time of global pandemic: What policy makers and school leaders should do for children’s education right now and consider the future. Parenting for a Digital Future. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2020/06/17/learning-during-pandemic/
Holmgren, H. G., Dworkin, J., & Keyzers, A. (2020). Associations between cybervictimization and well-being in emerging adulthood. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(8), 571–575. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0733
Ito, M., Arum, A., Conley, D., Gutiérrez, K., Kirshner, B., Livingstone, S., Michalchik, V., Penuel, W., Peppler, K., Pinkard, N…. 2020. The Connected Learning Research Network: Reflections on a Decade of Engaged Scholarship. Irvine, CA: Connected Learning Alliance. https://clalliance.org/publications/
James, C., Davis, K., Charmaraman, L., Konrath, S., Slovak, P., Weinstein, E., & Yarosh, L. (2017). Digital life and youth well-being, social connectedness, empathy, and narcissism. Pediatrics, 140(Supplement_2), S71-S75.
Johnston, K., Highfield, K., & Hadley, F. (2018). Supporting young children as digital citizens: The importance of shared understandings of technology to support integration in play‐based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 896-910.
Katz, V. S. (2017). What it means to be “under-connected” in lower-income families. Journal of Children and Media, 11(2), 241-244.
Katz, V. S., Moran, M. B., and Gonzalez, C. (2018). Connecting with technology in lower-income US families. New Media and Society, 20(7), 2509-2533.
Lee, S.-K., & Dworkin, J. (2022). Multiple channels of Communication: Association of Emerging Adults’ communication patterns, well-being, and parenting. Emerging Adulthood, 216769682110676. doi.org/10.1177/21676968211067614
Lee, S., Meszaros, P. S., & Colvin, J. (2009). Cutting the wireless cord: College student cell phone use and attachment to parents. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6-8), 717–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494920903224277
Lepp, A., Li, J. and Barkley, J. (2016). College students’ cell phone use and attachment to parents and peers. Computers in Human Behavior 64. 401e408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.021
Lieberman, M. (2020, December 1). Massive shift to remote learning prompts Big Data Privacy concerns. Education Week. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.edweek.org/technology/massive-shift-to-remote-learning-prompts-big-data-privacy-concerns/2020/03
Lim, S. S. (2016) ‘Through the tablet glass: Transcendent parenting in an era of mobile media and cloud computing’, Journal of Children and Media, 10(1): 21‒29. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1121896
Livingstone, S., and A. Blum-Ross (2020). Parenting for a Digital Future. How hopes and fears about technology share children’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., and Lagae, K. (2015). How Parents of Young Children Manage Digital Devices at Home: The Role of Income, Education and Parental Style. London: EU Kids Online.
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Staksrud, E. (2015, November 1). Developing a framework for researching children’s online risks and opportunities in Europe. LSE Research Online. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/64470/
Lynott, . (2020). Research reveals 66% of children bullied on private chat apps during lockdown. Belfast Telegraph. August 31. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus/research-reveals-66-of-children-bullied-on-private-chat-apps-during-lockdown-39489984.html
Lytle, S. R., Garcia-Sierra, A., & Kuhl, P. K. (2018). Two are better than one: Infant language learning from video improves in the presence of peers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), 9859–9866. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611621115
Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C. L., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 172(4), 327-335.
Magis-Weinberg, L., Gys, C. L., Berger, E. L., Domoff, S. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2021). Positive and negative online experiences and loneliness in Peruvian adolescents during the COVID‐19 lockdown. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 717-733.
McClain, C. (2022, April 28). How parents’ views of their kids’ screen time, social media use changed during COVID-19. Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/04/28/how-parents-views-of-their-kids-screen-time-social-media-use-changed-during-covid-19/
McClain, C., Vogels, E. A., Perrin, A., Sechopoulos, S., & Rainie, L. (2021, September 1). The internet and the pandemic. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/09/01/the-internet-and-the-pandemic/
McInerny, C. (2017, November 21). Deciding at what age to give a kid a smartphone. KQED. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/49742...d-a-smartphone McInroy, L. B., and Mishna, F. (2017). Cyberbullying on online gaming platforms for children and youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 34(6), 597-607. doi 10.1007/s10560-017-0498-0
McLeod, S. (2022, March 20) . RE: Current research about the impact of technology on learning outcomes. [Discussion post]. ISTE Connect. https://connect.iste.org/communities
McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a Digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
Mollborn, S., Fomby, P., Goode, J. A., & Modile, A. (2021). A life course framework for understanding digital technology use in the transition to adulthood. Advances in Life Course Research, 47, 100379.
Moreno, M. A., Binger, K., Zhao, Q., Eickhoff, J., Minich, M., & Uhls, Y. T. (2022). Digital Technology and media use by adolescents: Latent class analysis. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.2196/35540
National Institute for Drug Abuse (2022, October 24). Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children. https://nida.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/2022/10/video-gaming-may-be-associated-with-better-cognitive-performance-in-children
Navarro, J. (2020). Fortnite: A context for child development in the U.S. during COVID-19 (and beyond). Journal of Children and Media, 15(1), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1858435
Navarro, J. L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Technologizing Bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3
The Nielsen Company (2017) Mobile kids , the parent, the child and the smartphone. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2017/mobile-kids-the-parent-the-child-and-the-smartphone/
Odgers, C. (2018). Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all. Nature, 554(7693), 432–434. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02109-8
Odgers, C. (2018, February 21). Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all. Nature News. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02109-8
Perez Jr., J. (2021). Some kids never logged into remote school. Now what? Politico, April 29. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/29/remote-school-technology-479353
Petry, N. M., Rehbein, F., Ko, C.-H., & O’Brien, C. P. (2015). Internet gaming disorder in the DSM-5. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-015-0610-0
Pew Research Center. (2021, April 7). Social Media Fact sheet. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. Piaget and His School, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46323-5_2
Prescott, A. T., Sargent, J. D., & Hull, J. G. (2018). Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent videogame play and physical aggression over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), 9882–9888. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611617114
Resta, P. E. (2020). Moving Toward Digital Equity in the Technopolis. In STEM in the Technopolis: The Power of STEM Education in Regional Technology Policy (pp. 79-89). Springer, Cham.
Resta, P., Laferrière, T., McLaughlin, R., and Kouraogo, A. (2018). Issues and challenges related to digital equity: An overview. In J. Voogt et al. (eds.), Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (pp.987-1004). Springer International Handbooks of Education.
Rideout, V., Fox, S., Peebles, A., & Robb, M. B. (2021). Coping with COVID-19: How young people use digital media to manage their mental health. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense and Hopelab. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2021-coping-with-covid19-full-report.pdf
Samual, A. (2017, August 8). Yes, smartphones are destroying a generation, but not of kids. The Digital Voyage. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://daily.jstor.org/yes-smartphones-are-destroying-a-generation-but-not-of-kids/
Schaeffer, K. (2021, October 7). 7 facts about Americans and Instagram. Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/07/7-facts-about-americans-and-instagram/
Shin, J. Y., Rheu, M., Huh-Yoo, J., & Peng, W. (2021). Designing technologies to support parent-child relationships: A review of current findings and suggestions for Future Directions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479585
Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., and Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online. https://doi.org/10.21953/lse.47fdeqj01ofo
Smith, T. J., Mital, P. K., & Dekker, T. M. (2021). The debate on screen time: An empirical case study in infant-directed video. Taking Development Seriously: A Festschrift for Annette Karmiloff-Smith, 258–279. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429445590-18-18
State of Kids’ Privacy Report 2021. Common Sense Media. (2021, November 16). Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/res...cy-report-2021
Strasburger, V. C., Zimmerman, H., Temple, J. R., & Madigan, S. (2019). Teenagers, sexting, and the law. Pediatrics, 143(5).
Swanson, J. A., & Walker, E. (2015). Academic versus non-academic emerging adult college student technology use. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(2), 147-158.
Tudge, J. R. H. (2008). The everyday lives of young children: Culture, class, and child rearing in diverse societies. Cambridge University Press.
Undheim, M. (2022) Children and teachers engaging together with digital technology in early childhood education and care institutions: a literature review, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30:3, 472-489, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2021.1971730
UNICEF. (2017). Children in a Digital World. United Nations Children’s Fund.
US Federal Communications Commission (2021). Emergency Broadband Benefit program. https://www.fcc.gov/consumer-faq-emergency-broadband-benefit
Uzuegbunam, C. (2019, December 16). A child-centred study of teens’ Digital Lifeworlds from a Nigerian perspective. Parenting for a Digital Future. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/parenting4digitalfuture/2019/10/16/a-child-centred-study-of-teens-digital-lifeworlds-from-a-nigerian-perspective/
Vaterlaus, J. M., Beckert, T. E., & Schmitt-Wilson, S. (2019). Parent–child time together: The role of interactive technology with adolescent and Young Adult Children. Journal of Family Issues, 40(15), 2179–2202. doi.org/10.1177/0192513×19856644
Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016). “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 594-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.029
Vogels, E., Gelles-Watnik, R. & Massarat, N. (2022). Teens, social media and technology 2022. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/
Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A. R., and Connell, S. (2013). Parenting in the age of digital technology. Report for the center on media and Human development school of communication Northwestern University.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2019). Guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep for children under 5 years of age: web annex: evidence profiles (No. WHO/NMH/PND/19.2). World Health Organization.
Zhang, D., and Livingstone, S. (2019). Inequalities in how parents support their children’s development with digital technologies. Parenting for a digital future. London School of Economics.
Zhu, C., Huang, S., Evans, R., & Zhang, W. (2021). Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: a comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Frontiers in public health, 9, 634909. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909/full | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/05%3A_Technology_Use_and_Impacts_in_Children_Youth_and_Young_Adults/5.02%3A_References.txt |
Developmental observations
This chapter highlights four domains of human development across four stages of childhood. To observe children’s technology use with an eye to developmental impact, having a shorthand table can help. Many summaries of human development in children exist online. You can also create one using this table. Go to the Google doc and create a copy:
It can be helpful to use an observation guide to compare and contrast technology use and possible impacts across age groups. A guide (such as the one below) enables you to observe use, within the context of the child. Doing this will help identify some of the traditional factors that motivate children’s use (e.g., using it with peers, using it in school). Go to the Google doc and create a copy:
Readiness to possess a smartphone
Debate the question: Children should not be allowed to possess* a smartphone below the age of 12.
*possess= have complete independent use of, beyond the cost of purchase. Possession may or may not involve covering or contributing to the cost of maintenance (e.g., data plans).
Identifying the pros and cons of this prompt should create a sense of the developmental and practical and social reasons children “possess” phones. A key is to understand children’s readiness and ability to handle what they may be exposed to through 24/7 access to the internet, social media, and apps. They also need to be responsible for maintaining and keeping safe a piece of technology.
Some resources (see chapter text for more references; also the Additional Resources and Materials for Chapter 5):
• Have smartphones destroyed a generation? (Atlantic Monthly, Sept 2017).
• What’s the right age for a child to get a smartphone? (New York Times, 2016)
• What age should a kid get their first phone? (Washington Post, October 2022)
Smartphones in the classroom: Policy discovery
Begin by reading this news item: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2022-06-06-the-case-for-making-classrooms-phone-free?mc_key=00Qi000001X2OYEEA3
Scenario: You teach English at an urban public high school of about 2,000 students. Of the five classes you teach each day, each has an average of 28 students. Two classes are for junior and senior IB/AP students; two classes are for sophomores (a very mixed class), and one for freshman (first-year students, most of whom are from immigrant families where English is not spoken at home).
You attend a Parent-Student-Teacher Association (PTSA) meeting and hear a demand from some teachers for students NOT to have phones available during classes. Currently, the policy by the school and the school district is vague; it primarily encourages “responsible use” and “individual preference by instructors.” Many of the parents agree with the ban, as do a few of the students present. But not all of the students agree. And several teachers of upper-grade students advocate that phones be available for learning purposes. The principal has asked you to lead a work group to identify policies on phones from high schools. The aim will be to present policy options to the PTSA and the student body for creation of a policy, which will then be brought to the school district for adoption.
1. Identify examples of policy that can be presented to the school.
2. Given parents’ concerns for their children’s exposure to the internet and social media, and the potential value of them having a smartphone, provide a list of recommendations for families in determining children’s safe and effective use of a smartphone. Consult with parents if you like. Write the list as a handout that might be shared by parenting educators.
Technology use by young children in early care and education
Early childhood teachers and child care providers often grapple with whether to teach young children using technology, and with the degree to which iPads, media, YouTube channels, and apps should figure into the day of learning. This list of reflection questions is great for honing in on the intentions behind teaching young children and the use of technology:
Guidelines for Incorporating Technology: Self-Reflection https://www.virtuallabschool.org/fcc/creative-expression/lesson-2/act/25181
Book review
Amazon and other booksellers are full of books about children using technology. Here are a few:
• The wired child: Reclaiming childhood in a digital age. (2015). Richard Freed.
• Glow kids: How screen addiction is hijacking our kids — and how to break the trance. Nicholas Kardaras.
• The big disconnect: Protecting childhood and family relationships in the digital age (2013). Catherine Steinger-Adair.
• How to stay safe on social media: Social media do’s and don’ts: What kids and parents should know. (2021). Effie Manolas.
• Choose one of these titles and read it carefully. If you were to write a review of the book for a) family professionals and b) parents, what would write? Strive for a critical eye; remember that reviews often lead readers to consume or ignore a source, and that few publications are perfect just as they are. What should readers attend to? What would readers find most meaningful?
Recommendations for healthy technology use by emerging adults
The aims of young adult development are characterized by
• healthy body and mind
• exploration and identity
• Individuation
• family connectedness and separateness
• feeling stable, less ambivalent
• taking on “full responsibilities of adulthood”
Considering these aims, and your own experiences of and goals for your growing sense of yourself as an adult, what are guidelines you’d recommend for healthy technology use for your age group? Join with a group of peers and create a list of recommendations. Engage in a dialogue about the challenges you face in your technology use and in taking on the “full responsibilities of adulthood” to prepare a realistic and constructive list. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/05%3A_Technology_Use_and_Impacts_in_Children_Youth_and_Young_Adults/5.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
The American Academy of Pediatrics released a tool, called The Family Media Plan, to help families create a plan for their children’s use of media. This tool can be a real help as families negotiate the amount of time children spend with technology and screens. Yet is it realistic to expect that families would be able to follow through on this plan? Why? Or why not?
This textbook provides an overview of developmental differences, technology uses, and potential concerns and benefits across age groups. Yet research is growing on specific aspects of technology/device/application and child age and impact. Identify an area that you are most interested in, and present what the research and policy literature says about it. Even if you find just a few studies or reports from reputable sources, try your hand at summarizing recent findings. For example, Fortnite is popular with children, prompting questions about gaming effects on children’s socialization. Your post would examine research on children in middle childhood (6–12 years) who play interactive games, and what impacts have been found. What are the recommendations for parents and practitioners? Have industry standards been recommended or other policy action? Provide your perspective — what draws your interest to this (for instance, are you a gamer? do you work with school-age children?) and what you take from the research.
Particularly sensitive issues like depression and suicide, cyberbullying, child privacy, sex trafficking, children’s exposure to influencers on guns, and videogame addiction can be sensationalized in the press and in conversation among parents and educators. Select a hot-button issue and argue for a rational understanding of technology’s role. Doing so brings up the pros and cons of the internet, and of users, influencers, and our wider and global society’s involvement.
5.05: Additional Resources and Readings
Technology Influences on Child Development
Influences across age groups
• Rizzi, J. (2019, September 16). Kids are not hurt by screen time. Scientific American. Retrieved July 31, 2022, from www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/kids-are-not-hurt-by-screen-time/
• Digital Media and Developing Mind — proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. (2021, November 9). Retrieved July 31, 2022, from https://www.childrenandscreens.com/digital-media-and-developing-mind-proceedings-of-the-national-academy-of-sciences-of-the-united-states-of-america/
• Joan Ganz Cooney Center: joanganzcooneycenter.org/publications/ [association promoting children’s media research for more than 50 years]
• Sample report: Bulger, M., Madden, M., Sobel, K. and Davison, P. (2021) The Missing Middle. Reimagining a Future for Tweens, Teens, and Public Media joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/missing-middle/
• Meyer, D. E. (2018). From savannas to blue-phase LCD screens: Prospects and perils for child development in the post-modern digital information age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(40), 9845–9850. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812850115
• Smith, A., Oztan, A., & Levey, R. (n.d.). Parenting bytes: Raising kids in the digital age. PARENTING BYTES. Retrieved July 31, 2022, from https://parentingbytes.com/ . Sample and relevant episodes include the following:
• Stoilova, Mariya; Livingstone, Sonia; Khazbak, Rana (2021). Investigating Risks and Opportunities for Children in a Digital World: A rapid review of the evidence on children’s internet use and outcomes, Innocenti Discussion Papers, no. 2020-03, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/1183-investigating-risks-and-opportunities-for-children-in-a-digital-world.html
• 60 things every child should know about the internet. https://www.teachthought.com/technology/every-child-should-know/
Reports from Professional Associations
Zero to Three:
Commonsense Media
The Common Sense Census: Media use by kids age zero to eight, 2020. Common Sense Media. (2020, November 17). Retrieved July 31, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-kids-age-zero-to-eight-2020
Digital Futures Commission
Livingstone, S. & Pothong, K. (2021). Playful by Design: A Vision of Free Play in a Digital World. Digital Futures Commission (London: 5Rights Foundation). https://digitalfuturescommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/A-Vision-of-Free-Play-in-a-Digital-World.pdf
Erikson Technology and Early Childhood
Herdzina , J., & Lauricella, A. R. (2020). Framework, Child Development Guidelines, and Tips for Implementation. Media Literacy in Early Childhood Report. Retrieved July 31, 2022, from https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TEC-MediaLiteracy-Report.pdf
Virtual Lab
Family Child Care: Safe Environments: Technology and Internet Safety. Virtual Lab School. (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2022, from https://www.virtuallabschool.org/fcc/safe-environments/lesson-11
Paper
James M. Ernest, Cora Causey, Allison B. Newton, Kimberly Sharkins, Jennifer Summerlin & Najla Albaiz (2014) Extending the Global Dialogue About Media, Technology, Screen Time, and Young Children, Childhood Education, 90:3, 182-191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.910046
Briefing
New York Academy of Sciences (2020): The Effects of Screen Time on the Developing Brain .https://www.nyas.org/ebriefings/2020/the-effects-of-screen-time-on-the-developing-brain/?tab=covid-19:%20screen%20time%20and%20the%20developing%20brain | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/05%3A_Technology_Use_and_Impacts_in_Children_Youth_and_Young_Adults/5.04%3A_Blog_Prompts.txt |
Be strong, be fearless, be beautiful. And believe that anything is possible when you have the right people there to support you.
– Misty Copeland
Chapter Insights
• Although research on adult technology use exists, an interest in parent use requires specific study.
• This chapter identifies three main ways that parents use technology to serve their parenting roles: using technology to parent, using technology with children, using technology to support oneself in the parenting role.
• Parents vary in their technology use. These differences are important to keep in mind when exploring parents’ impact on children’s development in terms of technology use and oversight.
• Five domains of parenting practice integrate ways in which technology is used by parents, and can be used to measure successful parenting.
• Generational differences play out in a parents’ use of technology.
• Parents are not necessarily “equal” when it comes to using technology on their own, and in fulfilling their parenting role.
• “Sharenting” can be useful to reinforce the childrearing experience, yet can also bridge ethical challenges to children’s privacy.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
Every day, and for many all day, adults use ICT in many different ways. But consider what they use in their roles as parents, how technology relates to or facilitates those roles, who it’s used with, and what parenting goal results. How do your parents or other caregivers you know use technology to fulfill their roles in parenting?
In the previous chapter we examined technology use by children from birth through young adulthood, exploring potential impacts on their development and well-being. We discussed the benefits and potential consequences of technology use across ages and developmental domains, all of which are the focus of ongoing research. Embedded and implied in the discussion were parents’ roles; their concerns around the amount of time children are on screen, their responsibilities for healthy engagement, and family decision making about children’s responsible smartphone use. Lim (2016) calls this the practice of “transcendent parenting,” which goes beyond traditional, physical concepts of parenting to incorporate virtual and online parenting.
Recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatric about technology use by young children, older children, and teens (Pathway Pediatrics, 2021) are written almost exclusively to parents — underscoring how our society confers on parents childrearing responsibilities that include technology management skills and the knowledge of technology’s impacts.
Parents integrate technology into their parenting — using phone calls, texts, social media interactions, and other experiences as ways to convey guidance and nurturance to children. Consider how your parent(s) communicate with you. What parenting messages or roles are conveyed through these methods? Parents also use technology in ways that support them as parents and only indirectly impact children.
Chapter 7 will explore relationship dynamics between parents and children when parents assert their parenting role around children’s safe and healthy technology use, and children assert agency in use. This includes parents’ mediating, moderating, and monitoring children’s use (parenting about technology), and impacts on the parent-child relationships. Chapter 7 will also include the ways in which parents use technology with their children to convey words and actions. In this chapter, the focus is on parents alone — how parents themselves use information and communications technology, and the value and purpose it serves in parenting and to the parent him or herself.
Here are a couple things to keep in mind as we go through this chapter:
• Data reporting “adult” technology use is not sufficient to capture the role of parenting by adults. It is important to distinguish research focused on parents from that focused on the childrearing role fulfilled by parents. As an example, Duggan et al. (2015) focused on social media and internet use among parents and non-parents, though the study included a representative sample of U.S. adults. They showed that parents are more likely to use the internet than non-parenting adults and that they use types of social media differently (participating in most social media applications, except for Instagram, in greater numbers). Some research on adults may report the data as coming from parents, under the supposition that those who are parents are adults, yet discrimination is necessary for accuracy. Fortunately, as parenting researchers became more comfortable doing studies that involved technology and internet use, the availability of studies collecting and reporting results from parents is more available.
• Parents are not monolithic. They vary by age, maturity, gender, family configuration, number of children, culture, race, global location, and much more. In Chapter 3 we discussed how these variables can influence differences in family technology use. Like other technology users, parents vary widely in their access, use, function, and attitude about devices. More than a decade ago, the author’s research on parents and technology use identified how caregivers vary by their attitudes toward technology mixed with device ownership and activity (Walker et al., 2015). Over 1,600 parents of children under the age of 18 were surveyed online. We asked questions with regard to the frequency of their doing four different activities with technology such as communication and information searching, the number of devices owned in the household, and their attitudes regarding technology. As you can see in the chart below, we identified nine different groups. “Omnivores,” or those in families with many devices doing all kinds of activities, held a very positive attitude about technology. The majority were in the moderate category, where they may have used technology for very specific purposes, had an average number of devices ,and may have had very positive or not-so-positive attitudes with regard to technology. A smaller group (likely even smaller now) were indifferent/had a few devices/had fairly negative attitudes about technology and used them for few activities. Certainly, over time and with new devices and applications and ICT functionality, even more differences among parents can be seen. The essential issue is that we don’t hold a belief that parents use technology in the same ways.
Many caregivers are employed, and the conditions of their workplaces and jobs vary widely. These contexts affect technology use, access, and comfort in ways that affect parents as employees and their parenting and presence as parents. Being available for calls or meetings in the home space and during nontraditional hours can distract parents from being attentive to children. In other cases, parents who appreciate the flexibility provided by mobile technology and home internet may juggle responsibilities and be more available to children.
Jointly, these demographic characteristics influence parents’ needs on what to know about technology and what they may do with it, and they play a role in their comfort with ICT. Too often, discussions generalize “parents’ social media use” or “parents” monitoring of their children’s use, when in fact wide variation exists among parents. Pew’s study of parent social media use, for example, shows vast differences between mothers and fathers in types of social media, purposes for use, and frequency of behavior (Duggan et al., 2015). Yet a global statement referring to “parents” lacks discrimination by gendered role.
Before diving into specifics of parents’ technology use, we begin with an overview of the parenting role and influences on it. This framework provides a foundation for understanding technology use as expression of the parenting role.
About Parenting
Parents represent one of the largest and most significantly important population groups in any society. In essence, they are directly (and legally) responsible for raising the next generation of adults, and the quality of their efforts is related to developmental and educational outcomes. Economically, their earning power to support their children, their tax contributions, and their consumer behavior contribute greatly to society’s wealth and resources. Yet individuals receive no formal training for parenthood, and with economic challenges and shifting family structures leaving many parents alone in childrearing, and with a lack of public services in the U.S. for all but the neediest families, parenting is highly challenging. In fact, most parents say that parenting today is far tougher than when they were growing up (Auxier et al., 2020).
If you were to write a job description for what parents do, yours and others,’ what might you say? Beyond the most obvious actions, consider the range of roles and responsibilities parents and other caregivers take on across a child’s life.
To understand the ways in which technology aligns with the parenting role is to first understand what “parenting” is, and then to identify the multiple influences on parenting. These can help us imagine the various ways that technology helps to fulfill the parenting role and factors that might differentiate its impacts.
At its most basic, parenting can be conceptualized hierarchically to mean keeping children protected, healthy, and surviving (most basic function); nurturing, and guiding their development (where most of our traditional notions of parenting lie); and, when needed advocating on their behalf. [1]
For most parents, the first level — providing basic needs and protecting from harm — is a given, yet for many families it’s truly an economic struggle. Our social welfare system is in place to assist families with meeting basic needs, especially around housing, health care, nutrition and finding employment. The second level, guiding development, is a process that doesn’t stop when children are 18 or out of the house. Throughout a child’s life, they will seek and be guided by their parents. Actions that parents take in guiding children, as described in a booklet by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, include responding in an appropriate manner, monitoring to preventing risky behavior or problems before they arise, mentoring to support and encourage desired behaviors, and modeling their own behavior to provide a consistent positive example for the child. The third level, advocacy, is expressed in big and small ways, also throughout a child’s life. It may be individualized, such as when a parent meets with a teacher on behalf of one child, or globalized, as when a parent advocates for an issue that affects many children, such as lobbying for children’s technology privacy and safety. Think about your own life, and how your parent or parents have fulfilled these roles for you.
Parenting is often thought of in a directional way, with parenting action “causing” child outcomes (For example, the news reports of teenager committing crime and someone remarks about ‘bad’ parenting.). Perhaps this is because of the authority conferred on the responsibility of parenting, across the child’s early to later adolescent years and beyond, and the enactment of these responsibilities to help children flourish. Dynamics of family roles, certain experiences in families, and the way parents are often represented in the media can suggest that parenting actions directly impact the child. [2]
Impacts on child development are, however, mulitfactorial. And parenting is a bi-directional and a transactional process. A parent attends to the needs of the individual child and tailors their responses to that child’s individuality. They reflect on their resources, gain understanding from the interaction and observation with the child and in the context, and learn. This is attunement. Once again, consider your brothers and sisters if you have them: did your parents parent them the same way as they parented you? Probably not. Your brothers and sisters are different than you, they are different ages, possibly different genders, and have different personalities and temperaments, and your parent was a different age when each sibling arrived. Your oldest brother/sister may have been born when your parents were in their twenties, and by the time you came along your parents were ten years older. You can imagine how much experience they had gained in those ten years. So as parents understand and react and respond and guide their children, they too grow and develop through their experiences as human beings, and they attune and transactionally gear their childrearing based on information they glean through interaction with the child.
Although there are many frameworks of parenting, ones that incorporate individual differences of parents and myriad contextual factors as influential on parenting and parent-child relationships are useful to apply cross-culturally and when viewing parenting in the novel area of technology. Most social systems perspectives of parenting emanate from a bioecological paradigm (Bronfenbrenner, 1995), discussed in Chapters 2 and 5. frameworks of parenting that incorporate individual differences of parents and myriad contextual factors as influential on parenting and parent-child relationships are useful to apply cross-culturally and when viewing parenting in the novel area of technologyThis perspective recognizes individual behavior and growth as influenced by interacting systems, sensitive to change and to time, in which the individual is variably affected, largely related to qualities unique to the individual and to proximal processes or ‘‘enduring forms of interaction in the immediate environment’’ (p. 620). A social constructivist view of development (Vygotsky, 1978) supports the role of the context in scaffolding parent development to move to a higher level of functioning, provided that they are in their “zone of proximal development” (within their developmental reach based on existing capacities). Adequate contextual supports can help adults acquire a greater repertoire of cognitive, behavioral, and relational skills, and reinforce identification in the role. The social context can, however, interfere with growth, or may assert needs that are beyond the individual’s capacity (e.g., living in poverty). A competency model proposed by Johnson et al. (2014).[3] adds to the rudimentary model above by adding to functional competences (e.g., provision of basic needs, behavioral guidance), with foundational competencies (e.g., psychological health) and contexts (child age, development, parental social network).
With consideration to the focus on technology, children’s technology use and individual differences of the child can be seen as context factors, as can influences from school and peers and wider institutions on that use. These intersect with foundational elements of the parent’s own psychological and cognitive abilities and attitudes to influence apparent parenting behaviors related to technology use (their own, the child’s, and the family’s). This model also reveals child use or parenting response not as a linear action, but as interactive and recursive in response to other elements. Parenting behavioral guidance will change with the child’s age, and a parents’ mental health may improve with feelings of self-efficacy as a result of interactions with their child around technology use.
Influences on Parenting
Belsky’s (1984) model articulates determinants of parenting as including three primary spheres: the individual parent, his or her social system, and the child. Parenting is influenced by individual characteristics of the parent, including developmental history (e.g., how s/he was parented) and personal traits (e.g., personality, mental health, maturational level of development). The child influences parenting and requires “fit” to the child’s needs through factors including developmental stage, health, temperament, and gender. Interaction with the social context provides the parent with information, influences, norms and expectations, resources, emotional, and practical supports that may shape, reinforce, and possibly thwart parenting. For example, social support in the form of practical assistance from family helps alleviate everyday stress, resulting in more positive maternal mental health.
Determinants work interactively to influence the practice, attitudes, and relational qualities of parenting, which have direct or indirect impacts on child outcomes. For example, a social cognitive perspective of parent development (Azar) holds that a parent’s understanding of the relational role evolves through the development of cognitive capacities that are shaped through interaction with the environment.
As parenting is, in part, a social construction, and the environment provides opportunities that scaffold learning and develop knowledge and identity (Marienau & Segal, 2006) to deeper, more complex levels. As the parent matures and grows in understanding of self relative to others (the needs of the child), and is surrounded and influenced by expectations of the social context, their perceptions and responses will change. The table below describes the “stages” of parenting that align with childrearing across a child’s development (Galinsky, 1987). These stages need more in-depth study to reflect other conditions of a parent’s life, such as having multiple children, gaining stepchildren, and child loss. They have also not been adequately applied across cultural frameworks. Nevertheless, they indicate change within the parent as an adult as related to child development.
Age of Child Main Tasks and Goals
Stage 1: The Image-Making Stage Planning for a child; pregnancy Consider what it means to be a parent and plan for changes to accommodate a child.
Stage 2: The Nurturing Stage Infancy Develop an attachment relationship with child and adapt to the new baby.
Stage 3: The Authority Stage Toddler and preschool Create rules and figure out how to effectively guide children’s behavior.
Stage 4: The Interpretive Stage Middle childhood Help children interpret their experiences with the social world beyond the family.
Stage 5: The Interdependent Stage Adolescence Renegotiate relationships with adolescent children to allow for shared power in decision-making.
Stage 6: The Departure Stage Early adulthood Evaluate successes and failures as parents.
The “stages”of parenting that align with childrearing across a child’s development, from https://nobaproject.com/modules/the-developing-parent referring to Galinsky, E. (1987). The six stages of parenthood. Perseus Books.
Belsky’s model also includes influences from the marital (partner/co-parent) or partner relationship and from work — both affecting the parents’ ability to parent and the parents’ own parenting behaviors. Chapter 9 will focus on work-family balance and technology and explore how the workplace can influence technological considerations in parenting.
A potential research question integrating these factors with relationship to technology might examine parents’ monitoring of a child’s use of social media. This parenting behavior might vary with parent age and understanding of technology (parent characteristics) and with the child’s age (child characteristics). We might then measure the time spent on schoolwork as an outcome, with our hypothesis being that parents who are comfortable with technology and children who are normatively developing may interact more constructively with technology for homework, leading to the child spending more time on school work. We might also incorporate social media, hypothesizing that parents’ discussion with friends about social media’s effects might influence a mother’s motivation to monitor her child’s time and exposure online while the child is using technology for homework.
A third model that respects individual variation is Super and Harkness’ developmental niche (1986), conceptualizing child-rearing practices as the outgrowth of caregiver beliefs intersecting with setting demands and cultural perspectives. With regard to their technology use with and for their children’s wellbeing, parenting practices are motivated by (or in response to) a specific setting for which parents are preparing their children to live. As parents acknowledge shifts in the world compared to their own childhoods, and the ways in which successfully operating in life is now dependent on comfort and skill with a multifaceted range of devices, applications, and settings that call for technology integration, their actions will reflect the worlds they know and the worlds they anticipate for their children.
Readers will note that these models offer perspectives on parents and parenting in a gender-neutral way. Certainly, there are models specific to “mothering” and “fathering” and to others who perform roles in less traditional, heterosexual, cis-gendered ways (e.g., non-biological parents, homosexual caregivers, grandparents conferring the role of primary caregiver). These models focus heavily on social and cultural constructions of the role, influences that reinforce or disrupt role expectations, unique elements of the role as played out by the individual, and shifts in perspectives about the role over time. Readers are encouraged to identify parenting models that speak to populations of interest as they interpret the ways in which technology is used and how the societal impact of technology defines and constricts the expression of the role.
Parenting as Represented through Information and Communications Technology Use
Technology use to fulfill parenting functions and aims
Parents use a variety of technologies and media to fulfill a range of parenting functions, from self-development, to knowing more about child development and parenting, to securing resources and social connections for the family. An important analysis done with my colleague Jessica Rudi in 2014 asked whether parents use ICT in ways that facilitate discrete and recognized domains of parenting (Walker & Rudi, 2014). If so, are there apparent trends in the types of ICT activities that align with those parenting goals? Our sample contained 1422 parents whose oldest child was 18. The mean age of the mothers was 37, with a range of 19–70, and the mean age of their children was 7, with a range from birth through 18. Like much of the early survey research on parents and technology, this sample unfortunately was predominantly white and well-educated, and therefore we cannot generalize the results to all parents. However, this was early work to indicate the range of ways in which parents use technology that fulfill all domains of the parenting role. Recent work by Livingstone et al. (2018) revealed similar data on the range of ways parents use technology for parenting.
Information and communication activities included the frequency of doing an activity for parenting. Respondents were asked to indicate whether the action and use of technology was done in general as an adult or whether it was done for parenting. For example, when they responded that email and texting were used for personal communication, they would be asked the degree to which this was done for parenting. Frequency of actions were measured as weekly or more often, so a certain level of activity was required for the action to count. The five domains of parenting were taken from the Parent Education Core Curriculum Framework (PECCFI) by the Minnesota Association of Family and Early Education (mnafee.org), which assists licensed parenting educators in Minnesota with the creation of curriculum for parents. The five domains are:
• Parent development: promote parent confidence, secure the parents’ philosophy of parenting, and explore perspectives related to parenting.
• Parent-child relationship: strengthen reciprocity, trust, and expressions of affection; ensure the child’s health and safety.
• Child development: understand children’s development and have reasonable expectations; promote all aspects of child development — physical, cognitive, social, and psychological.
• Family development: promote family time together, and manage family resources.
• Culture and community: build and maintain relationships with friends and professionals, seek support.
Parent Development Parent-Child Relationship Child Development Family Development Culture & Community
Promote parent confidence, philosophy
Explore perspectives
Strengthen reciprocity, trust, express affection
Monitor child’s safety, peers
Understand development; have reasonable expectations.
Promote all aspects of child’s development.
Promote family time together.
Manage family resources
Build & maintain relationships with friends, professionals.
Seek support.
Discussion boards
Blogs, info sites
Creative activities
Comm. devices (text, cell phones, IM)
Connectivity (SNS)
Information sources
Discussion boards
Comm. devices
Entertainment, games, creativity
Utilities
Comm. devices
Connectivity (SNS)
Discussion boards
Parent use of ICT aligned with the five domains of parenting/parent education (PECCFI, MNAFEE.org). Adapted from Walker & Rudi, 2015.
Parenting functions as listed on the survey were coded to align with one of the five domains in the parent education framework. We then observed, by type of technology, how parents used technology to fulfill that particular function. With regard to parent development, approximately 40–55% of the parents identified using technology to resolve conflicting information, explore perspectives, confirm their beliefs, express themselves, and provide advice to others. Smaller portions indicated that they use technology to communicate with the child or to keep up with the child’s friends (note: the average age of children in the sample was 6). The highest numbers, at more than 50%, were indicated for fulfilling child development through seeking information, identifying problems, and normalizing parents’ observation of children’s behavior. Percentages were high as well for the family development and the culture and community domains. In family development, 92% of parents reported using technology for communication with non-residential family members. Technology was also used by more than half to review products and to have fun with the family. With regard to culture and community, more than half reported using technology to communicate with friends, make professional connections, and receive support.
The types of technologies used to fulfill each of these parenting actions varied. For parent development, discussion boards, blogs, and creative activities were most frequently mentioned. Discussion boards and information sources were also identified when seeking information about child’s development. For the parent-child relationship, communication devices were obviously used (e.g., texting, calling, instant messaging). For family development, communication devices were used for connecting with non-residential family members, and for shared entertainment and games. Utility functions such as navigation tools or websites were used for purchasing goods for the family. And finally, communication devices, discussion boards, and social media were mentioned for building community and maintaining a family culture.
Through this simple research, we can see that the same technology that promotes the parents’ own development can be used to strengthen knowledge about child development, while also building a stronger social network of support. No one device or application fulfills all functions, yet a single function (like learning more about child development or building parent confidence) can be facilitated by a variety of tech. These applications reflect technology popular a decade ago; a more contemporary investigation would likely address specific types of social media, videoconferencing, and use of smart devices like Alexa.
Individualized use
Research indicates that parent technology use varies, a finding that validates our understanding of individual differences. Use is complementary to that of available resources, devices, or applications; it also supplements what is not available elsewhere. Parents seek information online to complement to other information sources. While they may read blogs, Google, and read websites, they also are talking to pediatricians and to friends and family members, and may be reading books or parenting magazines (Duggan et al., 2015). Parents also draw on personal experience. And parents use communication tools as a complement to face-to-face connections with family friends and others. While parents will text, FaceTime, Zoom, and send private messages to their children and others in their lives, for many these are a complement to face-to-face interactions.
Virtual contacts complement or enhance what is available socially offline, providing, for example, additional ways to connect with families and expanding the size of social networks. A parent may have networks of friends at work and in the neighborhood to whom she turns to for advice and information on parenting. A Facebook group for parents of young children can exist for her as a complementary source of information and support to her offline resources.
Finally, parents’ use of technology can supplement what is missing in offline lives. Early research on parents’ internet use identified that parents most likely to use discussion forums were those whose children had special needs (e.g., Scharer, 2005). Parents went online to find a community and information not available to them in their face-to-face world. They found great relief communicating and connecting with others who had experience raising a child who had the same condition or diagnosis, a community in which they felt no judgment and could share their own experiences.
Steinmetz’s Time article (2015), “Help, my parents are millennials,” describes variations in attitudes, opinions, and behaviors between those who are Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996), Gen Xers (born between 1965 and 1980), and Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1965). Millennials, for example, are more likely to purchase gender-neutral toys for their children and to report feeling judged by other parents. Consider how these attitudes might play out differently in ICT interactive behavior. Now that young adults represent a new generation (Gen Z, born after 1996) what attitudinal or perspective shifts might be revealed in their parenting, and how might their parenting interests be reflected differently in their technology use?
Regardless of demographic differences, parents are humans and will vary in their interests.
Interesting research has identified typologies of parents in terms of the time they spend online. Some parents are information seekers, using technology primarily to read information about child development and children’s health and well-being. Some love using a variety of social media discussion groups, Facebook pages, Tik-Tok channels and more to interact with other parents and extend their time offline in social ways. Some parents are content creators, writing blogs and curating product information on products to encourage dialogue and often to seek emotional support and validation for their parenting.
These relationships between parent technology use and their parenting and interactions with children are not always clean, nor directional. As demonstrated by McDaniel and Radesky (2018), a bidirectional relationship can occur between parent and child and technology. Their study revealed that child behavior can relate to stress in the parent, who turns to technology for distraction, in turn exacerbating the children’s behavior that is causing the stress.
In summary, as with other technology users, parents use a range of devices and applications to fulfill a range of functions. As with others, they vary in their use, attitudes towards use, and comfort with use. With regard to the parenting role, parents interact with their children with technology, using technology to parent. Parents also parent about technology.
The next chapter is on parent-child relationships and technology. Technology plays a role in influencing parents’ knowledge, attitudes, skills, and beliefs. Parents gather and exchange information, and seek out support from others. Technology and the internet can complement or supplement what is available or missing from parents’ offline lives. Regarding parent learning and social support, technology and virtual environments can play particularly meaningful roles in mobilizing the social resources that aid in parent learning, behavior, interactions with their children, and child outcomes.
Parent Technology Use as Direct and Indirect Influence on the Child
Given the actions of parenting as revealed through behaviors, attitudes, skills, and knowledge directly with or on behalf of their children, and the internal, historical, social and environmental influences on parenting, there are three dimensions of technology use by parents:
1. Parenting ABOUT technology
2. Parenting WITH technology
3. Technology use AIDING the parent and parenting
After a brief introduction here, the first two actions will discussed in more depth in Chapter 7. More attention in this chapter will be paid to the third way that parents use technology: on behalf of themselves as parents.
Parenting about (the child’s use of) technology and parenting the child with technology
Adding to parents’ scope of practice is their child’s well-being in the use of information and communications technology. Therefore, among many other topics, parents parent about the content topic of children’s technology. Parental monitoring, asserting controls, and mediating screen time have been the centerpiece of research and action for childrearing support for at least the last decade (Auxier et al., 2020; Blum-Ross et al., 2018; Coyne et al., 2017; Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020; Livingstone et al., 2018; Nathanson, 2018; Wartella et al., 2013). On this, parents vary widely, influenced by their perspectives and understanding of technology’s effects. For example, parents’ attitudes along with their own media use influence young children’s use of technology in general, and specifically related to math and science. Parenting confidence and parent media patterns also influence their actions towards children’s media use. Parents with greater confidence around technology are more likely to monitor and interact with children around media use (Commonsense Media, 2016). And parents vary in terms of their own behavior around media consumption. Households that are more media-centric have more screens that are on for more hours of the day, and attitudes toward children’s technology ownership and use are more lax, compared with those of parents who are more media-moderate or media-light (Wartella et al., 2013).
These influences aren’t reserved for families of younger children and teens. During the pandemic, parents’ attitudes toward using technology for distance learning in universities showed variation. Those less concerned about financial impacts, and who saw benefits held more favorable views of distance learning technology (Mahasneh et al., 2021), which factored into their encouragement of their children. Chapter 7 explores this topic in more depth.
As illustrated by this graphic of parents’ technology use relative to that of teens, parental monitoring and talking about media with children is balanced with their own sizeable consumption of screen time and with modeling media behavior to children (Lauricella et al., 2016).
Technology is also a vehicle through which parents’ parent. They communicate, support, nurture, and guide their children through texting, video, and voice communication (Dworkin et al., 2019). Time interacting together with technology, such as through gaming, co-viewing movies, or engaging in a “maker space” (a facility for creating with materials and developing critical thinking skills; see www.makerspaces.com), can strengthen parent-child cohesion (Coyne et al., 2017; Commonsense Media, 2016; Ito et al., 2020). Yet parents using technology to parent can produce conflict in the parent-child relationship as children feel their agency threatened through un-agreed upon monitoring (Blackwell et al., 2016; Coyne et al., 2017; Commonsense Media, 2016; Livingstone et al., 2018). Personal use can also create a distraction and diminish attention to caregiving, which affects the quality of the relationship (Beamish et al., 2019).
Technology use AIDING the parent and parenting
A third way in which parents use technology is as support for their parenting. In this way, technology plays a more indirect role, connecting parents to information, social and emotional support, validation, and skills development. Reading helpful tips on infant sleep on a parenting blog, for example, may boost confidence in ways that show in childrearing. There is, of course, also the possibility of negative influences on the parent, perhaps through negative messages or challenges to their perspectives and identity. As an example, parent confidence may be affected when other parents post about their “perfect” children on Facebook. To examine parents’ use of technology to support themselves in the role is to see the parent as a developing adult, and the use of technology as fulfilling personal and adult roles as well as parent roles.
Gathering information
Gathering information about child development and health is a major way that parents use technology to support their parenting competence and comfort (Baker et al., 2017; Livingstone et al., 2018; Myers-Walls & Dworkin, 2015; Zero to Three, 2016). Recent data suggests that 40% of U.S. parents with children up to age 17, and 65% of Australian parents of children ages 2–12, get information from the web (Auxier et al., 2020; Baker et al., 2017). Parents who are of higher socioeconomic status and those with children with special needs are more likely to use online help (Zhang & Livingstone, 2019). Online sources are used to complement parents’ other, more personal, and proximal sources, including friends and family, teachers, pediatricians, and other professionals (Myers-Walls & Dworkin, 2015; Zero to Three, 2016).
While this can be useful for problem-solving and resolving parents’ answers about childrearing and child development, there is the potential for misinformation. In a Wired magazine article in early 2022 (Jankowicz), the author examined pregnancy-related apps for new mothers. She notes that the majority of apps are run by “lifestyle” companies powered by advertising revenue. The aim is less about supplying accurate information about the stages of pregnancy and transition to parenthood, and more about connecting the user to other platforms and using user data. Worse, the sites can promote potentially harmful misinformation about pregnancy and childbirth.
And while research suggests that a minority of parents participate in parenting education online (at least, pre-COVID; Walker & Rudi, 2014; Zero to Three, 2016), delivery of parenting education programs wholesale or as a complement to face-to-face efforts is increasingly available (McLean et al., 2017; Walker, 2020). Demographic variation reveals that parents in lower socioeconomic groups, particularly those with less formal education and who live in higher-stress environments, are more open to getting information from websites than to participating in seminars or individually tailored programs (e.g., evidence-based programs adapted for online delivery). This suggests that outreach methods need to appeal to a wide range of parents to reduce equity gaps in participation. Given the conversion to online-only parenting education programming during COVID-19, it will be interesting to see if attitudes change with a return to face-to-face opportunities. Chapter 11 will explore technology applications in the delivery of parenting education.
Exchanging social support
Informal exchanges with peers through social media, seeking out information on childrearing on a website, pursuing creative ways to express oneself by blogging or interest board (e.g., Pinterest) and videoconferencing with other parents all contribute to parents’ mental health, sense of identity, and feelings of connectedness (Walker & Rudi, 2014). Meaningful support for the parenting role comes through parents’ use of social media and other social technologies to interact with other parents, family, and friends. In the U.S., 29% of parents report getting information from social media, and 19% from message boards. Participation in discussion forums and social media offers parents emotional validation, normalization of concerns, and tailored information for problem-solving and decision-making (Drentea & Moren-Cross, 2005; Walker & Rudi, 2014). Indeed, some of the earliest research on parents’ technology use was in the health care community, as nurses observed parents with special needs children using discussion forums to exchange information and ideas (Scharer, 2005). More recent research has identified social media and blogging as a form of expression and support that is valuable for parents of children with special needs/health challenges (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017; Nagelhout et al., 2018) and for other marginalized groups of parents, including LGBTQ (Blackwell et al., 2016). And using social media during transition points in parenting can be validating and bridge identity shifts to new roles (Bartholomew et al., 2012). Younger parents and mothers are especially likely to use social media to share information about their children, compared with fathers and older parents (Auxier et al., 2020; Steinmetz, 2015). Blum-Ross and Livingstone (2017) write that “sharenting” helps manage the juggling of identities as parent, problem solver, and information seeker. Still, fathers and grandparents, foster parents and other caregivers are a significant presence among bloggers. Blogging, and interacting on social media, enables parents and caregivers to transmit images and pictures of the parent’s child and of themselves in ways that deepen the sense of themselves as caregivers and perhaps anticipate themselves into the future.
For some parents, however sharing their parenting experiences and children’s lives online brings up feelings of guilt and ethical dilemmas. And as noted, such use can also override children’s privacy and opinions on the use of their personal information. In preparation for a radio discussion on children’s privacy online, the author ran across a Buzzfeed news item on “pumpkin butt.” Parents submitted pictures of their baby’s bottom painted with a pumpkin for a voter competition. While to many this may be cute, and it may provide some parents a sense of connection and even pride if their baby is voted for, it can also be seen as an invasion of the child’s privacy and contributing to the commodification of children’s bodies.
“Sharenting” online can offer parents ways to express themselves in the caregiving identity, yet some do so with a sense of guilt knowing the ethical dilemma of invading their child’s privacy.There is particular value in virtual exchanges that strengthen parents’ social capital and its personal and parenting benefits (McLean et al., 2017). Definitions of social capital vary by structural (e.g., network ties that forge and define relationships) or content impacts (e.g., quality of interaction and exchanges across ties that maintain a sense of cohesion). Person-to-person repeated exchange within groups can produce familiarity and feelings of trust, strengthening bonding social capital. Parents’ interactions through social networking can also form bridging social capital, or connections to new networks which offer new, more novel connections, and the opportunity to learn new information about parenting. Cochran’s perspective on parents’ personal social networks (Cochran & Walker, 2005), supported by research and later applied to parents’ use of the internet (Walker & Greenhow, 2010), indicates that heterogeneous connections are positive for parents through the diversity of perspectives and acquisition of novel information.
There is evidence of the valuable impact of social network membership and processes for parents’ actions and attitudes in parenting and, as a result, positive albeit indirect impacts on child outcomes. Given what we know about relational processes that promote learning by adults (e.g., McShane et al., 2014; Brookfield, 2020), the author has asserted the value of these online social connections as providing social learning outcomes in complement with social support and social capital (Walker, 2015). Jointly, these social products inform and support the parent’s assets brought to parenting. The figure below demonstrates the complexity of factors involved in parent technology use intersecting with social network membership, engagement, and eventual outcomes. It demonstrates on the right, the social structures and processes that provide resources to parents, which contribute to the parent’s well-being, the relationship with the child, and potential outcomes. These social elements also take place in virtual worlds and through the use of digital media (left). Access to the internet and digital media, and skills and comfort in using them, further vary parents’ access to and use of their social supports as assets in their parenting.
When interacting online, particularly using social media, some parents proceed with caution. Online interactions for parents can be challenging for some. Fear of judgment, self-comparison, and diminished confidence in childrearing can result (Steinmetz, 2015). Additional researchers have shown that discussions can also promote particular perspectives. For example, Madge and O’Connor (2006) note that while mothers’ exchanges on parenting through discussion forums were viewed as helpful at the time, those taking to the internet reinforced a more traditional stereotype of mothering. In the search for validation and content — an issue that affects all parents (Cavalcante, 2015; Fraser & Llewellen, 2015) — individuals in caregiving roles may need to find the best “fit” between content and their values for the experience to be most meaningful.
With this background on parenting revealing intentions and goals of those who hold this role in families, we begin to see the ways that ICT can help to fulfill those goals and how differences in access, comfort, skill using technology, and parent profiles reveal variation in this population. In this chapter we offer an essential though often under-discussed dimension of parenting: parent self-development and self-care. Indeed, social media, applications, internet searches, and exchanges of information present an array of opportunities for parents to find support for the parenting role.
1. This is just one of several parenting pyramids characterizing parenting roles and processes. See, for example, the Parenting Pyramid from the Arbinger Institute, which embeds guidance within the relationship: https://content.byui.edu/file/91e7c9...id_article.pdf
2. How ironic then that it wasn't too long ago (1998) that a book in the popular press by an independent researcher stirred up conversation whether parents even mattered.
3. A word on the word “competency:” it refers here to the skills applied to caregiving, rather than a qualitative assessment. There are volumes of research on this concept, and readers are encouraged to see how scholarship defines and measures “competent” parenting. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/06%3A_Technology_Use_by_Parents/6.01%3A_Technology_Use_by_Parents.txt |
Auxier, B., Anderson, M., Perrin, A., and Turner, E. (2020, July 28). Parenting Kids in the Age of Screens. Pew Internet and American Life.
Azar, S. T. (2003). Adult development and parenthood: A social-cognitive perspective. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti (Eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 391-415). New York: Springer.
Baker, S., Sanders, M. R., and Morawska, A. (2017). Who uses online parenting support? A cross-sectional survey exploring Australian parents’ internet use for parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(3), 916-927.
Bartholomew, M., Schoppe-Sullivan, S., Glassman, M., Kamp Dush, C. & Sullivan, J. (2012). New parents’ facebook use at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations 61, 455 – 469.
Beamish, N., Fisher, J., and Rowe, H. (2019). Parents’ use of mobile computing devices, caregiving and the social and emotional development of children: a systematic review of the evidence. Australasian Psychiatry, 27(2), 132-143.
Belsky, J. (1984.) The determinants of parenting. Child Development, 55 (1), 83-96.
Blackwell, L., Gardiner, E., and Schoenebeck, S. (2016, February). Managing expectations: Technology tensions among parents and teens. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing pp. 1390-1401.
Blum-Ross, A., Donoso, V., Dinh, T., Mascheroni, G., O’Neill, B., Riesmeyer, C., and Stoilova, M. (2018). Looking forward: Technological and social change in the lives of European children and young people. Report for the ICT Coalition for Children Online. Brussels: ICT Coalition.
Blum-Ross, A. and Livingstone, S. (2017) ‘“Sharenting”, parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self ’, Popular Communication, 15(2): 110‒125.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. Elder Jr. and K. Luscher (Eds), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 619-647.
Brookfield, S. (2020) Teaching for Critical thinking. Ch 12. pp. 229-245. In Handbook of Research on Ethical Challenges in Higher Education Leadership and Administration. V. Wang, Ed. IGI Global publications. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4141-8.ch012
Cavalcante, A. (2015). Anxious displacements: The representation of gay parenting on Modern Family and The New Normal and the management of cultural anxiety. Television & New Media, 16(5), 454-471.
Cochran, M. & Walker, S. (2005). Parenting and Personal Social Networks. In T. Luster and L. Ogakaki, Eds. Parenting: An Ecological Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
CommonsenseMedia (2016). The Commonsense Census: Plugged-in Parents of Tweens and Teens, Commonsense Media. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-plugged-in-parents-of-tweens-and-teens-2016
Coyne, S. M., Radesky, J., Collier, K. M., Gentile, D. A., Ruh Linder, J., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reich, S. M., and Rogers, J. (2017). Parenting and digital media. Pediatrics, 140, s112–s116.
Drentea, P., & Moren-Cross, J. (2005). Social capital and social support on the web: The case of an Internet mother site. Sociology of Health and Illness, 27, 920-943.
Duggan, M., Lenhart, A., Lampe, C., Ellison, N.B. (2015) Parents and Social Media. Pew Research Center.
Dworkin, J., Hessel, H., and LeBouef, S. (2019). The Use of Communication Technology in the Context of Adolescent and Family Development: An Integration of Family and Media Theories. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11(4), 510-523.
Fraser, V., & Llewellyn, G. (2015). Good, bad or absent: Discourses of parents with disabilities in Australian news media. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 28(4), 319-329.
Galinsky, E. (1987). The six stages of parenthood. Perseus Books.
Ito, M., Arum, A., Conley, D., Gutiérrez, K., Kirshner, B., Livingstone, S., Michalchik, V., Penuel, W., Peppler, K., Pinkard, N. 2020. The Connected Learning Research Network: Reflections on a Decade of Engaged Scholarship. Irvine, CA: Connected Learning Alliance.
Jankowicz, N. (2022). The internet is failing moms to be. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/pregnanc...isinformation/
Johnson, B., Bergdahl, L., Horne, M., Richter, E., and Walters, M. (2014). A parenting competency model. Parenting: Science and Practice, 14: 92-120. doi: 10.1080/15295192.2014.914361
Katz, V. S., Moran, M. B., and Gonzalez, C. (2018). Connecting with technology in lower-income US families. New Media and Society, 20(7), 2509-2533.
Lauricella, A. R., Cingel, D. P., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., Robb, M. B., Saphir, M., & Wartella, E. A. (2016).The Common Sense census: Plugged-in parents of tweens and teens. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.
Lim, S. S. (2016). ‘Through the tablet glass: transcendent parenting in an era of mobile media and cloud computing.’ Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 21‒29. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.1121896
Livingstone, S. (2021, March 3). “I recognise how important technology is, now more than ever”: the dilemmas of digital parenting. Parenting for a Digital Future.
Livingstone, S., & A. Blum-Ross (2020). Parenting for a Digital Future. How hopes and fears about technology share children’s lives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Livingstone, S., Blum-Ross, A., Pavlick, J., and Olafsson, K. (2018). In the digital home, how do parents support their children and who supports them? Parenting for a Digital Future: Survey Report 1. Department of Media and Communications, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Madge, C. & O’Connor, H. (2006). Parenting gone wired: empowerment of new mothers on the Internet? Social and cultural geography, 7 (2), 199-220.
Mahasneh, O., Murad, O. S., & Al-Shuaybat, W. A. (2021). Factors Affecting Parents’ Acceptance of Distance E-LearningAccording of The Corona Pandemic. Multicultural Education, 7(6).
Marienau, C. & Segal, J. (2006). Parents as developing adult learners. Child Welfare, 85(5), 768-784.
McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technoference: longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatric Research, 84, 210-218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-018-0052-6
McLean, K., Edwards, S., and Morris, H. (2017). Community playgroup social media and parental learning about young children’s play. Computers and Education, 115, 201-210.
McShane, I., Cook, K., Sinclair, S. Keam, G. and Fry, J.. (2016) “Relationships Matter: The Social and Economic Benefits of Community Playgroups.” RMIT. A Research Report Prepared for Playgroup Australia.
Myers-Walls, J. A., and Dworkin, J. (2015). Parenting education without borders: web-based outreach. In Ponzetti, J., (Ed.) Evidence-based parenting education: A global perspective. pp. 149-166. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nagelhout, E. S., Linder, L. A., Austin, T., Parsons, B. G., Scott, B., Gardner, E., … and Wu, Y. P. (2018). Social media use among parents and caregivers of children with cancer. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 35(6), 399-405.
Nathanson, A. I. (2018). How parents manage young children’s mobile media use. Families and Technology, 9, 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95540-7_1
Scharer, K. (2005). Internet social support for parents: The state of science. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 18 (1), 26-35.
Steinmetz, K. (2015, October). Help, my parents are millennials. Time, 35–43.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The Developmental Niche: A Conceptualization at the Interface of Child and Culture. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 545-569. doi.org/10.1177/016502548600900409
Walker, S. (2020). Parent Learning as Community of Practice and the Potential of an Online Platform. In Progress in Education. Volume 62. R. Nauta (Ed.) Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
Walker, S. (2015) Social dynamics of media use on parenting: A conceptual framework. In Family Communication in the Age of Digital and Social Media, Carol Breuss, Ed. New York: Peter Lang.
Walker, S., Dworkin, J. & Connell, J. (2011). Variation in Parent Use of Information and Communications Technology: Does Quantity Matter?. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal. 40(2), 106-119.
Walker, S. and Greenhow, C. (2010). The Internet and Human Relationships: Revisiting the Personal Social Networks of Parents Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations, Theory Construction and Research Methodology workshop.
Walker, S & Rudi, J. (2014). Parenting Across the Social Ecology Facilitated by Information and Communications Technology: Implications for Research and Educational Design. Journal of Human Sciences and Extension, 2, 2-19.
Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauriella, A & Connell, S. (2013). Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology: A National Survey. Northwestern University, Center on Media and Human Development.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zero to Three (2016). Tuning in National Parent Survey Report. Alexandria, VA: Zero to Three.
Zhang, D., and Livingstone, S. (2019). Inequalities in how parents support their children’s development with digital technologies. Parenting for a digital future. London School of Economics. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/06%3A_Technology_Use_by_Parents/6.02%3A_References.txt |
Parents and technology use
Interview at least three different parents about their technology use. Compare and contrast what you hear from them in terms of the ways in which they use technology to support their parenting. Do they follow blogs or post on discussion forums? Do they use social media for connections with friends about parenting? Or might some of the parents not use technology at all for assistance in parenting Perhaps they search for information, but nothing more. Do they parent about technology (as in monitoring their children’s use)? Compare and contrast what you learn from the parents. In what ways do they differ in their use of technology to support themselves as parents?
Parents and “sharenting”
Livingstone and Blum-Ross write about “sharenting” (2017)[1] when parents blog and microblog (such as in social media feeds). They challenge the value of blogging as a way of strengthening parent identity through self-expression, arguing instead that it compromises details of the child’s or family’s life. Select at least five blogs by parents, preferably all mothers or all fathers, and review at least 5–10 posts in each. Get a sense of the content of each post and of the overall themes presented by the blog. Compare the blogs. What is your take on the degree to which parents overshare and potentially compromise their children’s identity and agency? What is your take on the value to parents’ own confidence, validation of their choices as parents, and development?
Pregnancy and childbirth apps
Inspect a random selection of apps related to pregnancy and childbirth. (You may want to create a junk email account to gain access to more internal features.) In your review, determine the real purpose of the apps, who is distributing them, and what they get in return for your free use. Examine the information provided. Is it scientifically and medically sound? How would you know? Which of the apps (if any) would you recommend to someone who is pregnant?
1. Popular Communication, 15(2), 110–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
6.04: Blog Prompts
For more than 20 years, Blogher has provided internet space and tools for women to write blogs. Many of these blogs are from mothers who express themselves and their thoughts and concerns about being a mother in today’s society. Some offer parenting tips, or blend parenting with other personal activity interests (e.g., cooking, party planning, travel). Tens of thousands of women blog through Blogher, many with devoted followers. Consider the potential benefits and costs of this blogging.
• What does writing a parenting blog mean in terms of time cost and personal energy?
• What does it mean in terms of the commodification of a mother’s image? Might she feel the need to “be” a certain kind of mother, or to share certain stories or images to capture readers in the busy marketplace of the internet?
• What might her sharing stories and images of her children and family mean to their sense of personal privacy? We might argue that personal blogging can be an extension and expression of the identity of motherhood that is positive for the woman’s confidence, but what costs might it run to herself and her family?
• Considering the landscape of “mommy blogs,” are there mothers’ voices that are NOT represented?
• What about fathers? Other types of parents (e.g., grandparents, foster parents). Would their blogging be any different than mothers’? Why might their voices not be as represented as mothers?
Consider that your own technology use is, in part, a product of your generation, your exposure to technology, and the demand for use in your personal, school, and work life. And consider that parents who are part of your generation are influenced by what they are exposed to through technology, and that their behavior (shown by the amount of technology they consume) can model media habits to their children, and can shape their beliefs about themselves as role models and about the influence of technology on their children. What are your thoughts & feelings about your future roles as parents or as caregivers and what your technology use might mean?
There are many parenting websites, discussion communities, Facebook groups, and other social groups and blogs. When you consider that we want parents to use these sites in ways that provide emotional support and accurate information, and that promote positive parenting, do they? Are engaging, readable, accurate? Are they gossipy, exclusionary, or downright hostile? For your post, construct criteria for web tools for parents, and then identify five tools to compare using your criteria. Based on your review, what can you gather about tools for parents? For mother? For fathers? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/06%3A_Technology_Use_by_Parents/6.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
Well, an element of conflict in any discussion’s a very good thing.
It means everybody is taking part and nobody is left out.
― from Harvey by Mary Chase
Chapter Insights
• Two concepts that underlie parent-child relationships: the emotional context of parenting style as the balance (or imbalance) of demandingness and warmth; and relationship dynamics as the coordination of agency/communion perspectives by parent and by child.
• Parental mediation can be active, restrictive, and indirect. Active mediation involves parent-child communication, parent engagement in media content exposure, and coordinated activity to negotiate rules.
• A variety of factors related to the parents (e.g., mediacentrism), the child (e.g., age) and the context (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic) can affect parent behavior on regulating children’s use.
• Reverse mediation, or when children’s knowledge of technology exceeds parents’ and enacted to aid the parent’s use, can be a potential conflict in the relationship.
• Conflict in the parent-child relationship might occur in several ways related to technology (e.g., through parental attempts to control technology use, negotiations on content).
• Differences exist in perceived conflict in families by child age (e.g., fewer parents report conflict with children under 8 years), and changes in parent control with age. Influences on parental control can relate to the child’s advancing development (e.g., confidence, knowledge of child’s actual use, ability to stick with plans).
• Potential conflict to the parent-child relationship, to parenting, and to the child’s well-being can occur through the parent’s own technology use while with the child. Distractedness (or “technoference”) has been related to a variety of parenting consequences.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
The Parent-Child Relationship
Relationships between parents and children are key to family well-being: as a vehicle to “successful” parenting, which means healthy child development; in the ongoing happiness of children and of parents; and in overall family satisfaction. The dynamic between parent and child is a reciprocal, emotional context through which information is communicated that guides the child’s understanding of themselves and the world; through which the parent expresses their knowledge, experience, goals, and dreams for their child; and through which the parent develops (Azar, 2006; Harach & Kuczynski, 2005). And as parenting is a social role, one conferred with certain responsibility and expectation by the society and culture in which the family lives, the relationship with the child may be viewed differently. Some may view the role with more authoritarian rights; others may view the child’s agency as a vehicle for expression that calls for a more democratic, authoritative approach (Bornstein, 2012). And some may be so overwhelmed by society’s demands and challenges that they view the role with near resignation and give authority to the child to determine their path.
And each parent-child experience is different. As we viewed Belsky’s multiple determinant model in Chapter 6, we saw how parents’ perspectives change with experience, age, gender, socialization, and developmental history. Their interactions also depend on unique characteristics of the child. And the social context factors heavily on the parent-child dynamic, particularly as support is available to buffer stressors. In short, each relationship between a parent and child is like no other. It is forever in the life of the child, and it changes over time and with changes that occur in the lives of the parent and of the child. This transactional, developmental, contextual consideration of the parent-child relationship over time has led scholars to call for using a life-course perspective when characterizing the enduring nature of the unique human experience as facilitated by technology (Dworkin et al., 2019; Shin et al., 2021).
In previous chapters we’ve gleaned the systemic, ecological, and biological forces on individuals in families and on family member subsets, and understood technology as an external force that influences the family through facilitating communication, aiding family life, and at times introducing conflict through differences in the ways that family members use technology. In Chapter 5 we understood the many ways technology can impact all domains of children’s development — cognitive, social, psychological, and physical — and differences in use and impacts as children age from infants through young adults. In Chapter 6 we reviewed basic functions of parenting that emphasize the physical health and well-being of the child (keeping the child safe and thriving); guiding the many social, emotional, cognitive, and physical aspects of the child’s development; and at times being an advocate for the child. We saw that technology could support the parent’s role in childrearing — primarily as it supports the parent as a vehicle to social and informational support, and as an expression of the parent’s identity. We also introduced other ways that parents use technology in the parenting role — with their children, and with technology as the focus of their parenting.
In this chapter we take a closer look at these dynamic elements of technology in the parent-child relationship, including how parents enact their role in childrearing through parenting about technology. Parents mediate, monitor, and moderate children’s use, and in keeping their children safe and their technology use effective, parents also model ways to use technology through their own behavior. Parents mediate, monitor, and moderate children’s use, and in keeping their children safe and their technology use effective, parents also model ways to use technology through their own behavior. Yet there are certain “paradoxes” that affect technology’s application to the parent-child relationship (Hessel & Dworkin, 2018; Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005). For example, we see that generational differences in exposure to technology, comfort and skill in use, and motivations for use can create a shift in a relationship’s power dynamic. This may result in friction between parent and child. This chapter will explore those possibilities and recommendations for peaceful negotiation.
This chapter will also look at technology use as it positively facilitates and influences the quality of parent-child relationship. Applications like FaceTime, texting, and social media are used to maintain communication and feelings of connectedness between parent and child, and can promote feelings of cohesion. This can be seen by the time college students spend texting or making video or voice calls to their parents while away (Vaterlaus et al., 2019), and in the heavy use of videoconferencing between parents and children, and grandparents and children, during COVID (Hamilton, et al, 2021). Indeed many parents and children are quite positive about having mobile devices as a means for continued family contact. Media multiplexity theory posits that when a “repertoire” of technologies are used, the relationship is closer (McCurdy et al., 2022).
Yet relational use can also mean the nonverbal communication that comes when a parent or child ignores the other, distracted by technology. Sadly this is an all too real scenario that can disrupt quality in the relationship. Studies suggest that parental distraction by technology can compromise secure attachment and, consequently, child development (Kildare & Middlemiss, 2019; McDaniel, 2019). Parents can also overshare online, much to the embarrassment of the child (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017). These elements of technology and the parent-child relationship are explored in this chapter.
Finally, analysts of the existing literature identify both assets and challenges of current technology and the ways in which they are used to facilitate the parent-child relationship (e.g., Shin et al., 2021). The chapter closes with their observations and questions to move us forward in this important family topic.
Parenting Frameworks
To set the stage for a deeper understanding of the parent-child relationship dynamic, we’ll explore two parenting frameworks. One is a frequently used construct of the parent’s style of communicating which offers an emotional context for the relationship. The other is less well known, yet presents the balanced perspective of both actors in the relationship and the balance required for connection.
Parenting style
Parenting style is frequently studied as the emotional context through which parents assert authority or invite children’s input while guiding children’s behavior (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, 2017; Smetana, 2017). Because of this, parenting style has been conceptually and empirically related to measurable elements of childrearing, such as demonstration of support, relational depth, and parent–child conflict (Aloia & Warren, 2019), which in turn contribute to myriad child outcomes (Smetana, 2017).
Baumrind’s (1971) parenting style construct uses demonstrations at the intersection of warmth and demandingness as indication of authoritative (balanced), authoritarian (high demandingness, low warmth), permissive (low demandingness, high warmth), and neglectful (low demandingness, low warmth) childrearing. Contemporary perspectives on Baumrind’s construct encourage adaptations through a cultural and contextual lens, and consideration of factors such as parenting beliefs that moderate demonstrations of style (Smetana, 2017). More domain-specific applications have been suggested which are sensitive to the interplay between parent’s goals, child’s needs, and parenting processes.[1]
Examples of parenting style and parental mediation have found, in general, that those who are more permissive (higher in warmth over control) are less likely to restrict children’s screen time, while those who are more authoritarian are more likely to do so. In a 2009 study, Bumpass and Werner explored types of parental technology regulation. They studied 113 children in 3rd to 6th grades and 109 mothers, identifying four clusters based on rules, enforcement strategies, consequences, and child adjustment. Traditional mothers reported rules related to time, permission, and co-viewing. Technology-specific mothers used blocking software, filtering, and removal of privileges. Passive mothers voiced rules that required only minimal parental supervision, and they were more watchful of the child’s interest. And the children of parents with few rules (e.g., neglectful) reported slightly higher levels of internalizing problems such as depression and anxiety, and demonstrated slightly lower levels of prosocial behavior.
Wartella et al. (2013) found a parallel between parenting style and family media practices. Looking at families with children between birth to 8 years, those in mediacentric households (reporting approximately 11 hours or more per day) were more permissive than those who were media moderate or “media light.” Children in mediacentric homes are also more likely to have televisions in their bedrooms.
As demonstration of the complexity of applying the parenting style construct to the parent-child relationship with technology, a study of 504 parent-teen (12–17 year old) pairs proposed a model linking parenting style, online relational behaviors, and relational quality (Aloia & Warren, 2019). The researchers hypothesized that parental behaviors such as sending comforting messages and sharing material would mediate (i.e., be a conveyor for) parenting style and parent-child relationship quality including parent-child conflict and relational depth. In fact, although they validated previous research linking parenting style to relationship quality (e.g., enhanced parent-child conflict with authoritarian or permissive parenting), they found no relationship between parenting style, online relational behaviors by the parents, and relationship quality. Authoritarian parenting showed no relationship to any of the online strategies (comforting messages, material sharing, planning behaviors), and authoritative parenting showed positive and significant relationships to all three, yet permissive parenting also related significantly to two of the actions (comforting messages and material sharing). Planning behaviors and positive messages online were positively related to parental comfort, yet planning behaviors and material sharing were also related to perceived conflict. The authors observed methodological limitations (e.g., data from self-report) as a cause for the unexpected result, but also suggested that, with regard to mediated communication channels, parents and children may develop unique norms (p. 53). As Dworkin, et al. (2019) observe,
“The insurgence of technology has completely changed the family landscape, challenging what we know and requiring a reassessment of how we understand family relationships during adolescence, a time when technology acquires new meaning for developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. (p. 514).”
Agency and Communion
Facilitating the child’s well-being related to technology through and while maintaining a positive relationship with the child is no small feat for parents. In promoting the child’s development, the relationship must be a balance of agency and communion by both individuals: assertion of the parent’s power while keeping in mind communion with the child; promotion of the child’s agency and independence, while keeping in mind the relationship. In promoting the child’s development, the relationship must be a balance of agency and communion by both individuals: assertion of the parent’s power while keeping in mind communion with the child; promotion of the child’s agency and independence, while keeping in mind the relationship. Unlike parenting style, which assesses the actions of the parent, perspectives of agency and communion regard both actors in the relationship (Heck & Pincus, 2001; Wiggins, 1991). Each person, in interaction with the other, asserts an action reflecting dimensions of both coordinates. Conflict arises when both are seeking agency (or power) more than communion. As related to parent-child relationships, conflicts occur with both child noncompliance and resistance to parents requests (high agency/low communion) and with parent resistance to children’s requests (high agency/low communion) (Eisenberg, 1992).
For example, if my partner and I are deciding on a vacation location, and I want to go to the mountains and they want to go to the beach, as we both assert our agency (power) in our desires, we compromise the value of communion (joint happiness). We are at a standstill and our relationship suffers. If, however, through discussion, we listen to each other about the interests of the other with a true value for the relationship and we come to compromise, we are more balanced in our individual agency and communion. Within the parent-child relationship, the parent’s actions are tempered by understanding the developmental age and ability of the child, and changes in that development over time (Heck & Pincus, 2001). Agency by the parent is, in part, a personal expression of fulfilling the responsibilities of childrearing. The joint balance of agency and communion between parent and child in negotiation and understanding is within this structure of safety and growth.
The ecological context is a consideration for both parent-child relationship models when applied to new media and digital technology. As observed in previous chapters, interactions and dynamics of the relationship are influenced by ecological contexts of the microsystem of the family, and by exosystems, macrosystems, and chronosystems. These systems create influences on the development of both the child and the parent, and on the conditions in which the family lives. Technology access and use and qualities of the devices and applications are external and inherent influences in each of the systems that can both facilitate and challenge relational dynamics (Navarro & Tudge, 2022; Lanigan, 2009).
Parental Mediation and the Parent-Child Relationship
Fully 98% of parents in a recent U.S. study believe it is the parent’s responsibility to protect children from online content (Auxier et al., 2020), compared to 65% expecting the government or technology (78%) companies to bear responsibility. While most parents (71%) are aware of and concerned about the amount of time children 11 and younger are spending with screens (Auxier et al., 2020), more (84%) report feeling confident that they know how much screen time is too much. Most (71%) believe that widespread use of smartphones might be harmful to their children’s socioemotional learning. There is also concern by most about exposure to online predators (63%), sexually explicit content (60%), and violent content (59%). While bullying is a general concern of many parents, the majority (96% of parents of children 5–11) report that their child has not been bullied online (Auxier et al., 2020).
As parents assert their responsibilities to keep children safe online and guide their development, potential areas of conflict include:
1. Parental attempts to regulate use.
2. Parental concern over potentially negative consequences of internet use that can lead to over-restrictions on use.
3. An imbalance of power as expertise in technology use varies between parent and child.
4. Counter modeling of technology by parents’ own use (e.g., do as I say, not as I do)
5. Parent invasion of children’s online social space.
The majority of families don’t perceive significant conflict around technology. Parents of young children (birth to age 8) don’t perceive regulating children’s technology use to be a conflict (Wartella et al., 2013). Even parents of older children (8 to 18 years) don’t report significant struggles. In a 2016 Commonsense Media report, nearly two-thirds of parents (62%) disagreed that getting a child to turn off their smartphone or tablet was a struggle. The majority (85%) agreed that monitoring child safety was important, and nearly the same amount (81%) disagreed that the child was less likely to communicate face-to-face. That said, parents of boys and of those children with lower grades did report greater struggle. Similarly, a 2018 report of families in the European Union also determined that most do not report conflict on technology use (Livingstone et al., 2015).
In large part, there is optimism that the lack of conflict observed in families is the result of technology oversight integrated into parenting practices and the parent-child relationship. Technology and adolescence researcher Candice Ogders (2018) observes,
Because online problems can be largely predicted by young people’s vulnerabilities offline, much of our existing knowledge about what promotes healthy child development is applicable even in what seems like a foreign digital landscape. Strategies such as the maintenance of supportive parent–child relationships that encourage disclosure, parental involvement in the activities of their children, and the avoidance of overly restrictive or coercive monitoring will help to support adolescents and keep them safe online, just as they do offline.
In the next section we explore types of mediation practices in families, and the potential for conflict, and the opportunities for parent-child communication.
Mediation practices
Mediation practices vary by type and family (Rudi & Dworkin, 2018). Frequently, mediation practices are labeled as active or “enabling” (of positive technology use) or restrictive. A recent qualitative study with 40 parents of Australian teens (Page, 2021) identified five mediation strategies, three of which were active: physical observation, digital surveillance, and trust-based and discursive strategies; one restrictive: restriction and control through social or technical means; and one (as alluded to in Chapter 6), indirect: talking with other parents. Parents’ active mediation occurs through direct parent-to-child interaction and conversation about media’s effects. Co-viewing or co-participation (such as playing games) enables parents to actively mediate and monitor children’s exposure and scaffold healthy use. More restrictive mediation means setting rules regarding the time spent or content viewed. It can also mean “e-rewards,” in which parents withhold or grant technology use in recognition of good behavior. More restrictive mediation means setting rules regarding the time spent or content viewed. It can also mean “e-rewards,” in which parents withhold or grant technology use in recognition of good behavior. Across the approaches, restrictive mediation can reduce negative media effects, and co-viewing or “enabling” can enhance or facilitate media’s positive effects (Coyne et al., 2017).
The EU Kids Online report (2020) surveyed children age 9–16 years in 19 countries. An average of 33% said their parents actively talk to them about the internet, 30% said sometimes, and 37% said never. Across countries, on average, higher percentages of children at younger ages reported parent discussion about the internet “at least sometimes:” 67% of 9–11 year olds, 61% of 12–14 year olds, and 54% of those 16 and older. When asked about active mediation strategies by parents, friends, and teachers, the highest percentages were reported for parents (e.g., 64% reported that parents “help me when something bothers me on the internet,” compared with 45% friends and 35% teachers). Internet safety is a common topic of mediation, with 85% of EU children reporting that their parents talk about this. More technical controls are far less frequently reported (22%, on average, report parental control through GPS monitoring, use of software that blocks or filters internet content, or tracking applications) . Also, a minority of children — about 15% — reported restrictions on using a web camera, downloading music, or using social media. That said, there are very clear differences in social media use restrictions by age, with the majority of children age 9–11 indicating that they cannot use social media.
The resolution of “conflict” with mediation is more nuanced than might be believed. Recent research with Australian families of teens revealed the range of ways that parents negotiating technology use with their teenagers (Page, 2021). Traditional mediation strategies may be used, but when they are not successful parents turn to other strategies, such as trust-based and discursive (reasoned negotiation) ones. Similarly, in interview research with pre-teen and teenage children (n=23) and their parents (n=18, Blackwell et al., 2016), children expressed the desire for shared expectations, rather than more attention to the issue of technology. They claimed that parents primarily told them what not to do, and didn’t have a very accurate perception of either the quantity or quality of their screen time, or its effects on them. The interviews unlocked a more complex dynamic than of parents establishing rules and children breaking them. They identified a give-and-take in negotiating family life, in which children’s needs and desires for technology use are taken into consideration, and reflect nuance — for example, when “rule violation” is acceptable. The authors concluded that families respect the developing teen’s need for privacy and independence, while maintaining consistent and realistic expectations around work, attention, and the interests of the whole family to better manage household technology use.
Influences on parental mediation
Age of child
Parental restrictions on children’s technology use largely curve with the child’s age — with monitoring occurring through co-use in early childhood and middle childhood, then tapering off through adolescence.
Naab (2018) refers to early childhood parenting mediation as “trusteeship,” as the cognition and communication skill limitations of the very young child confer responsibilities on the parent to oversee their access and safe use as they make the transition to mediating children’s own active, independent use. Co-viewing with young children appears to be predominantly through traditional media including books, TV, smartphones, and tablets, and less so with games (Connell et al., 2015). As an indication of the blend of parental agency in the role and accommodating a child’s need, some parents may use media to soothe babies who are fussy and demonstrate poor self-regulation. Mediation with school age children can be restrictive (limiting use of hardware or software, including taking away technology as a punishment), monitoring (tracking use, messages, and the child’s location), and active (talking to children about their technology use) (Auxier et al., 2020; Blum-Ross et al., 2018; Livingstone et al., 2015).
Parents’ conversations with their children about the content of their media also varies by child age. In Commonsense Media’s 2016 study of parents and their teens and “tweens,” parents were more likely to talk with their 12–14 year olds about media content while watching television, viewing apps on a device, using a computer for something other than homework, and playing videogames than with their teenagers; only when it came to social media did parents report higher frequencies of discussing content with children. Coyne et al. (2017) observe that research has yet to determine the interplay between parents’ mediation strategies and more specific child characteristics.
Family demographic differences
Consider how factors such as income and education may relate to technology co-use and to mediation practices. How might living with limited resources and/or in possibly higher risk/lower resource neighborhoods affect opportunities for learning and time with children? for access to materials and devices? to daily stressors and demands that might relate to media consumption? To parent digital literacy?
Parents’ education, income, gender, and age may influence mediation. Parents who are higher in income and educational attainment and who demonstrate more comfort with technology may exercise more mediational practices. Livingstone et al. (2015) determined socioeconomic differences in mediation strategies and attitudes in a sample of parents of primarily 4- to 7-year-old children in seven countries, including England, Finland, and Russia. Families with less income, formal education, who are non-White, and whose parents measure higher on depression are more likely to report higher rates of media consumption. When surveyed, many parents note that media provides a safe, inexpensive, and available form of entertainment for their children (Livingstone et al., 2018). Similarly, Wartella et al.’s (2013) observation of permissive parenting style and mediacentrism, noted earlier, also showed demographic correlations. Parents who were lower-income and single reported greater consumption of media in the household than those with other demographic characteristics. Media was reported as a favorite family activity, and mothers were more likely to report using it as a parenting tool (e.g., keeping a child occupied and safe while she attended to other duties). It should be noted, however, that in a U.S. sample Connell et al. (2015) found scant relationships to co-viewing with young children by parent education level or race. Parents in the EU with more education and income used a diversity of mediation strategies and encouraged non-school media use for learning. Cross national variation in parent mediation strategies has been found among the Finnish (actively engaged), Czech (passive), and in EU and UK countries and Russia (restrictive) (Helsper et al., 2013).
Mothers are more likely to demonstrate mediation than fathers (Connell et al., 2015; CSM, 2016). In their research among Portuguese school-age children, Ferreira et al. (2017) identified not only parent gender differences in mediation by type of activity (e.g., fathers actively mediating children’s use while playing videogames), but gendered perspectives by children of parents’ technology mediation. Children perceived fathers as more skilled in using technology, reported that their technology was for work (vs. mothers’ devices that were to be shared), and that the father’s mediation was more technical (e.g., uploading, removing software) and mother’s more digital (e.g., exposure to content quality).
Parents’ technology use, comfort, and skill
Parents’ mediation strategies appear to relate to their attitudes toward technology, their competencies, and their own use, as observed in research in EU countries (Brito et al., 2017; Livingstone et al., 2018) and research in the US (e.g., Commonsense Media, 2016; Wartella et al., 2013). Observing the construct of reasoned action applied to technology acceptance (Ajzen, 1985), Nikken and Opree’s (2018) survey of parents of young children (ages 1–9) in the Netherlands identified basic proficiency associated with the ease of active co-use. Advanced and basic proficiency with technology related to restrictive mediation, and advanced proficiency related to imposing technical restrictions. As Naab (2018) observed from in depth interviews with 29 parents of young children, parents are often uncertain about digital strategies and gain proficiency over time through interaction with their child, acquisition of knowledge about technology’s affordances and challenges, and their own comfort with the interplay between themselves and their child’s needs.Parents are often uncertain about digital strategies and gain proficiency over time through interaction with their child, acquisition of knowledge about technology’s affordances and challenges, and their own comfort with the interplay between themselves and their child’s needs.
Parental use can influence the effectiveness of their mediation strategies. In the Commonsense Media study with over 1100 parents in 2016, parents spend more than 9 hours a day with screen media (especially personal media like smartphones) . A majority (78%) believe they are good media and technology models for their children. Yet research with parent-teen pairs indicates that when teens see parents’ time on their phones similar to their own, they question parental advice and role modeling (Commonsense Media, 2016; Livingstone et al., 2018).
Child guidance and the power differential
Children are challenged when their parents are ‘all thumbs’ with using technology.
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=408#oembed-1
The picture of parental mediation can get complicated as a generation of children grow up with technology in ways far different than those of their parents, and a potential power dynamic is shifted. Livingstone et al. 2018 observe this particularly in lower-income and immigrant homes, as children gain more comfort and skill with technology than their parents (Livingstone et al., 2018), or when children need to assist parents with language translation and technology. Perhaps this is why teens don’t turn to parents for safety issues related to technology (Blum-Ross et al., 2018; Commonsense Media, 2018), or for information on sexual health. Flores and Barroso (2018) identified SES differences in parental technology comfort and use and the ability to talk to their teenagers about sex. Limited knowledge of how technology works, including realities of peer communication, privacy issues and laws, and the potential for exposure to imagery, act as barriers to parental communication that supports the child’s sexual health.
Various scholars have characterized this complicated parent-child power dynamic (Dworkin et al., 2019). Livingstone across 19 countries, on average 40% of 9–16-year-olds report often or very often helping parents when they found something difficult online, and 29% sometimes helping parents. This differential in knowledge can upset the traditional family hierarchy. (2009) refers to tech-knowledgeable children in the household as “youthful experts,” while Katz (2010) calls them ‘media brokers.’ Correa (2014) labels the knowledge sharing as “bottom-up technology transmission,” and the EU Kids on the Internet 2020 report calls this “reverse mediation.” The latter reports that, across 19 countries, on average 40% of 9–16-year-olds report often or very often helping parents when they found something difficult online, and 29% sometimes helping parents. This differential in knowledge can upset the traditional family hierarchy. In interviews with parent-teen pairs in 1995, Kiesler et al. (2000) determined that fathers’ attitudes prevented them from seeking help from their children about internet-related issues; the fathers voiced concern about a shift in their parental authority.
With rapid changes in ICT and intergenerational relationships between parents and children, older adults, and grandchildren, the possibility for conflict from child guidance is present. With generations growing up with technology, will this potential for conflict remain or dissolve?
In a later study with Belgian parents and teens, Nelissen and Van den Bulck (2017) predicted that reports of conflict would correlate with parental requests for assistance with technology. The survey included questions like “Do you ever get into an argument with your child/with your parent about (a) television use, (b) tablet use, (c) smartphone use, or (d) computer/laptop use?” It used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “(almost) never” (=0) to “(almost) always” (=4). With regard to media guidance, the pairs were asked “If you think about your children, how often do they teach you to use the following media, technologies, and/or applications?/If you think about your parents, how often do you teach them to use the following media, technologies, and/or applications?” Again, a 5-point Likert scale was used and applied to 13 technologiesm including smartphones, online purchases, and tablets. After controlling for demographic variables (including parent and child gender and age), there were significant associations between a parent help seeking/guidance by children and parent-child conflict. The authors observed that child guidance was dominant on some technologies — smartphones and specific apps — but not all.
An example of context as influence on parental mediation: The COVID-19 pandemic
When conditions encourage children’s technology use, parental mediation can shift. Clearly, the COVID-19 pandemic was an influence. As their children connected with friends, attended school, and sought out hobbies online during isolation and quarantine, parents’ efforts to mediate children’s screen time changed. As a report by Pew (2021) indicates, fewer parents reduced children’s time on screens and took away children’s smartphone privileges. On the other hand, more parents were active in checking children’s exposure online, and parents’ beliefs that their children spent too much time online nearly doubled. Among parents of children 11 or younger, in 2020, 28% felt their children spent too much time on their phones. In 2021, that percentage climbed to 42%. (See figure below).
With regard to older children, parents reported that, during COVID, connections through videoconferencing, and with resident children through gaming and time spent together, deepened personal relationships (Joyce et al., 2021).
Technology’s Role in Parent-Child Communication
The primary reason that parents secure phones for their children, even before age 12, is to communicate with them (Auxier et al., 2020). Through texting and through voice and video calls, parents can convey information to children that supports their development, enable coordination, and promote closeness. The efficiency of using ICT for communication also makes co-parenting relationships easier, such in the case of divorced and separated parents (Ganong et al., 2012; Saini & Pollack, 2018), and maintains parent-child connections during separations, including military deployment (Carter & Renshaw, 2016) and immigration (Casmiro & Nico, 2016; Karraker, 2015).
Shin et al.’s (2021) literature review on technology designs that foster the parent-child relationship identified factors indicative of family qualities and technology-specific conditions. They include:
• reciprocity in the family,
• reinforcement of transparency,
• affection and trust,
• physical proxy of each other through an object or interface design,
• accessibility, level of technology sophistication and communication resource, and
• enjoyable, age-appropriate shared content between parents and children, and situational awareness and routine.
When parents and children are at a distance, system design that favors media richness (closer approximation of real life) and synchronicity, and the ability to maintain privacy, are positive. Challenges to the parent-child relationship occur through discrepancies in expected communication between parent and child(ren), through parents’ complex emotions toward parenting due to their busy schedule, and, from the technological standpoint, from access limitations. As this section of the chapter indicates, the use of technology as a means to facilitate parent-child relationships is quite a complex issue. Although there are elements specific to digital media and the programming of the for communication and interaction, challenges arise through human factors inherent in the individuals and their relationships.
Connections, for example, may not always be smooth, and whether due to technology or the actor, complications can arise. Use of technology to maintain the parent-child relationship may lead to what Parrenas and Boris (2010, as cited by Karraker, 2015 p. 13) refer to as the “antithesis of intimacy.” Expectations for maintaining communication through the ease afforded by digital media can impinge on children’s or parents’ independence. Connections, for example, may not always be smooth, and whether due to technology or the actor, complications can arise. The complicated power dynamics discussed above can and do interfere with satisfaction when using technology for parent-child communications. And although teleconferencing made parent-child visits possible during COVID-19 for those facing separation due to welfare issues, technological and human barriers prevented this alternative to in-person visits from being successful (Goldberg et al., 2021).
Shin et al. (2021) observe developmental differences reflected in the availability of technology and use by parents and children that affect satisfaction. For young children, technology that is playful, age-appropriate, and encourages creativity can foster engagement by both parent and child. School-age children and their parents have a strong desire to be together, learn more about each other, and feel a sense of warmth and security. Yet designs may not be user- or communication-friendly, and differences in ability and access can create barriers to effective use. For older children (e.g., adolescents), when parents and teens have access to phones and social media, and when a common time for interaction is apparent, communication appears effective. Yet as Dworkin et al. (2019) observe, the paradox of connecting and distancing can make parents’ use of social networking and unscheduled calls feel intrusive and like a privacy invasio.
Assets and challenges are apparent for specific populations of parents and children as well. Parents and children attempting to maintain communication through technology across legal separations face particular scrutiny with regard to child privacy and safety (Saini & Pollack, 2018). In a survey with 106 family caseworkers, Saini and Pollack (2018) identified that the majority of legally separated parents and children use technology to maintain communication. This can be quite positive, as they can each keep abreast of the life details of the other and maintain connectedness, particularly when a child is long-distance and living in the other parent’s home or in a foster home. Caseworkers also saw it as a way to protect the child from conflict in the parent-to-parent relationship, and enhance the child’s feeling of safety. Yet rampant posting on social media diminishes the child’s safety, as well as the privacy of the parent who may closely monitor and track the child. As with other cases representing the range of technologies’ uses and affordances, the picture is a complex one. Because of this, the caseworkers in Saini and Pollack’s study advocates for ICT not as a replacement for parent-child connections, but as a way to enhance communication.
Possible disruption in the relationship: Parents’ own technology use
As noted above, parents’ own technology use is a significant factor in their attitudes about monitoring and mediating children’s use, and in shaping and modeling children’s technology consumption. Samual’s (2017) counter response to the argument that smartphones were destroying a generation (Twenge, 2017) was that smartphones distracted parents, leading them to demonstrate “minimal parenting.” McDaniel’s (2019) and Kildare and Middlemiss’ (2017) reviews of the literature concerning parents’ use of technology when with their children paint a third picture of communication in the relationship: that of nonverbal messaging through distracted use. Noting that the majority of research in this area has focused on parents of young children, McDaniel observes the many reasons parents would use their phones with a child present. Not only do they seek information and communicate with others, seek emotional support, or continue work, but their use attempts to relieve the boredom of childrearing. This “technoference” (McDaniel’s term for the “everyday intrusions and interruptions of devices in our face-to-face interactions”) can have potentially serious consequences to the child through the parents’ ability to connect and engage and through the child’s own observation of the parent’s distracted action, and can negatively impact the parent’s own emotional state. Parenting outcomes of being distracted by one’s phone include reduced verbal and nonverbal interactions with the child, reduced awareness and sensitivity to the child’s needs and responses, and reduced coordination and communication in co-parenting. McDaniel, and Kildare and Middlemiss, note that these responses are directly associated with the relational mechanisms in attachment formation, although longitudinal research to date hasn’t validated these assumptions.
Additional parenting consequences of being distracted by technology include the difficulty of multitasking between the device and the needs and attention of the child, and time displacement (e.g., focusing on a phone compared to active time with a child). From the child’s perspective, they may express dissatisfaction in the time spent with the parent and in turn, feel ignored. Kildare and Middlemiss cite a study in which 32% (of 6,000) children reported feeling unimportant when their parents were distracted by a phone. As the authors of both review articles observe, more research is needed to more definitively understand specific dimensions of parental technology use with children (e.g., how much time is spent on phones when with children, specific activities parents do while on their phones) and impacts on parenting, the relationship, and child development. They also observe that it’s not reasonable to expect parents not to engage with technology when with their children, observing the complex reasons that parents use technology. They advocate for education on appropriate use, and engagement in ways that are healthy for the relationship and for the child. This resource from Zero to Three offers parents ways to focus on their children, not their phones.
“Sharenting”
As discussed in Chapter 6, parents express their caregiver and relational identities online through blogging, posting on social media, and texting ideas and images of the children to others (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017). A challenge can occur in the parent-child relationship when children object to their images and information about themselves being shared, particularly without permission (Saner (2018) refers to this as a “permanent digital tattoo”). While not as overt an expression of distraction by technology use as those discussed above, “sharenting” can still send a message to the child that their feelings are not being considered. Blum-Ross and Livingstone (2017) determined that when parents of younger children share images and experiences of their child and childrearing, they may also have misgivings about the archival nature of the internet and the possibility of their posts resurfacing when the child is older. Parents also express a certain element of guilt, part of the complex feelings parents describe, as discovered in Shin et al. (2022)’s review of the literature of parent-child relationships through technological innovation. Parents hold an awareness of the child’s aging to the point of awareness and expressing feelings of dissatisfaction with their private information being shared. Blum-Ross and Livingstone share this incident, which directly points to the potential conflict with “sharenting” and the need for parent-child communication to maintain communion:
Harvey confronted this issue when his 6-year-old son Archie began to express discomfort at appearing on the blog. Harvey described how Archie had begun to ask what the photos Harvey took were for, questioning “is this a photo for you, Daddy, or is it a photo for the blog”’ Increasingly Archie would refuse to be in pictures, eventually exacting revenge by covertly using Harvey’s phone to post an unflattering picture of Harvey eating a sandwich on his dad’s Instagram feed. Harvey was working with Archie to help Archie decide what “he wants me to write” so he could be more in control. Yet, finding himself cajoling his son, Harvey described a struggle between respecting his son’s boundaries and keeping his commitment to the blog and his readership among the wider blogging community. (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017, p. 116).
Focus on technology-facilitated parent-child relationships in young adulthood
A significant amount of research has examined the role of technology in the parent-child relationship during young adulthood. One conclusion is that the availability and use of ICT is a positive influence on this relationship. A review by Hessel and Dworkin (2018) identified differences in how young adults use technology to communicate with parents, compared with siblings and grandparents. The authors indicated that when children go to college (given that college students are an often sampled group in this research area), there may be a stronger focus on the relationship, and technology has an intentional purpose. While they indicate that the research on persons other than parents is limited, young adults appear to use a variety of methods to maintain relationships with parents through technology, including adding parents as “friend”’ on social media, texting, and sending email (though the Hessel and Dworkin review and McCurdy et al.’s 2022 research with college students validates that email use has declined). Purposes include utility (sharing, asking for help), immediacy, and emotional connections. Relationship quality appears to be positive, as demonstrated by emerging adults’ reports of satisfaction, feelings of intimacy, and the number of types of media used for communication.
As an example, Vaterlaus et al. (2019), surveyed 766 young adults and adolescents (just over 10% of the sample)Young adults’ reports of using computer-mediated communication with parents (particularly text messaging when it came to both mothers and fathers) were significantly associated with feelings of closeness, togetherness, and connection in their time spent with the parent. and their parents on their use of technology together and on the notions of quantity and quality time spent. Not surprisingly (given that the young adults were away and in college), teens reported spending more time with their parents. Among the whole sample, there was a clear perceptual difference between quantity time and quality time. Young adults still sought and identified having quality time with parents. Type of media was differentiated when considering connectivity: synchronous media such as telephone calls, video chat, and texting facilitated quality interactions; fewer young adults reported using email, social networking, and texting for quality interactions. And young adults’ reports of using computer-mediated communication with parents (particularly text messaging when it came to both mothers and fathers) were significantly associated with feelings of closeness, togetherness, and connection in their time spent with the parent. The authors observe the role that technology can play in maintaining quality relationships between parents and teens, and acknowledge the challenges brought about through an individual being distracted by media when in the presence of the other. They recommend additional research and educational efforts on the benefits of using technology together in ways that foster and facilitate relationships.
Yet Hessel and Dworkin indicate that a dominant theme in the literature indicates potential challenges with autonomy, or rather the lack thereof. Frequency of contact with parents and parental over-involvement related to lower feelings of autonomy, whereas those with a strong parent-child relationship reported higher levels of autonomy. They also observe that, as noted in Chapter 5, there are differences by generational cohort, as research with college students just two years apart indicates differences in email and social networking behavior with parents.
McCurdy et al. (2022) also point to differences in communication behavior and perceived young adult/parent relationships. In interviews with 44 college students, those who used a rich communication repertoire for connection with their parents reported more closeness. Citing media multiplexity theory, the authors identified that students perceived stronger relationships due to multiple technologies affording more contact frequency, more ways to make connection, and a stronger parental social presence. Interestingly, young adults also were strategic about differentials in technology competence and access by their parents to maintain boundaries. Knowing what skills their parents had, and which applications they did and didn’t use, worked to their advantage as ways to find necessary separation for their individuation. From Miller-Ott et al.’s (2014) research, frequent texting, establishing rules around availability, repetitive contact, and relational arguments were more direct strategies for healthy individuation with connectedness.
Research also suggests new opportunities for connecting with parents: gaming, social media, video creation, even family genealogy applications. Given the range of potential technologies for interaction and differentials in access and use together, Hessel and Dworkin (2018, p. 369) wisely observe,
Rather than building research around specific technology, such as Facebook, categorizing technology options by context will produce findings that are more transferable and durable. Using theoretical foundations such as Media Richness Theory may help to identify which technology choices complement which types of communication between which family members for what purpose.
Conclusion
This chapter reveals complexities in the notion of the parent-child relationship and technology. Most families don’t perceive conflict, though when the focus of research, perception may be skewed depending on who is being interviewed. Positively, many children and parents manage negotiations around children’s healthy technology use, and parents practice active or other types of mediation that encourage children’s positive use.many children and parents constructively negotiate healthy technology use, and parents practice active or other types of mediation that are encouraging and maintain trust and communication in the relationship There isn’t a need for practices that are restrictive or punitive. Active mediation strategies align with a life-course model of relationships and developmental growth that balances a respect for each individual’s ability for agency and for the communion of the relationship.
The chapter also examined the many factors that can influence the ways parents’ mediate, which can contribute to conflict or to the lack thereof. Key within these is the generational difference in parents’ own knowledge and use of technology. When children grow up knowing more, and “reverse mediation” occurs, the power dynamic can shift. In some homes, this can be sensitive. The dynamic shifts as well when parents’ technology use leads to their being distracted from their children. This sends a strong non-verbal message about the importance of the relationship, and can have damaging effects on parenting, on the relationship, and consequently on child development. As technology continues to evolve, and as generations of children and parents change in their knowledge, skills, comfort, and expectations about using technology individually and with each other, the clear message for both parents and children is one of intentionality.
As technology continues to evolve, and as generations of children and parents change in their knowledge, skills, comfort, and expectations about using technology individually and with each other, the clear message for both parents and children is one of intentionality.Shin et al. (2021) advocate for a life-course perspective in the future design of technology to promote the parent-child relationship:
Technology design that supports relationships must be responsive to the dynamic environment and transactional nature of relationships; accordingly, designers should be aware of technology’s role, and find ways to provide users with timely suggestions. The family life course development approach provides a theoretical lens by which design can incorporate a family’s transactional nature. The theory’s central assumption is that the family’s developmental process is inevitable, and that individuals’ lives change dynamically over time. It further explains how the lives of individual family members, such as parents and children, are interconnected, and how families transmit their assets and disadvantages to the next generation. [p.441:22]
For parents, technology visionary and parent danah boyd suggests approaching technology with an attitude of flexibility (Tippet, 2017):
From my perspective, it’s about stepping back and not assuming that just the technology is transformative, and saying, okay, what are we trying to achieve here? What does balance look like? What does happiness look like? What does success look like? What are these core tenets or values that we’re aiming for, and how do we achieve them holistically across our lives? And certainly, when parents are navigating this, I think one of the difficulties is to recognize that this is what your values are, and they may be different from your child’s values. And so how do you learn to sit and have a conversation of “Here’s what I want for you. What do you want? And how do we balance that?” And that’s that negotiation that’s really hard. And so I think about it in terms of all of us — how do you find your own sense of grounding?
1. The volume of research on parenting styles should motivate readers interested in this concept and in parent-child relationships and technology to seek out specific, current, and cross-cultural/cultural literature. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/07%3A_Technologys_Influence_on_Parent-Child_Relationships/7.01%3A_Technologys_Influence_on_Parent-Child_Relationships.txt |
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11-39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Aloia, L. S., & Warren, R. (2019). Quality parent–child relationships: The role of parenting style and online relational maintenance behaviors. Communication Reports, 32(2), 43-56.
Auxier, B., Anderson, M., Perrin, A., and Turner, E. (2020, July 28). Parenting Kids in the Age of Screens. Pew Internet and American Life. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/parenting-children-in-the-age-of-screens/
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1–103. doi:10.1037/h0030372
Blackwell, E., Gardiner, and Schoenebeck, S. (2016). Managing expectations: Technology tensions among parents and teens. CSCW ‘16, San Francisco, CA.
Blum-Ross, A., Donoso, V., Dinh, T., Mascheroni, G., O’Neill, B., Riesmeyer, C., and Stoilova, M. (2018). Looking forward: Technological and social change in the lives of European children and young people. Report for the ICT Coalition for Children Online. Brussels: ICT Coalition.
Blum-Ross, A. and Livingstone, S. (2017). “Sharenting,” parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. POPULAR COMMUNICATION. VOL. 15, NO. 2, 110–125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300
Bornstein, M. H. (2012). Cultural approaches to parenting. Parenting, 12(2-3), 212-221.
Brito, R., Francisco, R., Dias, P., and Chaudron, S. (2017). Family dynamics in digital homes: The role played by parental mediation in young children’s digital practices around 14 European countries. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39(4), 271-280.
Bumpass and Werner Matthew F. Bumpus & Nicole E. Werner (2009) Maternal Rule-Setting for Children’s Internet Use, Marriage & Family Review, 45:6-8, 845-865, DOI: 10.1080/01494920903224442
Carter, S. P., and Renshaw, K. D. (2016). Spousal communication during military deployments: A review. Journal of Family Issues, 37(16), 2309-2332.
Casimiro, C., and Nico, M. (2018). From object to instrument: Technologies as tools for family relations and family research. In Casimiro C. and Neves B. (Eds.), Connecting Families: Information and Communication Technologies, generations, and the life course (pp. 133- 156). Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2867xm.14
CommonsenseMedia (2016). The Commonsense Census: Plugged-in Parents of Tweens and Teens, Commonsense Media. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-plugged-in-parents-of-tweens-and-teens-2016
Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental co-use of media technology with their young children in the USA. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 5-21.
Correa, T. (2014). Bottom-up technology transmission within families: Exploring how youths influence their parents’ digital media use with dyadic data. Journal of Communication, 64, 103–124
Coyne, S. M., Radesky, J., Collier, K. M., Gentile, D. A., Ruh Linder, J., Nathanson, A. I., Rasmussen, E. E., Reich, S. M., and Rogers, J. (2017). Parenting and digital media. Pediatrics, 140, s112–s116. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-1758N
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (2017). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. In Interpersonal development (pp. 161-170). Routledge.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
Dworkin, J., Hessel, H. and LeBoeuf, S. (2019). The Use of Communication Technology in the Context of Adolescent and Family Development: An Integration of Family and Media Theories. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 11: 510–523 DOI:10.1111/jftr.12350
Eisenberg, A. R. (1992). Conflicts between mothers and their young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38, 21–43
Ferreira, E., Ponte, C., & Castro, T. S. (2017, November). ICT and gender: Parental mediation strategies. In 2017 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Flores, D., & Barroso, J. (2017). 21st century parent–child sex communication in the United States: A process review. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(4-5), 532-548.
Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., Feistman, R., Jamison, T. and Markham, M. S. (2012) Communication technology and postdivorce coparenting, Family Relations, 61(3): 397‒409, doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00706.x
Goldberg, A. E., Brodzinsky, D., Singer, J., & Crozier, P. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 on child welfare-involved families: Implications for parent–child reunification and child welfare professionals. Developmental Child Welfare, 3(3), 203-224.
Harach, L. D., & Kuczynski, L. J. (2005). Construction and maintenance of parent–child relationships: Bidirectional contributions from the perspective of parents. Infant and Child Development: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 14(4), 327-343.
Heck, S. A., & Pincus, A. L. (2001). Agency and communion in the structure of parental representations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76(1), 180-184.
Helsper, E.J., Kalmus, V., Hasebrink, U., Sagvari, B. and de Haan, J. (2013) Country classification: Opportunities, risks, harm and parental mediation. London: EU Kids Online, LSE
Hessel, H., & Dworkin, J. (2018). Emerging adults’ use of communication technology with family members: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 3(3), 357-373
Jarvenpaa, S., & Lang, K. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/90026.2
Karraker, M. (2015). Global families in a digital age. In C. Breuss. (Ed.) Families in a Digital World. NY: Peter Lang., 55-75.
Katz, V. S. (2010). How children of immigrants use media to connect their families to the community. Journal of Children and Media, 4, 298–315
Kiesler, S., Zdaniuk, B., Lundmark, V., & Kraut, R. (2000). Troubles with the internet: The dynamics of help at home. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 323–351
Lanigan, J. D. (2009). A Sociotechnological Model for Family Research and Intervention: How Information and Communication Technologies Affect Family Life. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6-8), 587–609. doi:10.1080/01494920903224194
Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., and Lagae, K. (2015). How Parents of Young Children Manage Digital Devices at Home: The Role of Income, Education and Parental Style. London: EU Kids Online.
Livingstone, S. (2009). Youthful experts. In S. Livingstone (Ed.), Children and the internet (pp. 33– 62). Malden, MA: Polity Press.
McCurdy, A. L., Benito-Gomez, M., Lee, G. Y., & Fletcher, A. C. (2022). College Students’ Perceptions of Communication Technology Use and Parent–Child Relationships. Emerging Adulthood, 21676968211060954.
McDaniel, B. T. (2019). Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes: A review of the emerging research. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 72–80. doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.139
Miller-Ott, A. E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2014). Cell phone usage expectations, closeness, and relationship satisfaction between parents and their emerging adults in college. Emerging Adulthood, 2(4), 313–323. doi.org/10.1177/ 2167696814550195
Naab, Thorsten (2018). From Media Trusteeship to Parental Mediation. The Parental Development of Parental Mediation in Giovanna Mascheroni, Cristina Ponte & Ana Jorge (eds.) Digital Parenting. The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age. Göteborg: Nordicom. (p. 93-102)
Navarro, J. and Tudge, J. (2022). Technologizing bronfenbrenner: neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 1-17. doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3
Nelissen, S. and Van den Bulck, J. (2017): When digital natives instruct digital immigrants: active guidance of parental media use by children and conflict in the family. Information, Communication & Society, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1281993
Nikken, P., & Opree, S. J. (2018). Guiding young children’s digital media use: SES-differences in mediation concerns and competence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(6), 1844-1857.
Odgers, C. (2018). Smartphones are bad for some teens, not all. Nature 554, 432-434 (2018) doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02109-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02109-8
Page, Jeffery C. (2021). “It’s really difficult. We’ve only got each other to talk to.” Monitoring, mediation, and good parenting in Australia in the digital age. Journal of Children and Media, 15(2), 202-217.
Ramsey, M. A., Gentzler, A. L., Morey, J. N., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). College students’ use of communication technology with parents: Comparisons between two cohorts in 2009 and 2011. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 16(10), 747–752. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0534.
Rudi, J. H., & Dworkin, J. (2018). Parents’ and youths’ solicitation and disclosure of information in today’s digital age. Journal of Youth Development, 13(4), 5-28.
Saini, M., & Polak, S. (2018). The Benefits, Drawbacks, and Safety Considerations in Digital Parent–Child Relationships: An Exploratory Survey of the Views of Legal and Mental Health Professionals in Family Law. Family Court Review, 56(4), 597-606.
Samual, A., (2017). Yes, smartphones are destroying a generation, but not of kids. The Digital Voyage. August 8. https://daily.jstor.org/yes-smartphones-are-destroying-a-generation-but-not-of-kids/?mc_key=00Qi000001X2OYEEA3.
Shin, J. Y., Rheu, M., Huh-Yoo, J., & Peng, W. (2021). Designing technologies to support parent-child relationships: a review of current findings and suggestions for future directions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5 (CSCW2), 1-31.
Smetana, J. G. (2017). Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 19-25.
Tippet, K. (Host). (2017, July). Danah boyd. The internet of the good the bad and the ugly. In On Being. American Public Media. https://onbeing.org/programs/danah-boyd-the-internet-of-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-jul2017/#transcript
Twenge, J. (2017, September). Have Smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/
Vaterlaus, J. M., Beckert, T. E., & Schmitt-Wilson, S. (2019). Parent-child time together: The role of interactive technology with adolescent and young adult children. Journal of Family Issues, 40(15), 2179-2202
Wartella, E., Rideout, V., Lauricella, A. R., and Connell, S. (2013). Parenting in the age of digital technology. Report for the center on media and Human development school of communication Northwestern University.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 1. Matters of public interest; Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). University of Minnesota | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/07%3A_Technologys_Influence_on_Parent-Child_Relationships/7.02%3A_References.txt |
Reflecting on the parent-child relationship and technology
Recall when you began to be active with technology — when you got your first smartphone, perhaps, when you became active on social media, when your homework and school projects began taking up more time online, and/or when you started using technology for entertainment, perhaps playing videogames and/or streaming media. Now reflect on your parents’ reaction to your use (and possibly that of your siblings). Consider Wiggin’s intersection of agency and communion for two people in a relationship. Identify a key discussion or negotiation you had around your technology use. Where would you place yourself? Your parent?
The many influences on parental mediation
Interview one or both of your parents (or the people in your life who actively parented you during middle school and high school). Create a list of questions about the ways in which they mediated your technology use. Were they active and engaged? Were they restrictive? Were they permissive? Talk to your parents about why they mediated technology in your household the way they did. Ask them about their memories of those years and their interactions with you. What influenced their actions? Do they have any regrets? Do they feel successful? If they were to make three recommendations to parents of 10–14 year olds about parental involvement in children’s technology use and maintaining a positive relationship, what would they be?
Fathers take to the internet (“sharenting”)
In these two videos, fathers take to the internet asserting their roles as parents. In one case, the father (Tommy) is addressing his daughter’s behavior publicly; in the other, the father (Brad) is advocating on behalf of his daughter. Both videos, when posted, went viral.
Tommy:
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=422#oembed-1
View both and answer the questions below. These questions help identify the father’s motivations for using the virtual world as a sounding board for his frustrations, the possible consequences or benefits of his actions, and the potential impacts on the father-daughter relationship. Provide recommendations on how to handle the situation the fathers faced to provide a (more) peaceful/positive resolution that maintains the relationship and respects the roles of both the fathers and the daughters.
1. What is the father concerned about? What is the father’s motivation for taking his concern to the Internet?
2. What does the father hope to accomplish? How is it related to his role as a parent? Does the father demonstrate a balance/imbalance of warmth and demandingness? What do you see in his demonstration of agency vs. communion?
3. What would the father’s action do to impact his daughter’s well-being? Why? (How would his daughter feel when she learned about this video)?
4. How (if at all) do you see the father’s response as reflecting the daughter’s age (approximately 12–14 years)?
5. What would the father’s action do to impact the father-daughter relationship? Why?
6. Would you recommend that the father take a different tact? If so, what? If not, why is this the appropriate response?
Considering questions for technology design to promote parent-child relationships
At the conclusion of Shin et al.’s (2021, 441:25) review of the literature on technology and parent-child relationships, they pose a variety of questions for future research. Consider each or one of these questions alone or with another person or in a small group. You might want to pose these questions to your friends and family, particularly your parent(s), and get their take on future design considerations.
1. How can technology empower children to initiate conversation and interaction with parents in families living together? If technology is designed with novel accessible functions and forms that can empower children to initiate interactions with their parents, can these functions help children’s perception of family belonging?
2. How can technology create communication topics (triggers) through shared activities?
3. How can technology effectively support households with children who have a wider age gap (e.g., 3 and 12 years old)?
4. How can technology support a parent-child dyad’s different expectations and needs in communicating with each other? Is synchronous communication always suitable for the target dyad? Younger children tend to be more engaged with their parents, while adolescent and older children take their privacy and me-time more seriously.
5. What are the other family members’ preferences about privacy? While the target dyad might feel favorable toward, for instance, always-on technologies, this may be uncomfortable for others who are not close enough to share details of their lives.
6. How can technology support the constantly changing relationship between parents and children throughout developmental stages and life courses? Designs that support a relationship should also be able to dynamically change when the relationship does.
7. How can technologies support parent-child interactions, instead of serving as a replacement for them?
Parent learning about mediating children’s technology use (in ways that promote the parent-child relationship)
There are many guides for parents about protecting their children online. Identify hypothetical children in a hypothetical family and identify some online resources. Keep an eye to both the development of the child (what are they using, technology-wise? What do they understand, rule-wise?) and the context and culture of the family that might influence the ways in which the parent attempts to mediate the child’s use. Compare sources of advice. Which would you find most helpful and recommend to parents?
7.04: Blog Prompts
Read the article: “Yes, Smartphones are destroying a generation, but not of kids.” Reflect on information in the chapter about parents’ use of technology, and on our discussion of the Millennial generation of parent users who may unconsciously be swept up with unintentional over-use or, to the contrary, a heightened awareness of technology’s seductive powers. Do you agree with this perspective on our attention to parents as technology users?
Select one of the two videos highlighted in the Learning Activities for this chapter. Relate the father’s actions in that video to what was discussed in the chapter about parenting and parent-child relationships. Do you believe that the father’s actions were right? Wrong? Why? Why not? How might you respond were you the same parent in the same situation?
Technology can introduce a shift in the balance of power in parent-child relationships. A teenager may be more familiar with how to use apps and devices than his or her parent. This can lead to the teen feeling they have the upper hand and the ability to work around whatever rules the parent has set forward. And it can lead to the parent responding to the unfamiliar power shift with underconfidence or an over-assertion of authority (e.g., making tougher restrictions elsewhere). What are your thoughts about this possible power shift in families due to comfort differences with technology? Is this something you or others you know have experienced? How might you aid a family who is facing this dilemma?
In this Wired magazine article, Jaclyn Greenberg writes about feeling more connected to her adolescent daughter when they learned a language together via an app. After reading the article, provide a reflection on her experiences from your own perspective. How might this have felt for the teenager? What are your own experiences in sharing a technology with a parent? Perhaps an app like Duolingo or a game that involves the two of you in the same goal? How might it strengthen the parent-child relationship? Are there elements of the experience that might play out Wiggins’ agency and communion dynamic for both members? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/07%3A_Technologys_Influence_on_Parent-Child_Relationships/7.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
I know it is wet and the sun is not sunny, but we can have lots of good fun that is funny.
― Dr. Seuss
Chapter Insights
• Many ICTs (applications such as WhatsApp, FaceTime, Zoom, Email, texting, messaging, and Instagram) play a role in family communication and feelings of connectedness. Yet there may be challenges these applications introduce to effective family communication.
• Early research on family communication and technology revealed the value of interactive technologies and feelings of connectedness. Still there are differences in effectiveness depending on family membership.
• Videogames offer a number of benefits and challenge to family connectedness.
• The concept of connected learning values relationships when the individual explores interests using technology. Parents can function as “learning hero” and facilitate children’s learning beyond the classroom.
• Families can create technology together. An example offered in the chapter is that of a father and his two children who do an almost-weekly podcast. Consider ways that engaging with children around technology creation can strengthen family closeness/cohesion and demonstrate flexibility. Such an activity can also contribute to individual family members’ development.
• Key to family joint technology use is the set of rules families establish together about when and how technology is used. These rules include when family members are together, in the household. Consider the values and norms that families create for day-to-day functioning and the well-being of their members. ICT use is an extension of those values. Members’ use can also be a disruption of those values in ways that call for conflict resolution.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
We’ve previously discussed technology use within the family and across families. In this chapter, we examine more specific ways in which families use technology as families. We’ll look, for example, at the role that technologies like FaceTime and Zoom play in family communication and feelings of cohesiveness, for example, and at how specific technologies like videogames and streaming media content are used for joint entertainment through co-viewing and interactive participation, contributing to feelings of cohesiveness and familiarity, and encouraging shared interests. Participation with children in these activities offers numerous benefits for parenting as well, and impacts children’s development. And during COVID, communication, interactive, and creative technologies meant ways for families to stay together, play together, cope with the strain of isolation, and find deeper means for satisfaction.
As a quick review, we looked at the family as a system open to external and internal forces. As the whole of the system is dependent on the interactivity and full functioning of all family members, technology was viewed as an influence external to the family, on individuals and subsystems in the family (e.g., a parent and child), and on all family members jointly. The family structure includes an understanding of the roles played by individuals within it.
We also examined how differences in technology use within the family illustrate the flexibility needed to embrace members’ own preferences and needs. Whole family differences helped convey how family units are subject to wider ecological system resource availability and constraints that can affect technology and internet access, values for use, norms and behaviors, and achievements. Limited access can also affect the voice and presence families have in social and political discourse.
Technology use by families and family members is measured by practical indicators, including:
• Device ownership (which, how many, which model, how many different).
• How devices are used and for what purposes.
• Device or application frequency (e.g., minutes per day, hours per day, days, interaction events).
• Whether device use is individual or shared.
• Whether device or application behavior is problematic — e.g., addiction, being a tech luddite.
• How members use tech by device, application, function, and their attitudes and skill differences. Variations by member use; factors such as age, employment, and attitudes that influence these variations.
These dimensions are important to keep in mind as we explore use by families as a whole, or by subsystems within the immediate and extended family, along with family-level outcomes.
Research on Family Technology Use, Communication, and Connectedness.
Researchers of family dynamics and communications technology/media hold that the use of devices and particular means and applications impacts the meaning that family members give to their interactions, and creates shared realities. In turn, these shared realities deepen the sense of family norms, values, and feelings of connectedness. When used constructively — and with an awareness of potential conflict that can arise between family members due to differences in comfort, skill, and perception of technology — media can thus be beneficial in strengthening the bonds that create the sense of family.
Early research by Padilla-Walker et al. (2012) examined types of technologies used by families (specifically parents and their adolescent children) and those more strongly related to families’ feelings of connectedness. As previously discussed, connectedness is a warm, loving, positive relationship between parents and child/family members. Connectedness was measured using the five items of the warmth/support subscale of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire-Short Version (PSDQ; Robinson et al., 2001; e.g., ‘‘I have warm and loving times together with my child/my parent.’’ Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Cell phones, videogames, and co-viewing media showed the most significant and positive relationship to family connectedness. Email and social networking did not indicate strength related to the outcome variable. The authors determined differences by family characteristics: parents with a higher level of education reported more connectedness related to technology use.
The authors posited that co-viewing of media indicated shared interests and fostered shared communication, and that if children and parents interacting together with media, and children teaching parents how to use various media and technology, bring the potential to both reduce the digital divide and increase a sense of family connectedness parents and children agree on media viewed together, each may have a better understanding of the other, which can facilitate shared discussion during or after the program. These findings relate to those of Nathanson (2002), who earlier identified the role that co-viewing media had on parents’ ability to mediate content and children’s exposure. While a smaller portion of teens reported playing videogames with their parents, co-playing was related to the level of family connection. And as mentioned in the previous chapter, children and parents interacting together with media, and children teaching parents how to use various media and technology, bring the potential to both reduce the digital divide and increase a sense of family connectedness.
Email and social media. In the Padilla-Walker et al. study (2012), email and social networking were not related to connectedness. Email offers asynchronous communication, which may seem less personal, and more like communication that just carries news and information, particularly as more immediate methods of texting and private messaging are available. In the author’s own collaborative research with over 1,500 families around the same time (2011), we determined that type of technology varied by family member. Email and social networking are particularly popular with extended family, while texting — a more intimate form of communication — was more likely to be used with one’s children and the other parent (Rudi et al., 2014). Since the time the study was conducted, there has been little substantive change in how email is used or perceived among family members.
Social media, in contrast, has greatly expanded in terms of perception, use, and variety of applications. The 2012 research by Padilla-Walker et al. reported minimal interaction between parents and teens on social media, citing limitations in personal expression (e.g., Twitter’s 140 character limit) and the perception that using social media was only between friends. More recent research, however, indicates that aspects of social media can strengthen family connectedness. A 2022 review of the literature by Tariq et al. identified 14 articles on social media use and family relationships/family connectedness. As with the Padilla-Walker et al. (2012) study, the majority of articles focus on parents and adolescent use. Connectedness is related in part to the dynamics of the parent-child relationship; adolescents or young adults, for example, may feel their privacy is at stake when parents “friend” them on social media. Stronger outcomes related to connectedness were determined in studies that focused beyond parents, and on integrated connections with siblings and extended family (e.g., feeling closer by having another outlet for sharing information). Yet the authors note that the literature is sorely limited, with the majority of focus on teenagers and young adults rather than whole families, and observe that questions rarely address the motivations for family members’ joining social media or how social media use relates to connectedness.
Also limited in the research is the range of types of social media applications, with a strong preference given for Facebook. Tariq et al. (2012) observe a study (Nouwens et al., 2017) that highlights adults’ variation of application use depending on the contacts and users in that application. In other words, parents use of a platform like Instagram or TikTok would depend on whether their child uses it, or they know other people on it.
Currently, the literature is limited in helping us better understand family connectedness and social media. So, construct your own hypotheses based on your observations and experiences. If connectedness is defined as “a warm, loving, positive relationship between parents and child/family members,” how might connectedness occur between you and your mother via social media use? with your father/other parent? Does it differ by parent? How about using social media with your siblings? Or Grandparents? Do you use different applications with different people in your family? How do factors such as frequency of use, the content exchanged, and the features of the social media matter (e.g., direct messaging vs. posting text vs. videoposts)? If you were to design a study examining the role of social media in family connectedness, what would your research look like?
Even earlier research by Stern and Messer (2009) looked at means for connection with relatives: email and cellphones were used to communicate with more distant relatives; face-to-face visits were used more locally. When considering measures of closeness, the authors concluded that frequency of contact may not be the best indicator of closeness. Rather, people select the method and behavior for staying in touch with others that relate to the level of closeness desired. In other words, “people use the technologies available to them to fill the niches in which they believe they are most useful.” (p. 671). As we’ve come to understand the capacities of technologies and differences in individual comfort, skill, and access, we see that technology used for communication in families can be based on factors that complement emotional closeness and proximity.
Since 2012, and especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, new technology has evolved for family communication: videoconferencing. Through applications like FaceTime, Skype, and Zoom, videoconferencing enables real-time communication that is more complete (or “media rich”) than voice- or text-only communication. As Lebow (2020) observes, social science research will, over time, unveil the values and costs of depending on videoconferencing for family communication during COVID, as families experienced significant loss, strain, and attempts to maintain family rituals and celebrations. Other variables on family functioning during COVID related to reliance on virtual technologies for communication, include accommodating disparities in technology access and skill, and the systemic impacts of supporting family members who face the additional strain of factors related to mental or behavioral health (e.g., access to AA meetings).
Family Variation in Communication and Connectedness via Technology
Karraker (2015) identifies how the use of technology for communication can help families “transcend spatial limitations and provide for identity and cultural renewal” (p. 60). Families who may depend on technology to maintain relational communication and the flow of information include transnational families, divorced/noncustodial families seeking connection and coordination, military families during deployment, and commuter parents. Forging social connectedness in new locations can be a critical lifeline for migrating families (Farbenblum, et al, 2018; McAuliffe, 2021).
This video depicts a military family whose members rely on videoconferencing technology to stay in touch. The father is deployed, and his wife and school-age children connect to share each other’s days. The clip promotes a positive association with the family staying in touch during deployment. Similarly, we can consider connections with extended family — particularly grandparents — through videoconferencing and other communication forms such as email, social media, and collaborative tools. During COVID-19, especially, families relied on virtual visits when members couldn’t travel and/or were in quarantine (Rose et al., 2021). Some families found improved communication and connectivity with young adults; others held nightly family dinner times virtually so all family members could stay connected (Joyce & McCarthy, 2021). Voida and Greenberg (2012) suggest that playing videogames across generations improves the opportunities for the sharing of activities and experiences, thus improving family relationships.
Yet consider some of the possible consequences or downsides of relying on technology for continued communication. When we experience the lack of physical touch, smell, and sound, Karraker (2015) asks, how much is it really like being there? Over time, does it become easier to meet virtually, eventually bringing about disruption? She notes, “While technology can enable families to reduce the strain spatial distance places on intimacy, technology may also be the ‘antithesis of intimacy’ (Parrenas & Boris, 2010, p. 13). Most likely, as with every social change confronted by the family, technology will sometimes enhance long-distance intimacy for global families and will sometimes diminish it, while certainly changing the dynamics of global families in a digital age.” (Karraker, 2015, p. 69).
Videogames and Co-viewing Media
During COVID-19, did you use videoconferencing to connect with family members who weren’t in your household, or with friends? How was it different than seeing them in person, if at all?
Playing videogames as a family or a family subset, such as a parent and a child, can be a marvelous way for technology to build closeness and cohesion. While research supports the benefits for children’s physical development (through using handheld devices or activities with Wii ), learning, and social and psychological well-being, and has identified possible challenges through contributions to anti-social and aggressive behavior, research has also explored the impact on family time together, satisfaction and coping. Engaged Family Gaming is a site promoting the benefits of gaming together and providing resources for parents.
An annual report by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA, 2022) provides statistics on who games and on the benefits of gaming. It indicates that 66% of Americans play videogames, including ¾ of those over the age of 18, and with numbers fairly evenly divide between males (52%) and females. The majority (69%) of families in the U.S. have at least one member who plays videogames.
In Chapter 6, we discussed the roles and functions that parents have in parenting; in Chapter 7 we looked further into parents’ roles in mediating and moderating their children’s technology safety and use. Here we focus on joint consideration when family members interact with one another when playing videogames or co-viewing media. When her daughter was about 8, the author played Nancy Drew Mystery games alongside her. The games were sold on DVDs at the time (downloads came later), and formatted for a PC. The games were challenging and filled with depth of information on specific content, as each game had a theme (e.g., history museum, aquarium, Egypt exhibit). To solve the mystery meant solving any variety of puzzles, using keen eye-hand coordination, and employing memory of clues. They could take days to solve. Consider all the ways in which playing Nancy Drew with her 8-year-old enabled the author to fulfill her role as a parent[1].
In their 2022 report on videogames, the ESA observes reasons why parents play videogames with their children.
1. It’s fun for all of us.
2. It’s a good opportunity to socialize with my child.
3. My child asks me to.
4. I enjoy playing videogames as much as my child.
For example, 90% of parents are present when their child acquires a videogame. And 9 out of 10 require their children to ask permission before purchasing a game. Nearly all (94%) parents pay attention to the videogame played by their children. Three-quarters (77%) report playing videogames with their child at least once a week — up from 55% in 2020.
Over two-thirds (71%) note that playing videogames has a positive impact on their child. And even more (88–91%) agree that they help children learn collaboration and problem-solving skills. With regard to connectivity, most people (83%) play with others ,with 56% playing with friends, 35% with a partner or spouse, and 32% with other family members.
Research into family videogame playing validates its value to family communication, family closeness, and family satisfaction. Wang et al. (2018) surveyed 361 adults with children in middle childhood through adolescence about their game playing and family well-being variables. Their quantitative analysis revealed direct effects for both frequency in game-playing and family closeness and satisfaction, even after controlling for age, gender, and education level. They also determined that family communication moderated (had an influence on) the effect of playing and family closeness, but only for those families with lower levels of family communication. Families reported finding fun, spending time together, and feeling closer when they played videogames, presenting a positive picture of the activity.
Pearce and colleagues (2021) examined the use of the videogame Animal Crossing with the idea of using entertainment as a way to cope during the COVID-19 pandemic. From interviews with parents and their children (in some households, both parents or all children were not interviewed; children ranged from 5–15 years), the authors found that playing the game contributed both to emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping. Emotional-focused coping includes escapist/avoidant, distraction, mood management, emotional expression, and spending time together. Problem-focused coping included being occupied and passing the time, which offered parents a way to protectively buffer stress. Playing the game lent to being part of a routine, which related to resilience by individuals and the whole family. Finally, playing offered a way to socially interact, something which, during the pandemic, was very limited. Children expressed that when they played the game with others there were “kind of hanging out with people” (p. 12).
Connected Learning
In Chapter 5 we considered the role of technology in children’s learning. Traditionally, we think of “educational technology” as that used by teachers and schools in schools and to assist children with homework. But the connected learning paradigm unbound learning from a place or space to follow the individual’s pursuit across what Barron (2006) refers to as a “learning ecology.” As an example, a child interested in dinosaurs may talk about them in class as part of a science curriculum. She may learn about different dinosaurs, their names, their anatomies, and whether they were predators or prey. Beyond the classroom, however, she may further explore dinosaurs online, in applications and games, in ways that sharpen her knowledge and ability to differentiate. Her parent may plan the family vacation around a special exhibit at a museum in a large city. An adventure to the seashore with her 4H club enables her to look for fossils, which she then takes back home and, with the help of her parent and the internet, identifies as part of the Paleolithic age.
Connected learning uses technology, space, time, and especially the interest of other people to build engagement in learning. Those who assist the child in this engagement are called “learning heroes.” Parents’ funds of knowledge can flow into family activities (Rogoff, 2003) to connect children to history, culture, and experience, further tying together family members’ understanding and interests. Beyond family-specific opportunities for connected learning, the concept, when applied to minority youth and their exploration of new media and technology for learning, creativity, and personal identity, finds real promise (Watkins et al., 2018). The Digital Edge provides results from a year-long ethnographic study of adolescents at an urban high school, incorporating interviews with teens, parents, and teachers, and observations of the technology-enhanced settings in school and especially out. Results suggests that teens’ “eager adoption of different technologies forges new possibilities for learning and creating that recognize the collective power of youth: peer networks, inventive uses of technology, and impassioned interests that are remaking the digital world.”
The figure above is taken from research by Barron et al. on family involvement in children’s digital learning (2009). The table below lists the fluency-building items for which children indicated frequency in creating with the aid of their parents. The research identified both the learning ecology supporting children’s technological fluency, and the role that parents play in facilitating that learning. Readers are encouraged to visit or subscribe to the Connected Learning Alliance (https://clalliance.org/about-connected-learning/) to explore an array of publications and projects that indicate the intersecting role of interests, relationships, and opportunities, many of which involving families, as mechanisms for fostering positive youth development and family life.
Appendix A: Fluency-Building Items from Interest, Access, and Experience Survey
How often have you done the following computer-related activities?
(please mark only one box per item) Never Once or twice 3 to 6 times More than 6 times
Created multimedia presentations that included pictures or movies or sounds using PowerPoint or another application
Written code using a programming language like C, Java, Logo, Perl
Made a publication such as a brochure or newspaper using a desktop publishing program like PageMaker or Word
Started your own newsgroup or discussion group on the Internet
Created a website using an application like Dreamweaver or FrontPage
Hand-coded a webpage using HTML
Published a site on the Web so that other people could see it
Created a piece of art using an authoring tool like Photoshop or Paint Shop
Designed a 2D or 3D model or drawing using a tool like CAD or ModelShop
Built a robot or created an invention of any kind using technology
Used a simulation to model a real life situation or set of data (e.g., population over time, the spread of disease, or speeds with varying resistance)
Made a database
Created a digital movie
Created an animation or cartoon
Created a computer game using software like Game Maker or through a programming language
Created a piece of music
Adapted from Barron, et al (2009). Parents as learning partners in the development of technological fluency. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 55-77.
Joint Exploration of Media and Technology
Family podcasting
An even more tangible way that families can be involved in cohesive ways with technology is to co-create technology together. This may include building a website or maintaining a social media page, podcast, or a YouTube channel. A good example of this is the Nowatski family. Beginning in 2015, Al (the father) and his two children, Liam and Anna, created the Children of the Force podcast. At the time, the children were 6 and 8, respectively. They started the podcast because the family often talked about Star Wars. Weekly, they talk about all things Star Wars — digging into the lore, current films and TV shows, conventions, and news. The conversation moves to current events and the kids’ opinions on a wide variety of topics. The podcast lasts about an hour, and as the children have gotten older and more involved in school, friends, and activities, they sometimes skip a week. Readers are encouraged to check out the Learning Activity that centers on this podcast. If watch the author’s interview with the family (Liam and Anna are now in their teens), you can consider the ways in which doing the podcast as a family contributes to the family’s cohesion, communication, and demonstration of flexibility.
Maker spaces
Ito et al.’s 2020 report on Connected Learning addresses how co-creation can be beneficial to children and the family. Co-creation can occur, for instance, in libraries that offer “maker spaces.”
Intergenerational learning environments can offer non-traditional configurations of learners using technology together to create opportunities and reimagine relationships to technology and the natural world. Projects that have been studied include technologies with indigenous families, constructing identities through making projects, parents collaborating with children to learn, and eliciting family sense-making with language and culture in digital projects.
Learning through and about technology together
Tech Tales is a series of workshops that center on indigenous knowledge systems through storytelling, family culture, family values, intergenerational sharing, and robotics. Through comparative case study research, the scholars explored processes used by families in creating their stories. An example of this project, with a focus on family engineering, is discussed and shown here. As the description of Robotics and e-textiles backpacks for family learning says:
In this video, we highlight a program called Tech Tales, a collaboration between the University of Washington, Pacific Science Center, Seattle Public Libraries, and Native American-serving organizations in the Pacific Northwest. In Tech Tales, nondominant families engage in engineering learning through storytelling, robotics, and e-textiles. At the center of the design is the recognition that all learning is cultural, and that all families and family members come to the workshop space with deep expertise around their own histories. As families animate their stories through robotics and programming through Scratch, they engage in playful and creative interactions, connecting relations and stories (stargazing, eagle relatives visiting, returning to Africa to reunite with family) with contemporary technologies (LEDs, motors, sensors), and they identify and explore new (or prior) interests while developing new competencies in multiple disciplinary forms of work (art, computer science, electrical engineering, and robotics).
Another project is Family Creative Learning (http://familycreativelearning.org/), created by faculty at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Families are invited to learn together about computing, and to interact with each other, working in teams as families and with other families. Through the experience, multiple points of learning occur, and relationships develop within the family and with other families. Common themes from the project include the shifting perspective of oneself, constructing identity, and becoming empowered. A leader’s guide supports the delivery of similar workshops worldwide. Readers are encouraged to seek more information on the project website.
Establishing Family Rules about Technology Use as a Family
Whether families use technology alone or together, research supports the value of clear communication about technology use. While we’ve discussed the ways in which technology supports family communication and cohesion, focusing on communication helps families also set rules about technology management and device use that are shared and benefit the group. Yet these rules may not come easily for everyone. As noted in the previous chapter, parents who feel more knowledgeable about the use and impacts of technology are more likely to instill guidelines or practice authoritative practices to negotiate use that is safe and reasonable. Those lacking in parental competence may either place straight guidelines without conversation or be laissez faire and not engaged around children’s use (Brito et al., 2017). Children’s own desire for and adherence to family rules around screen time and screen use will vary by age and influences from their wider social ecology. As our insight from Lanigan’s socio-technological framework indicates, family technology rules are influenced by the attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of each family member. The discussion about family rules, therefore, reflects family communication as indicative of the perspectives of each family member.
An aim of family communication is to reach shared perspectives, with guidance accommodating the needs of all. What are some techniques for doing this, specific to screen time among family members?
Consider the ways in which your family created rules about the use of technology together and in the household (if at all):
• Was it done through a family meeting?
• Did you use an application or other resource to guide the decision-making?
• Did your parents set the rules and expect you to follow them? Or did rules occur along the way, when behavior created a conflict and the need for flexibility and resolution — for example, when a child in the family was exposed to an image or the victim of cyberbullying, or when the once peaceful dinnertime conversation became affected by a family member’s technology use?
• Did the eventual rules reflect the interests of all?
• What mechanisms were in place to ensure that all family members followed the rules? Or were there dynamics that made following rules as a family a challenge?
Let’s take phones at dinner time. For many families, meal time is the one time during the day that everyone is together. Food is shared, conversation about the day keeps everyone up to date, and there may be deep cultural or religious elements to family dinner. It’s no surprise, then, that as a society we might be concerned that phones have become a distraction during mealtime. As Turkle (2015) describes, family members are alone, together.
In 2016, Commonsense Media examined the impact of devices at the dinner table. The study surveyed 869 individuals representing families with at least one child between 2 and 17 years of age. Of that number, 807 reported having devices, 770 reported eating dinner together in the past seven days, and 362 reported using technology at dinner time. It’s notable that just half of those who ate dinner together reported using technology during that time. That may be an indicator that families were already conscientiously choosing to keep phones away. While dinner time was viewed as very important to the majority of families (61%) with devices, it was not a time when most families talked about the day. In fact, only 19% reported that meal time was used for that purpose; driving their kids in the car was identified by the greatest number. About half of those who ate together and used devices reported that it makes them feel disconnected, yet 25% reported that phones brought the family together — likely through sharing information and pictures. This report gives an idea of the complexity of an issue that could mean challenges for some families that have no rules about technology, and that for others is quite simple: when together at dinner, whether they talk or not, phones are not present.
There are a variety of tools and resources available to help families determine screen time and safe technology use and to identify common ground on technology use. One is the Family Media Plan by the American Academy of Pediatrics. This tool encourages parents and each child to identify a plan together, based on the child’s age. There is a long checklist of items that the parent and child can select jointly, then use daily to monitor the child’s use. What is the advantage to families of having this kind of checklist for self-creation of a plan? One of the Learning Activities asks you to create a media plan for three children of different ages, then compare differences in what they would do and how it reflects their development. It also encourages you to reflect on the ability of that child and the family to follow through on monitoring the actions. Yet one criticism of the Family Media Plan is that guidance is offered only for children age 18 and younger. Parents can have as much difficulty putting the phone down, or engage in practices that are distracting to others or unhealthy for themselves.
As we’ll discuss in the next chapter, self-regulation and the establishment of boundaries are new skills for adults attempting to balance work and family in this post-COVID-19, high-tech world. This family education site of a digital media nonprofit suggests eight elements that all families should consider:
• Total screen time
• Screen-free times of the day
• Screen-free family events (including dinner time)
• Not using the phone while driving
• Not using screens before or during bedtime
• Tackling habits (e.g., by silencing phones to quiet the desire to check for messages)
• Creating a family pledge
• Identifying tech-free family activities
While information and communications technology can be a distraction and create conflict within a family, research indicates its value in encouraging family communication and strengthening family cohesion. The array of applications and devices for collaboration, creativity, and communication between family members has never been greater. For many families, technology tools — especially videoconferencing — were the single strongest way of maintaining family connections during COVID-19. These connections include extended family members, and family members distant due to immigration, travel, and deployment. And videogames can be a fabulous way for family members to have fun, solve problems, and strengthen cognitive skills, and for parents to monitor children’s media exposure.
Yet as families become increasingly busy and stressed, and children adapt to newer technologies at seemingly younger ages and parents attempt to stay vigilant, it can be a challenge to use technology in ways that are meaningful and maintain family connectedness without conflict. And for still other families, as discussed in Chapter 3, the limits on resources of access, time, and money can create differences both within and across families. With other life demands, technology use has become one more focus for family flexibility and accommodation to ensure connectedness and cohesion.
1. While both are 20 years older, they still play alone and together | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/08%3A_Technology_Use_for_Family_Communication_and_Connectivity/8.01%3A_Technology_Use_for_Family_Communication_and_Connectivity.txt |
Aarsand, P. (2007). Computer and Video Games in Family Life. Childhood (Copenhagen, Denmark), 14(2), 235-256.
About connected learning. Connected Learning Alliance. (2018, October 12). Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://clalliance.org/about-connected-learning/
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A Learning Ecology Perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224.
Barron, B., Martin, C. K., Takeuchi, L., & Fithian, R. (2009). Parents as learning partners in the development of technological fluency. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 55-77.
Brito, R., Francisco, R., Dias, P., & Chaudron, S. (2017). Family dynamics in digital homes: The role played by parental mediation in young children’s digital practices around 14 European countries. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39(4), 271-280.
Children of the Force: The Interview. (2022). YouTube. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://youtu.be/8z2iknECiCM.
Commonsense announces national campaign to promote device-free dinner. Common Sense Media. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/press-releases/common-sense-announces-national-campaign-to-promote-device-free-dinner
Commonsense.org. (2017). Device Free Dinner with Will Ferrell. YouTube. Retrieved June 24, 2022, from https://youtu.be/6rgNz7TFsE0.
Device free dinner. Common Sense Media. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/device-free-dinner
Dower, E. (2015, July 30). 8 quick tips for curbing your family’s screen time. FamilyEducation. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://www.familyeducation.com/life/kids-cell-phones/8-quick-tips-curbing-your-familys-screen-time
Entertainment Software Association. (2022, June 10). 2022 essential facts about the videogame industry. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://www.theesa.com/resource/2022-essential-facts-about-the-video-game-industry/
Family creative learning. Family Creative Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2022, from http://familycreativelearning.org/
Ito, M., Arum, R., Conley, D., Gutiérrez, K., Kirshner, B., Livingstone, S., … & Watkins, S. C. (2020). The Connected Learning Research Network: Reflections on a Decade of Engaged Scholarship. Irvine, CA: Connected Learning Alliance. https://clalliance.org/publications/
Karraker, M. (2015). Global families in a digital age. In C. Breuss. Families in a Digital World. NY: Peter Lang., 55-75.
Lebow J. L. (2020). Family in the Age of COVID-19. Family process, 59(2), 309–312. doi.org/10.1111/famp.12543
McCarthy, E., & Joyce, A. (2021, April 27). A better normal | The pandemic changed everything about family life. These are the parts parents want to keep. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/interactive/2021/pandemic-parenting-life-changes-return/
Nathanson, A. (2002). The Unintended Effects of Parental Mediation of Television on Adolescents. Media Psychology, 4(3), 207-230.
Nouwens, M, Griggio, CF, Mackay, WE (2017) “WhatsApp is for family; Messenger is for friends” communication places in app ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, 6–11 May, pp. 727–735. New York: ACM.
Padilla‐Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., & Fraser, A. M. (2012). Getting a high‐speed family connection: Associations between family media use and family connection. Family Relations, 61(3), 426-440.
Parreñas, R. S., and Boris, E. (Eds.). (2010). Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care. Stanford University Press.
Pearce, K. E., Yip, J. C., Lee, J. H., Martinez, J. J., Windleharth, T. W., Bhattacharya, A., & Li, Q. (2021). Families playing animal crossing together: coping with videogames during the COVID-19 pandemic. Games and Culture, 15554120211056125.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., & Olsen, S. F. (2001). The parenting styles and dimension questionnaire (PSDQ). In B. F. Perlmutter, J. Touliatos, & G. W. Holden (Eds.), Handbook of family measurement techniques: 3 (pp. 319-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rose, L., Yu, L., Casey, J., Cook, A., Metaxa, V., Pattison, N., . . . Meyer, J. (2021). Communication and Virtual Visiting for Families of Patients in Intensive Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A UK National Survey. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 18(10), 1685-1692.
Rudi, J., Dworkin, J., Walker, S. K. and Doty, J. L. (2014). Parents’ use of information and communications technologies for family communication: differences by age of children, Information, Communication & Society, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2014.934390
Stern, M., & Messer, C. (2009). How Family Members Stay in Touch: A Quantitative Investigation of Core Family Networks. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6-8), 654-676.
Tariq, A., Muñoz Sáez, D., & Khan, S. (2022). Social media use and family connectedness: A systematic review of quantitative literature. New Media & Society, 24(3), 815-832.
Turkle, S. (2015, September 27). “Stop Googling. Let’s talk.” New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/stop-googling-lets-talk.html
Tzou, C. (2018, May 13). TechTales: Supporting family engineering learning. 2018 STEM for All Video Showcase: Transforming the Educational Landscape. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://stemforall2018.videohall.com/presentations/1144
Voida, A., & Greenberg, S. (2011). Console gaming across generations: Exploring intergenerational interactions in collocated console gaming. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11(1), 45-56.
Walker, S., Dworkin, J. and Connell, J. (2011). Variation in Parent Use of Information and Communications Technology: Does Quantity Matter?. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal. 40(2), 106-119.
Walker, J., Duetzmann, S., Wrobel, L., & Duetzmann, M. (n.d.). Get your family game on! RSS. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from http://www.engagedfamilygaming.com/
Wang, B., Taylor, L., & Sun, Q. (2018). Families that play together stay together: Investigating family bonding through videogames. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4074-4094.
Watkins, S. C., & Cho, A. (2018). The Digital Edge: How Black and Latino youth navigate digital inequality. New York University press.
Wrobel, L., & Farough, A. (n.d.). Parent Resources Archives. RSS. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://engagedfamilygaming.com/parent-resources | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/08%3A_Technology_Use_for_Family_Communication_and_Connectivity/8.02%3A_References.txt |
Family Creative Learning project
Create (or at least plan) your own Family Creative Learning project. Review the facilitator’s handbook and information about the overall project on the website. Using pages 8–18 of the guide, plan a project (set of workshops) for a community of families with 7–12-year-old children. This may be a community well-known to you (e.g., your younger sister’s elementary school; the afterschool program you work in), or it may be an aspirational community you feel would benefit from a project like this. Add as much detail as you can, including the type of food to be shared, the projects developed, and outcomes you hope to achieve. Don’t worry about being familiar with the software mentioned in the handbook (newer or better technology may be available anyway). The important thing is that you use the basic elements and aims of this project to plan for active engagement and relationship building between families.
Children of the Force
In the chapter we briefly discuss the Children of the Force podcast, a product of Al Nowatski and his children, Liam and Anna (now teenagers). The podcast, started in 2016, arose from their shared interest in Star Wars. Episodes can be found at their website: childrenoftheforce.com. Select at least one of the episodes to listen to. You can also watch this interview with the family from the spring of 2022:
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=355#oembed-1
Consider the following questions:
• What does the activity mean to the family sense of closeness (cohesion)? How does the activity serve as a platform for family communication, and as a demonstration of family/family member flexibility?
• How is Al asserting his role in the family? How are his children asserting their roles as children? How does the technology experience affect the execution of those roles, rules, and structure? How does it affect the processes of relationship maintenance and strengthening?
• Consider the contribution of creating this podcast to each child’s development over time. In what ways might it influence the sense of identity? Self-concept? Social awareness?
• How might Al operate as a “learning hero” as one or both of the children build on the podcast experience to engage with their interests?
Family Media Plan
The American Academy of Pediatrics offers a Family Media Plan, an online tool which includes helpful guidelines for safe and healthy technology use for children, and for shared decision-making by children and their parents.
• Play around with it to see how it works, and create separate plans for a family with three children at different ages.
• Review each plan. How did you determine what to include for each child based on their age?
• How easy or difficult would it be for a family to help all children follow this plan?
• Consider your role as a family professional (e.g., therapist, educator, family service provider). How would you help families work with the plan?
Co-viewing Media
Commonsense Media offers helpful guidelines on co-viewing media with young children in ways that are helpful to their learning and to parent/child relationships. Explore the tips and explanations:
• Focus their attention.
• Encourage them to think about the order of events.
• Strengthen their understanding.
• Make it relatable.
• Expand on what kids say.
Now select a popular film you might watch with a child between 4 and 8 years old (if you can’t think of one, Commonsense Media also has a very helpful guide to media selection based on child age). Watch the film one time through, taking notes on each of the points above. Then create a media viewing guide for parents or caregivers to use to co-view the movie with their child.
8.04: Blog Prompts
In Common Sense Media’s “device-free dinner” research, a news outlet might report the results like this:
• 51% of parents report that having devices at the dinner table makes them feel disconnected.
• 35% of parents report that having devices at the dinner table causes arguments.
Examine the study report. Based on this reporting, are these findings correct? Was the study done in a way that gives you confidence in the findings?
This activity is useful for reading research findings. Here are a few suggestions:
1. Look at the central research question. What was the study trying to find out?
2. Check the method. Based on what they wanted to learn, was their sample representative of the population they reported on? How did they gather the data? Is the method reliable?
3. Examine how many people were in the total sample (n=867). Then check the reporting of the numbers for each part of the report. How did the news outlet get the percentage reported? Is it representative of the whole sample? If not, which portion is it referring to?
4. Are there other findings that might have painted a different picture of families, devices, dinner time, and quality time together?
5. Put on your critical hat, and scrutinize the study.
As a related post, say you were a developer for Commonsense Media and your team was to determine a strategy that would be meaningful to parents. Would you aim toward recommendations and tips on reducing phones during dinnertime? Why? If not, would you have another message for parents?
Based on the data from the videogame industry, many families play games together, and parents see that the time with their children is well spent. Yet parents are also concerned about their children’s exposure to too much screen time and too much violence, two factors likely with the use of videogames. What do we recommend to parents who might be fond of videogames and would like to play them with their children so that use is safe and healthy, as well as fun and a way to connect as a family? How would guidelines vary based on the age of the child?
8.05: Additional Resources and Readings
Becoming Good Digital Citizens Together
• Digizen “Raises awareness and understanding of what digital citizenship is and encourages users of technology to be and become responsible DIGItal citiZENS”
Family Connectivity
• New York Times: 5 Ways to Stay in Touch With Less Tech-Savvy Family and Friends
www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/smarter-living/coronavirus-facebook-portal-echo-show-google-nest-hub.html
• Helping you make technology work for your family https://families.google/ | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/08%3A_Technology_Use_for_Family_Communication_and_Connectivity/8.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
No is a complete sentence.
― Anne Lamont
Chapter Insights
• Work is an external system influence on families.
• Boundary theory is often used to describe work-family balance. Basic ideas in the theory include terms like boundary permeability, negative or positive spillover and boundary keepers.
• Consider this statement: “Technology is theoretically neutral and does not dictate boundary permeability.” Do you agree or disagree?
• The are many ways ICT is used in work-family balance. It can influence – positively or negatively — family satisfaction, workplace performance and individual’s mental health.
• The term “new ways of working” is used to describe more flexible arrangements for work. Consider generational differences in the desire for flexibility and these new work arrangements. Consider too what flexibility and work arrangements means in studies that reveal challenges to the individual’s mental health.
• A review of the research presented in this chapter. The picture it paints is quite complex and unclear. What does that tell you about the question of technology’s influence on work-family balance?
• The video interview with Simon Sinek presents a fairly strong opinion about how well Millennials and GenZers were prepared for the workforce, and the need for companies to accommodate. After viewing the video see if you agree. Or perhaps your thoughts are less black and white on this issue.
• Our collective experience using ICT during the COVID-19 pandemic may have shifted perspectives about work and family balance. After your own experience with school/work/home life during COVID-19, consider your thoughts about the role, influence and value (and perhaps consequences) of information and communications technology.
• Policy recommendations organizational action are listed in the chapter. How might businesses and universities (as a business and an institution that helps prepare future professionals) support individual’s acquisition of “digital cultural capital”?
• Given predictions of new ways of working and potential impacts on individuals and families, there are new roles that family professionals can and should play in aiding families now and in the future for maintaining a healthy balance.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
If COVID-19 brought families anything positive, it was the ability to complete multiple responsibilities in a single location and with fewer constraints on time. Many families were home-bound, and thus needed to attend to work, school, interests, religious fulfillment, caregiving, and other matters from home. They relied on the internet and digital communication tools as they had before the quarantine, but this time without the traditional bounds of place and time.
These images captures what it was like for many:
These mothers are juggling multiple responsibilities, accommodating attention across needs, and using technology to fulfill demands. When you look at these images, what emotions arise for you? How do you think the mothers feel? How about their children? Imagine yourself in a similar situation. Demands pile up across work/school/activities and in your personal/family/friend life. And somewhere in the middle are the intentions you have for your health and well-being (sleep, anyone?).
The concept of work-family balance (or other balance of role demands) relates to the satisfaction that results when an individual, as a member of a family, competently straddles role demands across the spheres of the household and workplace (and often additional domains). Our interest in work and family balance isn’t new. Scholars have long been researching and theorizing about the ways in which individuals can successfully balance their attention, energy, and focus across roles in multiple spheres, with success having many implications. Scholars have long been researching and theorizing about the ways in which individuals can successfully balance their attention, energy, and focus across roles in multiple spheres, with success having many implications. Workplaces vary, as do work demands. For some families, balance results from tightly bounded dimensions (e.g., the 9-to-5 external workplace and the family home); for others, the integration of work life and family is more seamless or more complex, such as when work responsibilities lie in a family-run business. Over the decades, changes in parents’ work patterns — particularly with increased participation by women in paid work, increased work hours, and non-standard/atypical work hours (time spent working outside of the workplace) — raised interest in the topic by scholars. And in the last 20 years, access to the internet and the advent of mobile devices has exponentially made study of work-family balance more complex.
Perspectives on Work-family Balance
Boundary theory is frequently used to explain the dynamics of work-family balance and to identify antecedents and consequences (Berkowsky, 2013; Olson-Buchanan et al., 2016; Nam, 2014; Rice, 2017). Boundaries of time and space, in particular, are seen as either fixed or permeable in reinforcing or allowing fluidity in the execution of role demands. Physical spaces and the persons in those spaces — the boundary keepers (e.g., employers, family members) — help reinforce boundaries by laying explicit and tacit expectations on the individual for role fulfillment.
Work-family balance and boundary theory. Adapted from Clark, 2000.
Clark’s (2000) discussion of boundary theory as it affects families observes that differences in the balance experience are characterized by degrees of permeability in boundaries and flexibility in the execution of work/family roles. Permeability indicates whether “elements from one domain are readily available in the other; the ability to be physically in one setting yet perform a role psychologically from another” (p. 1020). A father who calls to check on his children who are home after school is demonstrating that the boundary of the family is permeable as the demands of his role enter the workplace. This is the result of his work conditions and his psychological separation from work to make the phone call.
Flexible boundaries occur when “a person could relax the boundary to meet the demands of the other domain,” and when spatial and temporal markers of a boundary can be moved (Nam, 2014; p.1020). For example, when a teacher grades papers over the weekend, and at home, the work boundary is flexible. The responsibilities of work are completed in a home-based (or other) setting. Boundary crossing occurs when there is some level of integration: high permeability and high flexibility, or high flexibility and low permeability, offer autonomy (the choice for role completion in one domain or another); low flexibility and high permeability result in interference (higher probability of roles enacted in one domain to the exclusion of the other), and low flexibility and low permeability mean segmentation (or boundary keeping). Nam observes that individuals with the potential for interference are more likely to suffer the consequences of heavy workload, more stress, and diminished satisfaction.
Transfer, or spillover, occurs when the individual’s mood resulting from handling demands in one sphere affects the other. Spillover can be negative (e.g, work stress taken out on others at home) or positive, also known as enrichment (e.g., getting a promotion at work positively affects the parent’s mood at home). Berkowsky (2013) refers to this as cross-domain compensation. Competencies gained in multiple roles can also help the individual deal with the negative stresses associated with roles in one domain. A parent who receives a positive review at work, for example, may carry that feeling of competence in to their childrearing attitudes. Recovery periods return the sense of balance and individual well-being after experiencing and then resolving work-family conflict (Demerouti et al., 2014).
There are traditionally three domains of interest when studying work-family balance: the workplace, the family, and the individual. Studies may also examine the wider influence of balance on society (reviews by Olson-Buchanan et al., 2016, and Rice, 2017, indicate potential impacts on society; Shockley et al., 2018, provide a cross-cultural perspective). An example of a societal benefit is when the workforce is solid as the result of contented employees who feel that they successfully can balance responsibilities across domains. Family, individual, and work outcomes reflect comprehensive and systemic impacts. More work hours, for instance, may mean greater work productivity, yet also more role strain, personal stress on the individual, and family dissatisfaction.
Based on a review of the international literature, Wheeler et al. (2018) recognize secondary effects. Most often, parents’ stress from conflict or imbalance influences children through their own psychological functioning and relationships. Children’s mental health and/or achievement can be affected. They cite cross-family differences in cultural orientation, including gender equalitarianism, and intrafamily (between parent) differences in occupational profiles that may reveal differences in child impact.
Some of the outcomes studied when considering work and family balance:
Family Individual Workplace Society
Satisfaction with personal relationships
Family satisfaction/conflict
Physical and mental health
Use of prescription medications
Perception of stress
Work productivity
Work satisfaction
Percentage of women in the workforce
Secondary:
Children’s mental health
Children’s academic achievement
The ability to balance roles may be viewed as a skill possessed by the individual, when in fact a complexity of influences affects the ways in which balance is achieved (Shockley et al., 2018). Working parents in countries with high rates of inequality and low rates of economic growth and inflation, for example, value the opportunity for longer working hours, so their perception of stress from work hours will be different. The perception of conflict also appears to be influenced by culture (Shockley, et al, 2018; Xu et al., 2018). Countries with more collectivistic cultures view family-to-work conflict as less of an issue; because work is perceived as a means to provide support for and honor the family, additional work and longer work hours are seen less as a conflict and more as helping the family. The perception that longer work hours create conflict in the family is more likely in countries with a more individualistic worldview.
Gender equality and supports to the family play a significant role in demonstrations of balance. Because women take more responsibility for domestic housework and child caring, it is harder for employed mothers to achieve balance without additional child care. Higher rates of family vs. work conflict are seen in countries that have a wide gender gap (Shockley et al., 2018). Disparities also occur across education lines. In the response to COVID-19 pandemic, many workplaces offered extended leave and benefits for child care. Additional benefits such as flexible or reduced hours, paid/unpaid time off, and child care or tutoring benefits favor those with higher levels of education (Miller, 2020). For example, 29% of those with post-graduate degrees report paid time off, compared to just 9% of those with less than a college educationt.
Even with the availability of work-family policies in recent decades, a backlash has challenged their success. Perrigno et al. (2018) observe four mechanisms at play in the effort to sabotage well-intentioned work-family policies: 1) inequity, 2) stigma, 3) spillover, and 4) strategy. One can imagine that integrating ICT in the workplace and attempting balance with family responsibilities only makes policy action even more complex and challenging.
Moving forward, readers are cautioned about extant research on work-family balance. Focusing only on the existing body of research about worker and family experiences can lead to overgeneralization. Too often, there is a tendency for research to reflect the experiences of those who are “WEIRD” (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic).
Technology Integration and Work-Family Balance
While ICT has long played a role in in cross-boundary role maintenance (e.g., the mother who uses a phone to check on her children after school), mobile technologies and virtual environments can seem to practically evaporate boundaries of time and place in how and when work gets done. In fact, the fluid nature of work due to the use of technology across boundaries in the last 20 years leads Hughes and Silver (2020) to assert that, rather than seeing work and home in balance, how work gets done should be seen as the new standard. Adjustments to family life, with more flexible workplace arrangements, are being embraced as a fact of the future (Anderson et al., 2021).
Technological innovation for the workplace may have tapped into a longstanding need. Rice (2017) observed that many workers do not find that workplace hours accommodate a sense of balance with family responsibilities. She cites a 2010 study in which 60% of Australian workers indicated a preference for telework. And 2017 data indicated that workers would take an 8% pay reduction if it allowed them to work from home (What a way to make a living, 2020). Nevertheless, prior to COVID-19, fewer than 5% of the labor force in the U.S., and 2–9% in Europe, reported exclusively working from home (Eurostat, 2017). These statistics highlight the dramatic effect of the pandemic on a more mobile workplace. Equally, the availability of college courses online shifted exponentially with COVID.
For those whose jobs can adapt to these “new ways of working” (Demerouti et al., 2014), new challenges are present. Studies of teleworking offer insight into the conditions which may contribute to a sense of balance or imbalance. Early research on technology integration indicated positives for worker productivity, and for worker perception of autonomy, yet later work suggested minimal benefit for working from home (Olson-Buchanan et al., 2016, p. 21). In particular, women did not demonstrate higher job satisfaction even if they perceived more control and flexibility. Solis’ (2016) examination of teleworkers in Costa Rica identified that having more work time at home, shared or inadequate space, and inflexible work schedules related to perceptions of work-family interference. In part, the presence of the mother at home, though working, may over time enhance children’s expectations of her availability. Employer attitude also appears to contribute to teleworking success; the actions of managers who are reluctant to trust employees to be productive can diminish employee feelings of autonomy and recognition.
Technological innovation and work arrangements may create further divides among families. Many jobs, however, do not offer flexibility in time or work context or present the autonomy for determining work (or family) interruptions (Olson-Buchanan et al., 2016). This is particularly true in professions requiring skilled labor. Latin American countries like Ecuador, Guatemala, and Bolivia, more greatly dependent on manufacturing or agriculture, have less potential for telework (Pimintel, 2020). This was also evident for essential workers during COVID-19, for whom the need to be present at work and the need for child care support continued uninterrupted.
The internet, and mobile and digital technologies, offer the promise of managing work with more autonomy and success amidst a more fluid landscape of a modern workplace culture that thrives on employee availability (Demerouti et a.l, 2014). Research on technology’s influence on work-family balance before COVID-19 informs our understanding of the adjustments needed as we look to a future that is “tele-everything” (Anderson et al., 2021). Theoretically, perceiving work conditions as more flexible relates to higher job satisfaction. Use of mobile technologies might modify that relationship, however, if workers feel in less control due to communication demands (for example, from an employer during family time).
Research by Nam (2014) examined the influence of internet and mobile phone use on 850 workers’ perceived flexibility and permeability and on job outcomes (job satisfaction, job stress, and workload). Workers’ sense of stress decreased with use of mobile phones for work. Nam found direct (positive) relationships between the use of technologies and perceptions of work and family flexibility and of work-family permeability. And these variables related to each other: permeability of work-to-family life was positively related to flexibility in work-to-family life. In other words, those using technology to accomplish work tasks at home were likely to facilitate home-related needs at work. For some workers, although the use of technology increased workload and perceived stress, it did not change the ability to balance work and family. For others, telework reduced feelings of stress, yet contributed to feelings of being overworked. And effects observed may reflect more than the direct impact on the individual; Ferguson et al. (2016) revealed that using technology to continue work from home can have compounded effects on the employee through influence on the family. They examined cell phone use at home for work by employees (so called “mWork”). An employee’s decision to quit the job in response to heightened workplace demands related to strain that appeared to correlate with strain on family members.
Nam suggested that organizations continue to monitor employee satisfaction with the use of technology. The changing use of technology by employees at work and for work, and for work at home, requires that policies regarding work-life balance consider the growing interplay of technology with flexibility and worker satisfaction.
Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators of the Process in Technology and Work-Family Balance: a Complex and Shifting picture
Olson-Buchanan et al. (2016), Ollier-Malaterre et al. (2019), and Rice (2017) reviews research on work-family balance and technology. To help the reader visualize elements in the process, the table below lists variables studied as antecedents (or pre-existing conditions), outcomes, and moderators. These indicate relationship potential between technology use, reasons for use, individual differences, and individualized outcomes. Lending complexity is that the same variable may be conveyed differently depending on the research. Job demands, for example, may be a predictor in one study, influencing whether the use of technology for boundary permeability is necessary, and appear in another as a moderator, affecting the degree to which using technology influences the balance.
Variable Type Variable
Antecedents (factors influencing technology use for work & family) Work:
• higher job status,
• work demands,
• work norms/expectations
Family:
• expectations from family and friends,
Individual
• individual differences (e.g., ability to multitask, age, education),
• perceived usefulness of the technology,
• perceived ease of use
Outcomes Work
• productivity, hours worked, work-nonwork conflict,
Individual
• perceived flexibility or control (autonomy),
• psychological strain,
• job attitudes,
• worker individual health (blood pressure, heart condition, frequency of illness), mental health (depression, stress, role strain),
Family outcomes
• family connectedness and satisfaction.
Moderators Individual:
• negative affect,
• time management skills,
• preference for segmentation,
• gendered or personal demands,
External:
• social stressors,
• technology support (or lack thereof),
Job-related factors
Variables identified in technology and work-family balance research
Antecedents. Olson-Buchanan et al.’s (2016) review identified that use of ICTs to perform work during non-work time was positively predicted by perceived usefulness of the technology, along with job conditions (higher job status, work demands, work norms/expectations), expectations from family and friends, and the ability to multitask, and negatively predicted by preference for segmentation (individual difference for boundary maintenance). Rice (2017) similarly determined that use and comfort with technology predicted individual differences in work-family arrangements, which also influenced work and individual outcomes from flex arrangements.
Readers may remember discussion of Davis’ technology acceptance model (TAM, 1989) in Chapter 2. The TAM characterizes use of technology in terms of positive perceptions toward that use. Expectations from the workplace can establish norms about how and when to use technology across boundaries (e.g., the employer who continues to send emails over the weekend with the expectation of response). Individual differences — such as age and comfort with technology (Nam, 2014), gender, marital status, and work position — can influence the uptake of technology use for work-family balance. Millennials are more tech-savvy, yet less flexible with work outside of work settings, even though technologies make that possible. Marital status (and its correlation with childrearing responsibilities) and the demand for role responsibilities at home create the need to use communication devices for coordination. Gender influence appears related to correlative societal and role demands — men with more education, for example, held jobs that enabled more autonomy. And work position influenced the degree to which individuals held boundary permeable/flexible positions that conditioned their use of technology.
Outcomes. A focus on workplace, family, and individual outcomes continues to be present in technology-related research. Work outcome variables include perceived flexibility or control (autonomy), work productivity, hours worked, work-nonwork conflict, psychological strain, and job attitudes. Family outcomes include family connectedness and satisfaction.
Perhaps the largest area of outcomes-research relates to the individual — specifically, dimensions of worker individual health (blood pressure, heart condition, frequency of illness), and mental health (depression, stress, role strain). Longer work hours and the negative spillover felt by family contribute to higher work-nonwork conflict, higher perceived stress, and burnout. The ability to work and meet family needs “any time, any place” can result in tremendous strain on the individual. Yet many families find value in having agency in when and how work and family roles are completed. Rice (2017) also reports that the high-pressure environment of always “being on,” navigating irregular hours, and a potentially unpleasant physical environment can have physical and physiological costs. The review indicates that about half of a U.S. sample agreed that using ICTs increased their stress, the blurring of work-family boundaries, and conflict (p. 186).
Writing about tele-work, Leineweber and Falkenberg (2018) report that Nordic countries have the highest rates in Europe of workers working from home. For these workers, the constant availability offered by new technologies and telework leads to feelings of constant involvement, including during free time. As Olson-Buchanan et al. (2016) observe, “the flexibility of time and space and role demand, aided by the use of boundary cross technologies, fosters role conflict by allowing for interruptions and distractions and hindering one’s ability to meet the demands of the salient role” (p.18).
Social isolation is a potential result of telework or flexwork. Studies have observed that increased online communication has reduced casual conversation between colleagues (e.g., talk around the water cooler), which can then influence work outcomes. While working from home can mean the availability of a parent to care for a child or be present when the child is sick, consistent space and time flexibility can risk compromised productivity. Exploitation of the flexibility by employees to multitask can diminish chances for promotion and opportunities for achievement. This is particularly likely for women, the elderly, and those with children with disabilities, who have competing role expectations on their time. As a result, despite the availability of technologies that offer flexibility, the difficulty of doing both home and work roles well contributes to conflict and possibly weaker work performance.
Moderators. Research on work-family balance also identifies moderators in the individual, work, and family realms. Variables related to the individual include negative affect, time management skills, preference for segmentation, and gendered or personal demands. Those whose time management skills are challenged may use technology across boundaries, yet not feel or be productive…. workplace moderators (of ICT’s influence on perception of balance include technology support and job status. . Educational achievement also predicts flexibility and an openness to using technology across boundaries. Nam (2014) asserts that individuals with more education tend to be more flexible with resources and energy to work in their home life domain. Yet they are also reluctant to let work interrupt their family life. So while they are willing to work from home (demonstrating flexibility), their action is not passive and shows agency in determining boundary permeability.
Moderators in the workplace include social stressors, technology support (or lack thereof), and job-related factors such as job status. Technological support, for example, boosts perceptions of flexibility, indirectly benefitting work satisfaction. It appears to work beyond aiding the individual’s knowledge and confidence in using technology, providing an indirect boost to perceived flexibility and work satisfaction. A study of parent and family educators in the U.S. determined a strong relationship between workplace infrastructure (including technical support) and encouragement (including shared values for technology) and perceived usefulness and ease of use (Walker & Hong, 2017). Taken to its natural conclusion, technological support’s value to individual technology comfort could positively influence competence in use for work-family balance, resulting in reduced work strain and burnout.
Family demands can influence worker attitudes. Workers whose family members have positive attitudes about technology’s usefulness, for example, report higher work satisfaction. But these variables don’t work in isolation. More recent advances in education, integrating technology in children’s school work and learning, have introduced stresses on families as children spend time online and need assistance. A recent study by McKinsey and Lean (2020) observed that, for many women, this can influence the decision to leave their jobs. Justifications include lack of flexibility at work, feeling like they need to be available to work at all hours, housework and caregiving burdens, worry that their performance is being negatively judged because of caregiving responsibilities, discomfort sharing the challenges they are facing with teammates or managers, feeling blindsided by decisions that affect their day-to-day work, and feeling unable to bring their whole self to work. Black women and other women of color experience these constraints to a greater degree.
The future view of work
Looking to the future, experts foresee shifts in work that that will make it less placed-based, more flexible, more automated, and reliant on on-demand consumer expectations (Anderson et al., 2021; NAS, 2017). Ens et al. (2018) identified a digital work typology based on how work is reconfigured through the availability of digital technologies. This typology reflects job mobility (degree of flexibility in the location of work) and precarity (degree of instability due to flexible employment), and it was crafted to construct a notion of “decent digital work,” or digital work that enables autonomy, competence, and belonging (p.2) They label worker types as follows: the gig worker (high precarity, low mobility), the digital nomad (high precarity, high mobility), the 9-to-5er (low mobility, low precarity,) and the traveling elite (high mobility, low precarity). Gig workers take ad hoc, temporary jobs, such as driving for Uber. Digital nomads work at jobs with high precarity but are not fixed to particular locations. A web developer who is mobile and works from different countries, for example, is a digital nomad.
Low Mobility
High Mobility
High Precarity
Gig Worker
Digital Nomad
Low Precarity
Nine to Fiver
Traveling Elite
Digital Work Typology. Adapted from Ens et al. (2018). Decent digital work: Technology affordances and constraints. Paper presented at the Thirty ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco CA, USA
These new digital-work realities can affect individual well-being. The transition to more flexibility in location can challenge feelings of competence in managing tasks and time, and the sense of belonging. Consequences heighten with greater mobility (traveling elite) and precarity (digital nomad), threatening the sense of connection. According to the authors, “Autonomy suffers from a need to maintain a steady supply of work and meeting clients’ needs” (p. 6). There exists the potential that spillover from these digital work arrangements can affect the workers’ emotional release at home and the time needed for recovery.
Work-Family Balance Policy Recommendations Reflecting New Digital Realities
In 2021, the author prepared a background report for the United Nations on the role of technology in the family (Walker, 2021), with an emphasis on work-family balance. This section presents an adaptation of the report’s policy recommendations.
A family-focused work-life vision is more relevant now than ever, as the shift to tele-work and the removal of boundaries of space and time appears to predict future realities. Policy recommendations to promote work-family balance in the digital world supplement existing actions to create more flexible hours, leave policies, and supports related to childcare and children’s education. Such policies are far ranging and promote quality early childhood education and childcare for all children.
Recommendations reflecting the integration of technology and work family balance lean heavily on flexibility, yet suggest structure that intentionally guides family, individual, and workplace well-being. A persuasive observation from the existing research is that employee perception of balance and preference factor strongly in technology use, adaptation, and outcomes, so workplace recommendations may allow employees to set their schedules (and work locations) to meet needs in both spheres yet provide them with guidance and follow-through on organizational policy about setting boundaries to lower personal stress and enrich family satisfaction and well-being (Demerouti et al., 2014).
Individual competence in boundary management, however, must also be regarded, to aid in the development of what Ollier-Malaterre et al. (2019) call “digital cultural capital.” Technology has been said to present a paradox through its problematization of work-nonwork boundary permeability. It makes permeability possible, yet creates challenges requiring individual attention and responsibility to provide equitable balance in role performance. “Digital cultural capital” represents the awareness, motivation, and skill to perform technology management. A new employee benefit, for instance, may be tailored educational supports on how to manage ICT to support work and family goals.
Employers can help foster more personal responsibility to avoid negative spillover in setting boundaries for communication — using smartphones wisely, deploying privacy management tools, practicing good digital citizenship and online self-presentation (Olson-Buchanan et al., 2016; Blum-Ross et al., 2018). As Ollier-Malaterre et al. (2019) stress, the development of “digital cultural capital” should be learned through the social class divides that enable some groups to develop skills over others.
Employers can acknowledge individual differences that might affect workers’ abilities to work from home while also supporting their children’s learning (McKinsey & LeanIn, 2020; What a way to make a living, 2020). “Boundary management” may be a new skill employees need to acquire. Providing support may reduce psychological stress and enhance parent/worker confidence, promoting mental health and well-being and potentially making parents more available to assist with their children’s learning from home.
Policies must hold a vision for future innovation and what that will mean to the workplace and to families.
At the same time, employers must be wary of permeability effects on workers. Research suggests that workplace permeability benefits employers more than employees; when individuals lack the capacity to manage demands across work and family spheres, job dissatisfaction, job-related stress, and role overload occur. Policies for employees need to be consistent and clarify expectations for daily work and performance reviews (Blum-Ross et al., 2018). They should also regard individual differences in employee preference and avoid inequity and division. Older workers, for instance, hold different views on autonomy and permeability than younger one. Training and support programs that advance the technology skills of older workers can lessen gaps in worker performance.
Greater responsibility for the privacy and security of a more permeable, flexible work and family life in online spaces must be taken. As Ollier-Malaterre et al. (2019) note:
technology amplifies the blurring…also because the very definitions of what is public and what is private are under scrutiny: Information shared on social media, for instance, is sometimes deemed by scholars and lawyers as private and sometimes public…In an era in which putting up curtains on windows and planting high trees around houses no longer suffices to safeguard privacy, many new questions for individuals arise about privacy, visibility and surveillance that societies or collective actions may at some point strive to regulate. (p. 435)
The reach of organizations expands with technology changes, ultimately affecting individual workers and the blurring of boundaries and roles. Attention needs to be placed on the longer-term exposure to forced teleworking (as with COVID, or permanent shifts made post-pandemic), and considerations necessary for workplace supports that extend to the home. Employers can consider financial subsidies that cover costs for home internet, ergonomic workspaces, and peripherals that make home-based work less taxing on personal resources. Other proactive planning will be for transitions as work-home arrangements change. As employees have flexed and reoriented their boundaries to satisfy work and family needs, a return to previous or adjusted arrangements will bring about the need for recovery (Dermouti et al, 2014) and support (McKinsey & LeanIn, 2020).
Research Considerations
Without a doubt, research on the intersection of work-family balance and technology needs to be expanded — in ways that include a greater representation of workers, work contexts, and family experiences, and that examine how cultural assumptions with regard to technology integration shape work-family policy. The French government, for example, encourages companies to minimize technology disruptions after work hours. This helps to control technological effects at multiple levels (Ollier-Malaterre et al., 2019).
Within the research, attention to individual and family outcomes from technology-integrated work-life balance must be elevated on par with that directed at workplace well-being. A systemic view must regard the reciprocal and transactional costs and benefits to the family, and should include the effects of work-family balance on children, an area that to date has been given limited attention in the literature. Children’s well-being as influenced by parents’ work status and work conditions deserves closer study. Work-family conflict, with its impact on the parent-child relationship (and inherent to this, parents’ attention, communication, and responsivity), appears to be an indirect route through which work-family balance can influence externalizing or internalizing behaviors.
Disparities in work-family policy, and in its equitable execution, exist worldwide. U.S. policies for family leave and childcare support lag behind those of other countries that are economically competitive and have low employment rates. Might there be similar resistance to comprehensive policies that address the complexity of technology preferences, work demands, and the needs of families? In chapter 12 we consider the role of policy in integrating research findings on ICT and the family into the real world. The future of families demands that our critical lens extend to the role technology plays in the peaceful balance of work and family demands and benefits. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/09%3A_What_Boundaries_Technology's_Role_in_Work_and_Family_Balance/9.01%3A_What_Boundaries_Technology%27s_Role_in_Work_and_Fami.txt |
Anderson, J., Rainie, L, and Vogels, E. (2021, February 18). Experts say the “New Normal” in 2025 will be far more tech-driven, presenting more challenges. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/02/18/experts-say-the-new-normal-in-2025-will-be-far-more-tech-driven-presenting-more-big-challenges/
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action Control (pp.11-39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Berkowsky, R. W. (2013). When you just cannot get away: Exploring the use of information and communication technologies in facilitating negative work/home spillover. Information, Communication and Society, 16(4), 519-541.
Blum-Ross, A., Donoso, V., Dinh, T., Mascheroni, G., O’Neill, B., Riesmeyer, C., and Stoilova, M. (2018). Looking forward: Technological and social change in the lives of European children and young people. Report for the ICT Coalition for Children Online. Brussels: ICT Coalition.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53, 747–770.
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Lieke, L., and Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work–family balance, and well-being. In The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life (pp. 123-141). Springer, Dordrecht
den Dulk, L., Groeneveld, S., Ollier-Malaterre, A., and Valcour, M. (2013). National context in work-life research: A multi-level cross-national analysis of the adoption of workplace work-life arrangements in Europe. European Management Journal, 31(5), 478–494.
den Dulk, L., and Peper, B. (2016). The impact of national policy on work-family experiences. The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family, 300-314
The Economist (2020, September 12). What a way to make a living. The Economist, Pp. 19-21.
Ens, N., Stein, M. K., and Blegind Jensen, T. (2018). Decent digital work: Technology affordances and constraints. Paper presented at the Thirty ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco CA, USA
EUROSTAT (2017) Digital Economy and Society Statistics – Households and Individuals, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Digital_economy_and_society_statistics_-_households_and_individuals#Internet_usage
Ferguson, M., Carlson, D., Boswell, W., Whitten, D., Butts, M. M., and Kacmar, K. M. (2016). Tethered to work: A family systems approach linking mobile device use to turnover intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 520.
Galovan, A, Fackrell, T., Buswell, L., Jones, B., Hill, E. J. and Carroll, S.J. (2010). The Work-Family Interface in the United States and Singapore: Conflict Across Cultures. Journal of Family Psychology, 24 (5), 646–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020832
Hughes, K. D., and Silver, W. A. (2020). Beyond time-binds: Rethinking work–family dynamics for a mobile world. Human Relations, 73(7), 924-952.
Kossek, E. E., and Lee, K. (2017). Work-family conflict and work-life conflict. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. business.oxfordre.com/view/https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/978...190224851-e-52.
Leineweber, C., and Falkenberg, H. (2018). 15 A Review of Work–Family Research in the Nordic Region. The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface, 288.
McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.org (2020) . Women in the Workplace 2020 report. Womenintheworkplace.com. https://wiw-report.s3.amazonaws.com/Women_in_the_Workplace_2020.pdf
Miller, C. C. (2020, September 17). Private tutors, pop up schools or nothing at all: How employers are helping parents. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/upshot/pandemic-workers-benefits-disparity.html
Nam, T. (2014). Technology use and work-life balance. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 9(4), 1017-1040.
O’Brien, M. (2012). Work-family Balance Policies: Background Paper. Division for Social Policy and Development. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Jacobs, J. A., and Rothbard, N. P. (2019). Technology, work, and family: Digital cultural capital and boundary management. Annual Review of Sociology, 425-447.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., Boswell, W. R., and Morgan, T. J. (2016). 24 The Role of Technology in Managing the Work and Nonwork Interface. The Oxford Handbook of Work and Family, 333. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199337538.013.26
Perrigino, M. B., Dunford, B. B., and Wilson, K. S. (2018). Work–family backlash: The “dark side” of work–life balance (WLB) policies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 600-630.
Pimentel, Joao Paulo. (August 16, 2020). Remote work came suddenly and is here to stay – and Latin America is no exception. Latin American Business Stories. https://labsnews.com/en/articles/society/remote-work-came-suddenly-and-is-here-to-stay-and-latin-america-is-no-exception/
Rice, R. E. (2017). Boundaries, and information and communication technologies. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of the Internet at Work, 7696, 175-194.
Shockley, K., French, K. and Yu, P. (2018). Comprehensive review and synthesis of the cross-cultural work family literature. In Shockley, K., Shen, W., and Johnson, R. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108235556
Solís, M. S. (2016) “Telework: conditions that have a positive and negative impact on
the work-family conflict”, Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, Vol. 29 Issue: 4,
pp.435-449, https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-10-2015-0289
Stanczyk, A. B., Henly, J. R., and Lambert, S. J. (2016). Enough time for housework? Low-wage work and desired housework time adjustments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79(1), 243–260.
Walker, S. and Hong, S. (2017). Workplace Predictors of Parenting Educators’ Technology Acceptance Attitudes, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45 (4), 377–393.
Wheeler, L., Lee, B. and Svoboda, E. (2018). Implications of Work-Family Connections for Children’s Well-Being across the Globe. In Shockley, K., Shen, W., and Johnson, R. (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Global Work–Family Interface (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 681-698. doi:10.1017/9781108235556
Willis, L. and Beryl, E. (2018) Using an online social media space to engage parents in student learning in the early-years: Enablers and impediments. Digital Education Review, 33, pp. 87-104.
Xu, S., Wang, Y., Mu, R., Jin, J., and Gao, F. (2018). The effects of work-family interface on domain-specific satisfaction and well-being across nations: The moderating effects of individualistic culture and economic development. PsyCh journal, 7(4), 248–267. doi.org/10.1002/pchj.226 | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/09%3A_What_Boundaries_Technology's_Role_in_Work_and_Family_Balance/9.02%3A_References.txt |
Future family-friendly workplaces
This chapter discusses the notion of balance of roles and responsibilities between work, home, and one’s personal life . COVID-19 advanced the idea of a fluid work space, unbounded by time or space, as white-collar workers worked from home. This enabled greater agency for individuals to manage demands. At the same time, for many — especially parents — the lack of boundaries made creating that balance even harder. As we “return to work,” many workers and employers are mixed in their views about the healthiest and most effective work arrangements.
• Imagine a workspace arrangement in the near future that capitalizes on workers’ needs to manage family and personal responsibilities. What would that look like?
• Imagine an arrangement that capitalizes on home-based settings. What policies or resources might the employer recommend or require to ensure that employees can be most productive?
Digital equities and work-family balance
Jobs that can be done anywhere, anytime offer the most flexibility in meeting work-family demands. These jobs often rely heavily on the internet and digital technologies. And they depend on the internet being available, and on devices being plentiful between workers and in households.
Consider the following professions:
• elementary school teacher
• computer programmer
• retail manager
• dental hygienist
• car mechanic
Can each be done at home? Do they need to be completed in a physical space? What information and communication technologies would aid the fulfillment of responsibilities for the family? Who may or may not have access to these devices? Who may or may not have access to the internet?
9.04: Blog Prompts
What does the changing world of work mean for the field of family social science? Should we be changing how we teach about family relationships and management to adapt to work that is anywhere, anytime, social, mobile, and collaborative, and focused more on results rather than place and time?
Do you foresee that changes in the workplace will mean changes for the division of family roles, so that work is accomplished AND the functions and responsibilities of the family to children, couples, and the family as a whole are fulfilled?
Consider the critical post question #1, above. In light of possible changes ahead for families, how do we advocate as professionals for family time, communication, connectedness, engagement, and presence to respond and attend to the needs of growing children?
In the Families and Technology course, students tracked 12 hours of their personal technology use and analyzed what that use meant to their personal well-being and relationships. Many identified mixed feelings — that it was valuable to their school work and personal lives but was also a significant source of distraction. Many reported that they felt that they were addicted, or at least that they’d become dependent on technology. As we consider boundary blurring and work and family, consider what this means for you in the future. What steps will you take to find necessary boundaries that help you maintain a healthy balance? Student lives in school add on to or mimic lives with full-time work. This is a good time to thoughtfully consider intentional technology use for your future as a working family member.
View this video interview with Simon Sinek: Millennials in the Workplace .
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=306#oembed-1
He draws conclusions on millennials in the workplace based on four factors, and makes recommendations for us as a society and for employers. Share your reaction to the video. How does Sinek’s perspective about your generation leave you feeling? Do you agree/disagree? What do you think about his recommendations? Are they fair? Would we expect workplaces to accommodate to millennials as workers? What expectations should workplaces place on individuals?
• Or, see this more recent video from Simon Sinek on the current situation and the realities for workplace innovation: These Are Not Unprecedented Times | Simon Sinek
• What are your thoughts? How might Sinek’s words be evocative for universities as well? | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/09%3A_What_Boundaries_Technology's_Role_in_Work_and_Family_Balance/9.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
It is easy to sit up and take notice. What is difficult is getting up and taking action.
― Honore de Balzac
Chapter Insights
• Security, safety, privacy, and compliance with policies and regulations are concerns in managing both health and finances through the internet and with digital applications. These can be potential threats to family well-being.
• Applications offered to help families manage finances and/or health care may widen the digital divide.
• Personal expression and the sharing of information about one’s health have become popular, particularly through blogs, video channels (e.g., The Clarity Project), and health apps. Such sharing of personal health experiences has pros and cons.
• Telemedicine has become popular, particularly in the aftermath of COVID-19. There are benefits and possible concerns of telemedicine (or telehealth).
• Apply the criteria of USE (easy to use, safe, effective) to the selection of health care information and financial apps. Consider how easy guidelines like acronyms might be helpful to family members and consumers.
• Among other household expenditures, technology has become a stable and increasingly costly item. Given a list of categories for tech spending, calculate your average monthly and yearly cost of technology. Consider how your own costs compare with others (to identify factors that go into our technology spending, such as sharing passwords to streaming services or free printing). Consider too how your costs compare to other major expenditures, such as college tuition, to gain perspective about family households’ tech spending burden.
• The use of apps like Venmo for money exchange has become popular, as have mobile apps for banking and investments. While these make money exchange and budgeting easier, they also introduce certain risks.
• A family is responsible for teaching children about money management. This can be done by giving an allowance, paying for chores, or setting up a savings account or a spending card. Consider recommendations to help families identify apps that are effective, engaging for children, age-appropriate, and safe.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
Without a doubt, ICTs have made it easier for families to search for information and manage data on health and finance, and communicate with related professionals. Looking for a clinic, resolving a question about a child’s health, accessing health records, and making visits to a doctor can all be done online or through an app. Similarly, finding information about investments and retirement savings, accessing bank records, mapping the closest ATM, and even sending money to another person can be done with a few clicks. In this chapter, we briefly explore the range of applications and devices families use to manage their health care and finances, and identify ways in which such use can be positive for individual well-being yet have family impacts as well.
As we consider these topics, we are reminded of our key consideration of equity and access. The digital divide, with its As we consider ICT’s role in aiding our health care and money management and spending, we are reminded that unequal access to digital tools and the internet present challenges, resulting in less efficient record keeping, inefficient tranactions, and the inability to quickly access medical information and more. unequal access to digital tools and the internet, can also affect the ability to keep records, complete transactions efficiently, communicate with professionals, and manage information. Technology literacy (or e-literacy) also influences comfort with using ICT effectively and safely. For example, in 2017, Perezcki et al. determined that, although a large urban health care system offered a patient portal, the majority of adults didn’t use it. Use was even lower for racial and ethnic minorities, those with lower income and education levels, and, particularly, those without neighborhood internet access. Families in rural areas similarly face challenges with accessing health information online (Choi & DiNitto, 2013).
Information on personal and family health and money can be deeply private and sensitive and require confidentiality. For this reason, HIPPA laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) were put into place as the internet became more publicly available. Financial data, too, is subject to invasions of privacy and security threats. In 2017, a data breach at Equifax risked credit information on 145 million individuals (including the author). The sensitive data shared included names, social security numbers, addresses, and dates of birth. While for most users there were no serious consequences, the breach did mean that when the immediate fix was to block credit details, individuals later faced challenges in obtaining their own credit information. There is also evidence of the breach’s impact on children (Kim & Capitani, 2017). One family discovered that their 7-year-old’s information was affected, which led them to wonder about the challenges they would face if their Social Security number was exposed.
Family professionals can help families gain basic understanding and comfort using digital tools to manage and understand money and health care. They can also advocate for the full range of families to have equal access to the internet and digital technologies, and to the same efficiencies and opportunities afforded to others. Because privacy and safety are so central to the topics of money and family health, we reinforce our critical lens on technology use by beginning with a focus on this issue.
Privacy and Safety of Information and Data
Privacy and online safety are major issues facing everyone who uses the internet. With regard to family privacy, inclusive
of workplace influences, Ollier-Malaterre and colleagues (2019) note:
technology amplifies the blurring…also because the very definitions of what is public and what is private are under scrutiny: Information shared on social media, for instance, is sometimes deemed by scholars and lawyers as private and sometimes public…. In an era in which putting up curtains on windows and planting high trees around houses no longer suffices to safeguard privacy, many new questions for individuals arise about privacy, visibility, and surveillance that societies or collective actions may at some point strive to regulate. (p. 435)
The use of online technologies enables telecommunication companies’ access to personal data, data that can be sold to market products to individuals and create a digital footprint that individuals and children have no control over. These issues are particularly critical for families. Sharing accounts and information is common within relationships, so compromises to identity, privacy, and security can easily threaten others. And the economic consequence of shared credit card information or an individual’s identity theft on the whole family can be devastating.
These are also family-centric concerns, as it is within the responsibility of parents to oversee children’s safety online and to teach children how to protect their privacy and use sites that adhere to child-protective policies. As noted in Chapter 5, children’s level of development and emerging abilities to reason through online threats can leave them vulnerable. COPPA laws that protect children’s privacy extend to sites also interested in engaging children around health and money issues.
This brief overview suggests that the impacts of data security and sharing can be individual or family-wide, and can affect organizations and whole governments. Actions for safety thus fall in the personal, policy, and system levels. Because the issue of cybersecurity is so large, it is beyond the scope of this chapter or book to cover it in detail. Rather, we provide an overview of the various elements that comprise cybersecurity, their potential impacts, and the personal and regulatory steps that can be made. This is an ever-expanding topic as new forms of hacking (e.g., ransomware) and data chains are developed. Readers are encouraged to explore some of the sources in the Additional Resources section or do a search for information on topics of interest in this area.
Dimensions of online safety
There are four dimensions of safety online, as summarized by Commonsense Media:
• Safety: Protection of personal accounts and information from hackers and others to protect physical and emotional well-being.
• Privacy: Data is often collected to be used for marketing and targeting and personal sharing.
• Security: Protecting the integrity and confidentiality of a person’s data.
• Compliance: Adherence to existing laws and regulations.
Relatively recent data suggests that most Americans feel that their online data is not secure. A 2019 report by Pew indicated that 62% of those sampled reported that it is not possible to go through daily life without having their data collected by companies; 63% report this for government sites. What’s more, in most cases two-thirds or more are concerned with how the data is used and that the consequences of gathering the data outweigh the benefits, and more than half have little to no understanding of how the data is used, particularly by the government. There is a more generalized understanding of the commercial use of data to track interests and user demographics for the purpose of making life “easier.” (For those curious, the Pew report includes a section explaining data uses by the U.S. government.)
Yet although we are concerned, few of us object or don’t “agree” when asked when website popups solicit compliance about their data use policies. Likely, we are daunted by the long texts of legal information — in the Pew study, 63% say they understand little or nothing about laws to protect data privacy — or simply don’t want to take the time to read it all. And opinions are mixed when it comes to the purposes for identifying types of data. While many object when a social media site tracks posts about depression, few object that a school would sell information about poorly performing students to a nonprofit company that supports learning. This graphic from the report indicates views on a range of ways in which data is used. If you were part of the sample, would you find these topics of data sharing acceptable or unacceptable? If you’re not sure, what could help you know?
Want to check your own knowledge of cybercrime? Take this quiz.
Identity theft
Identity theft is a specific privacy concern, and according to the 2019 Pew study, more than one quarter (28%) of Americans report experiencing one of three types of issues: fraudulent charges on a credit card, someone taking over their identity on social media, or someone trying to get a loan in their name. A student at the University of Minnesota related a harrowing experience with identity theft when a smartphone was stolen during a personal theft and assault. The assailants forced the individual to share the phone’s passcode and AppleID, which enabled access to a variety of apps. This included Venmo (discussed later in the chapter). Requests for money from members of the contact list, and charges on accounts available through apps on the phone, led to hundreds of dollars being stolen. More information on cybercrime can be found here.
Cyber safety
Digital applications and websites are subject to compliance with laws and regulations that fall into the general category of cyber safety. Cyber safety is a term for the collective mechanisms and processes by which valuable information and services are protected from publication, tampering, or an assortment of unauthorized activities that are planned and implemented by untrustworthy individuals or unplanned events. Chapters 4 and 5 discussed safety online, particularly for individuals who are stalked as the result of using a dating app or for children who may be victims of cyberbullying. Privacy and security concerns include those discussed above, when a person’s data is shared for marketing or when data sharing breaches confidentiality. The COPPA laws intended to protect children’s privacy, discussed in Chapter 5, address some of these concerns.
Various laws are in place to protect security and privacy: https://privacy.commonsense.org/resource/evaluation-statutes. As this page explains, compliance includes regulatory, internal, and corporate compliance. Regulatory compliance is a site’s compliance with all available laws, rules, and regulations. HIPPA’s strict practices, in part, standardize health information and protect patient privacy, and penalties for non-compliance can include federal penalties and legal action. Internal compliance ensures that a site remains in compliance with federal and state laws.Industry compliance includes employee practices that safeguard data use.
Individuals and families can safeguard themselves when using the internet by being aware of the extent to which sites adhere to policies and regulations. Sites provide this information, though it can be buried and found only in links in small print. One superlative example from 1440.com; note how it explains what is collected, why, and how: https://join1440.com/privacy-policy/.
Data trends for 2022 indicate a variety of mechanisms to ensure web security (Marr, 2022). These can operate on large systems levels to protect against hacking breaches such as the Equifax incident, and can include practices for individuals to protect their data security. AI-powered cybersecurity, with its predictive ability to anticipate and monitor crime and threats from ransomware (which infects devices with a virus that locks files that will be destroyed without payment), leads companies to step up employee education efforts. This education warns employees not to open certain files or attachments, and to be aware of attacks on the Internet of Things (or those devices, such refrigerators and laundry machines in a house, that are connected to a network), cyberattacks in interconnected company data systems (the Forbes piece notes that “by 2025, 60% of organizations will use cybersecurity risk as a ‘primary determinant’ when choosing who to conduct business with”), and advancements on regulatory policies and practices.
Health Information and Care: Use of Technology in Personal and Family Health
This video discusses security concerns in the healthcare industry.
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=396#oembed-1
The use of the internet and digital applications can have impacts on individuals — with indirect value to others in the family — and on whole families. With an estimated 39% of adults serving as caregivers, and with caregivers more likely to seek information about health online than other adults, societal interest in ICT and health extends beyond the individual. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of Americans used the internet to arrange vaccine appointments for themselves or another person (McClain et al., 2021). Reviews of technology used for individual and family health fall into the following categories:
1. Web sites with health information.
2. Social support and exchange of information on social media, discussion forums, YouTube channels, and more.
3. Applications for the management of disease, as a complement to interventions, and for monitoring personal and family health.
4. Wearable technologies for health data management, such as Fitbits and Apple Watches.
5. Health care services delivered via technology (e.g., telemedicine) and the purchase of medical devices and pharmaceuticals.
6. Robotic devices that provide emotional support and relieve stress in conditions such as dementia.
Reviews on individual conditions with clear family implications — such as dementia and eating disorders — provide useful information on the various ways that technology can be used to aid and assist (though sometimes challenge) health and recovery. As these are discussed below, consider how their use may impact the individual and have direct or indirect impacts on the family. Consider too what concerns may arise. For example, wearable technology collects massive amounts of data on individual health behavior and physiological conditions . This can inform health care practitioners in ways that mean more accurate reporting and diagnosis, but it can also mean data exposure and the need for protection from privacy violations (Cilliers, 2020). And while purchasing prescriptions online can be efficient and convenient for those homebound or in rural areas, recent reviews of online drug providers finds that consumers show be wary. Providers were found to pair drugs with services not designed for long-term support, or to enhance prices to capitalize on convenience.
Information about health online
For better or worse, the internet has become a significant source of information about health, illness, disease prevention, and recovery. Prior to the availability of the internet, individuals sought out health practitioners for information, turned to trusted others (e.g., family or friends), or sought written materials or audiovisual media in libraries. With the availability of information online, individuals can access a wide range of sources, compare facts, tailor the information to their specific interests, and determine whether to seek medical care or treatment at home. While there may be consequences, informed patients may take greater agency in their health management. Tan and Goodawardene (2017) observe possible consequences of the change. These include exposure to information that is of questionable quality, requiring, as will be discussed later in the chapter, a critical eye in discerning accuracy and usefulness. Patients may be misinformed and incorrectly self-diagnosed, which might keep them from visiting the doctor. Some may feel less satisfied and less trusting of the physician, which may even lead to arguments and conflict. Yet the review of the literature did not indicate weaker relationships between patient and doctor due to the availability of health information online. Indeed, they found that more informed patients may ask doctors more questions and take greater agency in their health care and management.
Social support and information exchange
The ability to learn about health conditions from others’ personal experiences is a major advantage of the internet. Early research on families and health online came from the mental health community, when parents of children with mental disabilities exchanged information through discussion forums (Scharer, 2005 ). Significant research has since explored the emotional and informational support benefits of these exchanges as parents, caregivers and individuals find others who share similar experiences, though they may not be known personally or have access in real life. From discussion forums to social media pages, to health and mental health care advocates, to condition-specific applications, ICT has expanded reach to information, and enabled personal relationships and connections for direct support.
Applications for caregivers of those with dementia have demonstrated particular value. Shu and Woo’s 2021 review of the literature indicates that people use the internet to diagnosis dementia. In-home technologies serve to support seniors living alone and offer support to caregivers of dementia patients, and social media and YouTube offer education on dementia that is valuable to patients and caregivers alike. Yet research suggests that internet use by the elderly greatly depends on the perception of value, comfort, and skill in using social media for learning.
Online groups have also been identified as valuable for patients with eating disorders (Howard, nd), providing valuable peer-to-peer support for positive recovery and emotional encouragement. And in some cases, hard-to-diagnose diseases have been addressed through facilitators like Dr. Lisa Sanders’ column Diagnosis in the New York Times and dramatized on Netflix.
While the internet has expanded access to information about an illness such as cancer (VanEenbergen et al., 2020) or schizophrenia (Hswen et al., 2020), or about a medical condition one is attempting to prevent (e.g., diabetes, Sauder et al., 2021), concerns have been raised about the potential for false information that might lead to mistreatment of the condition, exacerbation of symptoms, mental health consequences, or worse. Many online influencers and groups are neither sponsored by a medical or health care agency nor facilitated by a professional. While discussion of treatment modalities and new research is positive for learning, moderation can help the conversation stay positive and constructive for all involved.
One example of how social media can influence health information is a study of children’s perception of the dangers of nicotine, examining children’s exposure to the e-cigarette “Puff bar” through 148 TikTok videos in 2020 (Morales et al., 2022). The videos had been collectively viewed over 137 million times. A 2020 study examined children’s exposure to e-cigarettes through TikTok videos. Researchers identified viewer apathy to the effects of nicotine through repeated exposure. Instead tobacco-related content was associated with positive attitudes and intentions. Elements of content regarding the cigarettes included skits and stories, shared vaping experiences, product reviews, and promotions and crafts. The researchers identified viewer apathy to the effects of nicotine with repeated exposure to the content. They noted that, “For adolescents, more time spent on social media is associated with greater intention to use e-cigarettes, and exposure to and engagement with tobacco-related content have been associated with positive attitudes, norm perceptions, and intentions.”
Self-authored blogs, social media pages, and video channels are also ways that individuals share and consume health information. For many, these offer deeply personal mechanisms for sharing and taking part in others’ experiences. For example, the Clarity Project [1] was a YouTube channel offered by Claire Wineland. She was a teenager who had cystic fibrosis, and her videos shared her daily experiences of living with the disease. Sadly, she passed away in 2018 during recovery from a lung transplant. Before her death, she had amassed tens of thousands of followers and become an advocate for those living with a chronic medical condition. Here’s a sample video journal:
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=396#oembed-2
Health care management
Apps and other technology that detect falls or gas and carbon monoxide leaks can reduce concerns for persons with dementia. Other apps can track medication use and offer reminders to aid compliance. Recovery apps for illnesses such as alcoholism or eating disorders offer mood check-ins, mindfulness tips, constructive monitoring of eating and exercise, and ways to identify triggers.
Readers may be interested in seeing the details of this clinical trial for an app that aids those with anorexia nervosa after intervention. As there is a significant rate of relapse, the app is intended to optimize clinical service done face-to-face and improve treatment response. The web page includes descriptions of measures used by the researchers to assess use and usefulness of the app, and clinical details of the patient’s condition, thus pairing technology use with the condition it seeks to aid.
Yet such health management apps appear to be primarily focused on the individual, not those providing assistance and support. Grossman and co-authors (2018) acknowledge that of the hundreds of thousands of medical apps available, few address caregiver needs. Only 18%, for example, offered stress reduction activities for caregivers.
Wearable technologies
Wearable technologies provide ways to monitor body response and can send information to health care practitioners. Fitbits and similar products can also be used by individuals with dementia (Shu & Woo, 2021), providing fall detection and information on sleep, physical activity, heart rate, and arrhythmia that can guide physicians in care plans.
Although research is limited on the effectiveness of activity trackers and wearable technologies for full family health, there are positive indications. This Australian study by Shoeppe et al. (2020) tested physical activity gains in the family after each member wore a fitness device for 12 weeks. In this study, the whole family included both parents and at least one child age 9–13. In addition to fitness trackers, family members also used a tailored app to align with the device, information on recommended activities, and a motivational poster, and received motivational texts up to three times per week. Measuring outcome by the number of steps, all family members showed significant gains. The researchers focused on the value of family dynamics (e.g., parental role modeling, consistent communication) and reciprocal motivation (e.g., family members acting as agents of change) as likely influences on family member success. Although the study is limited by the number of participants and the lack of a control group, the authors suggest that it indicates promise for whole family health. These devices, however, are also subject to data breaches (Cilliers, 2020).
Telemedicine
As this piece in Everyday Health indicates, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) defines telemedicine as “the practice of using technology to deliver medical care at a distance, over a telecommunications infrastructure, between a patient at an originating site and a physician or other licensed practitioner at another site.” This is different from telehealth, discussed above, which includes the use of “electronic and telecommunications technologies that support a variety of remote healthcare services, such as medical, health coaching, and education services.”
As would be expected, the use of telemedicine rose during the COVID-19 pandemic. When physicians’ offices were used to treat individuals with the virus and stay-at-home orders kept families inside, one’s home became a preferred location for the delivery of care. Seivert and Badowsk i (2020) indicate the benefits of telemedicine to the individual, the provider, and the health care system. Individual benefits include access to medical professionals beyond traditional hours, cost savings, and travel reduction. For professionals, benefits include travel and cost efficiencies, care provided to hard-to-reach areas, such as rural territories, and increased practitioner satisfaction. For health care systems, telemedicine offers the ability to expand service beyond time and place boundaries, decrease staff burnout, and reach underserved populations. Additional benefits enable professionals to provide caregiver support, and monitor patient vital signs and compliance.
Yet there are barriers and drawbacks to telemedicine. Staff members need training to deploy telemedicine effectively and ethically. Some individuals/patients are concerned with privacy or interruptions by others, may be challenged with access to the internet or in comfort with using a range of applications, or are less comfortable talking over the internet. When others are nearby, some individuals may feel reluctant to talk about health or mental health concerns.
Robotic devices
One avenue with promise for health care, particularly for those living with dementia, is robotic products. As indicated in the table in this article (Shu & Woo, 2021) robots can be fashioned as animals (e.g., otter, seal) or humanoids, and holding the robot can offer relief from the neurological symptoms and distress of dementia and provide emotional support. These are excellent alternatives when animals are not allowed in medical facilities or there are concerns with allergies. Robotic devices are also used in training health care providers. For example, this video features a robot patient needing a Cesarean section. As you watch, how do you think robots might be beneficial to practitioners in training? Can you imagine any negatives ? Shu and Woo conclude that, while there is promise in robotic devices for family member health care, particularly for those with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, knowledge and assessment tools are as yet unavailable to evaluate specific device use for specific needs. As with other technologies — and as the thread through this book holds — consumers and family members must become knowledgeable enough to make individualized decisions based on personal goals and needs.
Health e-literacy
With the overwhelming number of websites that share health information, plus the exchange of information through social media and from person to person via apps such as WhatsApp, it is up to individuals to determine whether information is safe and useful. Personal health literacy, as defined by the US Department of Health and Human Services is, “the degree to which individuals have the ability to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others.”
Evaluating health information online
A helpful acronym USE:
U: is the site easy to use (e.g., to navigate, read, understand?
• Is it an app or device? Or interactive software? Does it do what is it supposed to?
• Are the tools and resources easily readable? In the language needed? With ability accommodations?
• Does it work with other devices or platforms?
S: is it safe? Does it feel secure? Private?
• Is it secure? Does it track your data? How can you tell?
E: is it effective? Does the information provided seem like it’s coming from a reputable source? Is the information reasonable to your situation?
• Is it up to date?
• Who provides the information?
• Is the information accurate?
Another health information source from the U.S. government, Medline, offers constructive questions that broadly explore source and quality:
Organizational health literacy puts the responsibility on organizations to enable individuals to find and use information for health-related decisions.
Health information through social media
For some, it may be more challenging to determine the accuracy and usefulness of information passed along within a personal social network, including “friends” on Facebook, those followed on Instagram, and TikTok. This video by John Oliver on HBO examines Whats App and the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 and immunizations, especially among family members: As the video indicates, information spread through immigrant communities, with little oversight by the app companies or the government to regulate the sharing of potentially harmful information. A 2021 review of the pre-COVID literature about health misinformation in social media (e.g., up to 2019) by Suarez-Lido and Alvarez-Galvez identified that Twitter was the predominant platform, with the research identifying the following topics (in order of dominance): vaccines, drugs or smoking, noncommunicable diseases, pandemics, eating disorders, and medical treatments. Medline suggests that social media users follow similar questions about the accuracy of health information online, and, when in doubt, that they don’t share the information.
Assessing individual health e-literacy
A number of tools are available to help assess an individual’s e-health literacy; indeed, a recent search identified more than 200 measures. A resource for identifying tools is at https://healthliteracy.bu.edu/. Health literacy domains of competence range from communication, comprehension, and content knowledge to information-seeking skills and numeracy. Many measures offer Likert scales (e.g., strongly disagree to strongly agree), giving a quantitative number to items that can be summed, averaged, and viewed by subcomponents. Sample items may include:
• I have the skills I need to evaluate the health resources I find on the Internet,
• I can tell high-quality health resources from low-quality health resources on the Internet, and
• I feel confident in using information from the Internet to make health decisions.
One example measure is the All Aspects of Health Literacy Scale (AAHLS ), which has 16 items, measures application/function, and takes about 7 minutes to complete. For professionals designing sites (discussed in more detail in the upcoming chapter on family professional application of technology in practice), this health.gov site provides a useful checklist.
Financial e-literacy and U\$e of Technology for Family Financial Well-being
Are we better at managing money in the digital world?
Take a moment to consider your financial life with your smartphone over the course of a week. As you reflect on your actions, what feelings arise? Does using your phone for purchases and money management contribute to feelings of well-being? Does it, for example, reduce stress in some way, because spending and tracking your spending has become more efficient? Might it contribute to your stress in some way? Do you have mixed reactions? Consider your reactions as you continue to read this chapter.
As technology has made our families more accessible, efficient, and even healthier, it has also contributed to our ability to manage money and be financially healthy. Think of the many ways in which technology figures into your financial life, and consider how things may have changed with COVID-19. With e-commerce, digital advisory services, e-banking and investing cryptocurrencies, and personal financial management (PFM) technology (all within the category of fintech) enabling access and exchange without leaving the house, we marvel at the efficiencies in how we shop, earn, spend, and learn about money (and, in the case of families, teach children about money management ).
Yet, just as with health-related devices and networked information, using the internet and apps for our money can also expose us in ways that can have serious consequences to our identities, sense of safety and security, and privacy. And as our use of technology has permeated our everyday life, it has become an item in our budgets. As we begin this section, consider your own use of technology to manage your finances and spending. Do you use an app to track financial accounts and perform banking? An app to help stick to a budget, or to make online purchases? Do you go online or use an app to gather information about products and financial matters? Do you communicate with a financial professional through an app or online?
In the Families and Technology course, most students report using an app to track their finances or make purchases. Far fewer maintain a budget, communicate with a professional, or seek information online. Consider your parents or grandparents. Is their behavior using financial apps (or “fintech”) different from yours? Research suggests that there are clear age trends in online/tech-aided spending and shopping. Younger generations (e.g., Millennials, Gen Z-ers) are more likely to use digital technologies, and their spending is different as well. As indicated in this graphic from a report by the Medium, Millennials are more likely to spend on events, experiences, and efficiencies than Gen Xers and Baby Boomers.
As Lombardo in The Medium observes, “It’s not that Millennials care any less about appearing more successful than previous generations, it’s that the definition of success has changed. Whereas yesterday it was measured in things, today it’s measured in experiences.”
Of the population born after 1996, Emily Pribanic says “Generation Z is a bunch of tech-savvy savers who have all the information and resources they need at their fingertips.” Compared with Millennials, Gen Z is less likely to rack up student debt or carry a mortgage, and are more likely to save. They embrace technology for person-to-person money transfers (like Venmo or PayPal) and are active information seekers in making sound financial decisions. The tech-savvy nature of the generation — assured to have grown up with ICT — will demand that banking is mobile, systems are cashless, and apps make financial management efficient.
Use of technology and money management
The growth of fintech, including personal financial management (PFM) technology, has gathered researchers’ interest about use, differences in use, and impact. Millennials (those born between 1980 and 1996), for example, have been studied for how their use of PFM takes the place of more traditional methods (e.g., going to an ATM). PFM includes applications that focus on budgeting (like Mint), credit score monitoring, and personal informatics, used to review balances and overdrafts and to make behavioral corrections to stay financially balanced. It’s acknowledged that Millennials have their share of financial considerations, paying off student loans, acquiring stable jobs and income, paying rent (or returning to live with their parents), and saving for retirement. And many don’t feel knowledgeable about how to manage their money [2].
Walsh and Lim (2020) indicated that PFM use led to fewer fees and penalties and better transparency, which led to more efficient borrowing. Compared with older individuals, Millennials are more likely to use PFM and be considered moderate or heavy users (Walsh & Lim, 2020). Using the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), which considers use related to perceived benefit and ease of use, the authors found a relationship with financial pressures, interpreted as the perceived value of using PFM. Heavy adopters’ involvement in “side hustles” or working as Uber drivers and similar jobs dependent on technology, offered comfort with using digital applications; the authors interpreted this as “perceived ease of use.” And yet heavy adopters were also more likely to experience debt, so the authors indicated that PFM use didn’t translate automatically to financial knowledge or skill. Overall, they point to the need to include PFM in a system of financial education and management for Millennials, rather than see it as the mechanism for change.
Cryptocurrency
As Ladrum notes, Millennials have demonstrated their industry by creating an alternative currency. Investopedia defines cryptocurrency as:
a digital or virtual currency that is secured by cryptography, which makes it nearly impossible to counterfeit or double-spend. Many cryptocurrencies are decentralized networks based on blockchain technology — a distributed ledger enforced by a disparate network of computers. A defining feature of cryptocurrencies is that they are generally not issued by any central authority, rendering them theoretically immune to government interference or manipulation.
Recent research by the Federal Reserve suggests that 12% of American adults use cryptocurrency (O’Sullivan, 2022 ). In a 2022 report from T. Rowe Price, 28% of their sample of U.S. adults included cryptocurrency in their investment portfolio. The Federal Reserve report indicates that most of those who use bitcoin (one type of cryptocurrency) do so as an investment; these users tend to have more education and income. A smaller percentage uses it for transactions; these users tend to have less education and income and to be “unbanked” (not having a bank account). It is valuable to keep an open mind and flexible attitude as we learn more about cryptocurrency and its value, particularly given its recent entry into the financial market and for use by families. A 2022 report on families and money by T. Rowe Price (2022) indicates that children are interested in cryptocurrency, and that those 11–14 years old are more familiar with it than their parents (57% vs. 47% of adults). As Hernandez (2019) writes, there is flexibility with bitcoin and the like that can protect it from the influences of government economies, such as that experienced in Venezuela when inflation affected the value of currency and consumers’ ability to purchase or earn money.
Use of technology and a cashless lifestyle
Fintech has also revolutionized the ways families spend and share money. We are moving towards a cashless society and relying more on online shopping and delivery services for our groceries and household needs. We exchange money with others without it touching our hands. The shopping experience has radically changed. Age trends in online/tech-aided spending and shopping suggest generational differences in the likelihood of using digital technologies in shopping.
How many purchases do you make during a week using cash? When Pew asked this question in a 2015 survey, 24% of the respondents said none, while half (51%) said some. Each semester this question is put to students in the Family and Technology course. In the spring of 2021, 56% of students said none. While the composition of the sample in the Pew study didn’t match those of an undergraduate course, we still see the pattern of change over five or so years, with an increasing number of people reporting that they never use cash.
Paying without cash is certainly not a recent innovation. Credit for purchase transactions dates back hundreds of years, and electronic credit cards were introduced in the 1960s. Decades of credit card use allow research on consumer behavior, and research shows that not using physical cash for transactions (“friction-free spending”) leads to overspending (Schwartz, 2016). ApplePay was introduced in 2014, enabling consumers to load bank information on their phones and make purchases without using a physical credit card.
Use of money-sharing applications like Venmo, Zelle, and CashApp is also growing. Research from Pew in 2022 indicates that about 57% of Americans use PayPal, while approximately 1/4 to 1/3 use other apps. There are clearly demographic differences in use, with older adults less likely to find them necessary, safe, or easy to use, as seen in the figure (Anderson, 2022).
The future of purchasing may include biometrics such as fingerprint sensors. As research develops on these newer forms of a cashless lifestyle, experts believe that the temptation for overspending will only increase.
Online shopping
How often do you shop online? Have your online shopping patterns changed since COVID-19? In 2015, research by Pew indicated that 79% of people shopped online, with 15% saying they shopped online weekly. Greater frequencies were reported for less frequent shopping: 28% said a couple of times a month, 37% said about once a month, and 20% reported never shopping online. In recent years, however, shopping online has become more popular, particularly as more shoppers come from younger generations who are more tech-savvy (e.g., GenZ). During COVID-19, 32% of adults purchased food online from a restaurant, with those age 18–23 years reporting the greatest frequency (53%; Vogels, 2020). Shopping online is apparently driven by hedonistic, normative, and utilitarian motivations (Koch et al., 2020), and during COVID-19, hedonistic motivations for online shopping increased (Koch et al., 2020). This isn’t terribly surprising, given the isolation and lack of social contact that occurred during the pandemic.
In the near future, more than half of retail sales will be from online purchases (Balls, 2019). This can mean the closing of small establishments, with impacts on investors in brick-and-mortar businesses, on workers, and on land values.It is estimated that Amazon netted \$18B in sales in 2021 (and didn’t pay taxes). Other online retailers reported increases, and brick-and-mortar stores escalated their online sales. Delivery services like DoorDash have also become popular, and small businesses have found success selling through online brokers like Etsy. Yet Balls (2019) observes the downsides to e-commerce, and finds it unsustainable in the long run. He reports that, in the near future, more than half of retail sales will be from online purchases. This can mean the closing of small establishments, with impacts on investors in brick-and-mortar businesses, on workers, and on land values. Balls estimates that delivery costs will increase or be passed along through wage and benefits cuts to drivers, and that additional vans for delivery will negatively impact the environment through carbon emissions. And then, of course, the more business we give to online sellers, the more sharing there is of our personal data and our credit card and bank information.
Technology as a financial consideration in household spending
Household spending estimates frequently don’t include technology costs. This article, written as late as 2021, includes a range of household items, and technology isn’t mentioned, even under “miscellaneous.” This is surprising given our use of personal computers in the 1980s, the introduction of peripherals for those devices, and then the advent of cell phones, smartphones, and wireless technologies in the new millennium. National surveyors have taken notice of the ways in which overall household budgets have been consumed by technology purchases. Consider these categories:
• Internet services and equipment, such as routers.
• Smartphones: devices, calls, content, services, apps..
• Consumer electronics: TVs, game consoles, GPS, paid TV/streaming services, movies.
• Printers: ink, toner, paper.
• Personal computers: laptops, desktops, hardware and software, installation, warranty.
• Handhelds: ebook readers, tablets, smartwatches, fitness trackers, cameras.
• Peripherals: headphones, flash drives, external hard drives, HDMI cables, chargers, cases.
How much do you spend per month and per year on these items? Consider what you’d pay for those items you may get free, perhaps from what someone else pays for (e.g., wifi covered by the University for your dormitory and classrooms) or for what you “bootleg” (e.g., your parents’ Hulu account). A Learning Activity for this chapter encourages you to keep track of your technology expenses. They can add up, and be a significant portion of your budget. According to Pew, (McClain et al., 2021), nearly half of broadband users in low-income households say they worry some or a lot about being able to pay for their high-speed internet. Not surprisingly, those with higher incomes worry less.
Financial e-literacy
As with learning about health, digital apps and online resources are valuable for gaining and exchanging financial knowledge and skills. For example, a study by Moor and Kanji (2019) explored women’s conversations about money on an online site called Mumsnet. They determined that women use the discussion to clarify social norms about money and relationships, to develop communication skills specific to money through interacting with other women online, and to learn about resource allocation. As discussions about money are a key challenge in many marriages and relationships, finding support from others on how to communicate within a relationship is incredibly valuable.
Yet, as with health information, families need to be wary about the accuracy of information about spending, saving, and investing shared by those online. Social media influencers, bloggers, and web-based scams can promote information that is misleading and possibly dangerous. One recommendation is to ask — again, as one might with health information — who is the source? Is the information credible? Resources such as factcheck.org can be useful as well.
Teaching children about money
Children learn how to manage, spend, and save money through modeling and direct lessons from their parents (Serido & Deenanath, 2016; Yeung et al., 2002). A recent report by T. Rowe Price (2022) indicates that parents are the dominant source of trusted information about money; social media ranks second, with 40% of children 11–14 reporting this source.
Experts recommend that parents instill a habit of saving, create opportunities to earn money, help children make smart financial decisions, show them the value of giving, and guide them in the ways their money can grow (Huddleston, 2020). As with other behaviors, a parent’s own financial literacy is greatly shaped by experience, culture, and context, and personal perceptions about money (Britt, 2016). And as Chowdry (2019) observes, generational differences in experiences and perceptions of how money is used and understood relative to the digital world can be barriers to parents’ choosing and interacting with their children around technology. Yet children are developmentally capable of learning about the basics of savings at a relatively young age (e.g., 5 years). And while families vary greatly in the ways in which they teach children about money (Britt, 2016; Morris, 2021; Serido & Deenanath, 2017), new fintech tools offer promising mechanisms for a cashless, virtual financial world.
Credit/debit cards for children
“Smart” debit cards are attached to an app that allows parents to control the amount of money in the account, and children can use a physical card to make purchases. This makes it easier for parents and children to monitor the amount of money spent, and removes the need for small amounts of cash. For example, if a parent gives their child money for a chore or a weekly allowance, the smart card can be filled. Some apps are designed to be interactive and enable children to dictate different uses of the money, under the traditional save/spend/share. Apps may be designed around doing chores, setting time or date goals for earning and saving, and vary by level of parental control. Scholars appear positive about the use of these applications, as they represent the worlds that children are growing up in and toward, though some raise concerns that app-to-app communication removes the personal interaction that is meaningful for family communication and deeper learning (Carrns, 2018, NYT).
Apps and interactive sites to teach children about money
Financial experts recommend that parents find useful apps and online sites to help facilitate financial literacy (Morris, 2021). Sites like The Mint (themint.org) and Practical Money Skills (practicalmoneyskills.org) offer games for learning about saving, spending, earning, and giving, along with quizzes and calculator tools (Keeley, 2022), while Biz Kids (bizkids.com; bizkids.com [YouTube]) is a TV series featuring teenagers. In usability, learning, and content presentation, the sites consider the age of the child (the Mint, for example, offers information for children, teens, and young adults) and includes other audiences (parents and professionals; Chowdry, 2019). They are often available on platforms and with operating systems that complement the range of devices used, and may be available in languages other than English. According to their website, Practical Money Skills is available in 19 languages and 46 countries.
This chapter closes out our journey through the use of technology (ICT) by families, and what research to date suggests as impacts of use (many impacts beyond the consumer), and the myriad variables that influence those impacts. We now shift gears to examine the professionals who put this knowledge into their practice in their work with families: therapists, social workers, family educators, and more. We’ll discover that more than a body of content knowledge, technology are tools for practice. And the great divide among practitioners may exist in access to those tools and in the knowledge and comfort in using them effectively.
1. View a documentary about Claire's advocacy, and see videos from her channel.
2. See, for example, this Forbes article and G Washington study. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/10%3A_Technology_Use_in_Family_Health_and_Money_Management/10.01%3A_Technology_Use_in_Family_Health_and_Money_Management.txt |
Anderson, M. (2022). Payment apps like Venmo and Cash App bring convenience – and security concerns – to some users. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...to-some-users/
Balls, A. (2019). Consequences of the online shopping revolution: Ashley Balls examines the future of online shopping and questions whether the present can endure. NZBusiness, 33(9), 40.
Brickwood, K., Watson, G., O’Brien, J., & Williams, A. (2019). Consumer-Based Wearable Activity Trackers Increase Physical Activity Participation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 7(4), E11819.
Britt, S. (2016). The Intergenerational Transference of Money Attitudes and Behaviors. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(3), 539-556.
Capitanini, K. K. and L. (2017, October 18). Kids potentially affected by massive Equifax Data Breach. NBC Chicago. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...-breach/26333/
Carrns, A. (2018, November 15). How parents teach smart spending with apps, not cash. The New York Times. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/b...ance-apps.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, February 2). What is health literacy? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/learn/index.html
Choi, N., & Dinitto, D. (2013). The digital divide among low-income homebound older adults: Internet use patterns, eHealth literacy, and attitudes toward computer/Internet use. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(5), E93.
Chowdhury, A. (2019). Financial Socialization for Digital Natives: A New Way to Teach Children About Money.
Cilliers, L. (2020). Wearable devices in healthcare: Privacy and information security issues. Health Information Management, 49(2/3), 150-156. doi: 10.1177/1833358319851684.
ClairityProject. (2014, September 17). Welcome to My Channel – The Clairity Project / Claire Wineland. YouTube. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPTty3n1pT8
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. doi.org/10.2307/249008
Frankenfield, J. (2022, May 30). What is cryptocurrency? Investopedia. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c...tocurrency.asp
Grossman, M. R., Zak, D. K., & Zelinski, E. M. (2018). Mobile apps for caregivers of older adults: Quantitative content analysis. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.9345
Gal, R., May, A., Van Overmeeren, E., Simons, M., & Monninkhof, E. (2018). The Effect of Physical Activity Interventions Comprising Wearables and Smartphone Applications on Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine – Open, 4(1), 1-15.
Hswen, Y., Naslund, J. A., Brownstein, J. S., & Hawkins, J. B. (2018). Online communication about depression and anxiety among twitter users with schizophrenia: preliminary findings to inform a digital phenotype using social media. Psychiatric Quarterly, 89(3), 569-580.
Hernández, C. (2019, February 23). Bitcoin has saved my family. The New York Times. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/o...urrencies.html
Huddleston, C. (2022, June 10). How to teach your kids good money habits. Forbes. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/advisor/perso.../#5d3c0bca498c
Keeley, J. (2022, March 25). 10 interactive financial websites that Teach Kids Money Management Skills. MUO. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-int...gement-skills/
Koch, J., Frommeyer, B., & Schewe, G. (2020). Online Shopping Motives during the COVID-19 Pandemic-Lessons from the Crisis. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 12(24), 10247.
Lorenz, K., Freddolino, P., Comas-Herrera, A., Knapp, M., & Damant, J. (2019). Technology-based tools and services for people with dementia and carers: Mapping technology onto the dementia care pathway. Dementia, 18(2), 725-741.
Landrum, S. (2017, August 7). Millennials, technology and the Challenge of Financial Literacy. Forbes. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahla...h=539228e528e6
Marr, B. (2022, February 15). The five biggest cyber security trends in 2022. Forbes. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernard...h=7aac98c54fa3
Malmgren Fänge, A., Schmidt, S. M., Nilsson, M. H., Carlsson, G., Liwander, A., Dahlgren Bergström, C., Olivetti, P., Johansson, P., & Chiatti, C. (2017). The TECH@HOME study, a technological intervention to reduce caregiver burden for informal caregivers of people with dementia: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1796-8
McClain, C., Vogels, E., Perrin, A., Sechopoulos, S., and Rainie, L. (2021). The internet and the pandemic. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/09/01/the-internet-and-the-pandemic/
Mertan, E., Croucher, L., Shafran, R., & Bennett, S. D. (2021). An investigation of the information provided to the parents of young people with mental health needs on an internet forum. Internet Interventions, 23, 100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2020.100353
MillenniYo! (2019, April 20). The impact of technology on millennial spending habits. Medium. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from medium.com/@geraldlombardo/t...s-426f0478ca6e
Moor, L., & Kanji, S. (2018). Money and relationships online: Communication and norm formation in women’s discussions of couple resource allocation. The British Journal of Sociology, 70(3), 948–968. doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12492
Morales, M., Fahrion, A., & Watkins, S. L. (2022). # NicotineAddictionCheck: Puff Bar Culture, Addiction Apathy, and Promotion of E-Cigarettes on TikTok. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1820.
Morris, G. (2021, December 1). Teaching kids to save, Budget & Spend Money. InCharge Debt Solutions. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.incharge.org/financial-l...-kids-to-save/
Nelson. (2016, March 25). Credit cards encourage extra spending as the cash habit fades away. The New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/y...ades-away.html
Ollier-Malaterre, A., Jacobs, J., & Rothbard, N. (2019). Technology, Work, and Family: Digital Cultural Capital and Boundary Management. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 425-447.
O’Sullivan, A. (2022, May 31). Fed report shows who’s actually using crypto and how. Reason.com. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://reason.com/2022/05/31/fed-re...rypto-and-how/
Perzynski, A. T., Roach, M. J., Shick, S., Callahan, B., Gunzler, D., Cebul, R., Kaelber, D. C., Huml, A., Thornton, J. D., & Einstadter, D. (2017). Patient portals and broadband internet inequality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(5), 927–932. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx020
Pribanic, E. (2018, February 28). Generation Z banking: The future of financial marketing. Techfunnel. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.techfunnel.com/martech/generation-z-banking-future-financial-marketing/?rltd_article
Sauder, K. A., Ritchie, N. D., Crowe, B., Cox, E., Hudson, M., & Wadhwa, S. (2021). Participation and weight loss in online National Diabetes Prevention Programs: a comparison of age and gender subgroups. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(2), 342-350.
Scharer, K. (2005). An Internet Discussion Board for Parents of Mentally Ill Young Children. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 18(1), 17-25.
Schoeppe, S., Alley, S., Van Lippevelde, W., Bray, N., Williams, S., Duncan, M., & Vandelanotte, C. (2016). Efficacy of interventions that use apps to improve diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour: A systematic review. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13(1), 127.
Schoeppe, S., Salmon, J., Williams, S. L., Power, D., Alley, S., Rebar, A. L., Hayman, M., Duncan, M. J., & Vandelanotte, C. (2020). Effects of an activity tracker and app intervention to increase physical activity in whole families—the step it up family feasibility study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20), 7655. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207655
Shu, S., & Woo, B. K. P. (2021). Use of technology and social media in Dementia Care: Current and Future Directions. World Journal of Psychiatry, 11(4), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v11.i4.109
Schwartz, N. D. (2016, March 25). Credit cards encourage extra spending as the cash habit fades away. The New York Times. Retrieved July 6, 2022, from www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/y...ades-away.html
Seivert, M. and Badowski, M. (2020). The Rise of Telemedicine: Lessons from a Global Pandemic. EMJ Innov. 2020;5[1]:64-69. https://emj.emg-health.com/wp-conten...l-Pandemic.pdf
Serido, J., & Deenanath, V. (2016). Financial parenting: Promoting financial self-reliance of young consumers. Handbook of Consumer Finance Research, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28887-1_24
Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021). Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.2196/17187
Tan, S., & Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), E9.
T. Rowe Price. SlideShare a Scribd company. (n.d.). Retrieved July 6, 2022, from https://www.slideshare.net/TRowePrice
van Eenbergen, M. C., Vromans, R. D., Tick, L. W., Vreugdenhil, G., Krahmer, E. J., Mols, F., & van de Poll-Franse, L. V. (2022). Comparing Survivors of Cancer in Population-Based Samples With Those in Online Cancer Communities: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study. JMIR Cancer, 8(1), e19379.
Vogels, E. (2020). From virtual parties to ordering food, how Americans are using the internet during COVID-19. Pew Research. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ring-covid-19/
Walsh, B., & Lim, H. N. (2020). Millennials’ adoption of Personal Financial Management (PMF) technology and financial behavior. FINANCIAL PLANNING REVIEW, 3(3). doi.org/10.1002/cfp2.1095
Wolff, J. L., Darer, J. D., & Larsen, K. L. (2015). Family caregivers and consumer health information technology. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31(1), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3494-0
Yeung, W. J., Linver, M. R., & Brooks–Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young children’s development: Parental Investment and Family Processes. Child Development, 73(6), 1861–1879. doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00511
Linked in text
https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html
https://www.ftc.gov/equifax-data-breach
https://privacy.commonsense.org/
Auxier, B., Rainie, L, Anderson, M., Perrin, A., Kumar, M. and Turner, E. (2019). Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/
https://www.identitytheft.gov/#/
https://www.techlicious.com/safety-support/
https://cyber.laws.com/cyber-safety
https://privacy.commonsense.org/resource/evaluation-statutes
https://codecondo.com/what-is-cybersecurity-compliance/
https://join1440.com/privacy-policy/
https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/7-top-trends-in-cybersecurity-for-2022
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8040150/
https://www.eatingdisorderhope.com/blog/using-technology-to-support-eating-disorder-recovery
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180731-the-new-tech-vocabulary-you-need-to-understand-the-future
https://www.nytimes.com/column/diagnosis
www.netflix.com/title/80201543
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05190926
https://www.flickr.com/photos/134647712@N07/34817827783
https://mdpi-res.com/ijerph/ijerph-17-07655/article_deploy/ijerph-17-07655-v2.pdf?version=1603346272
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33999718/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/71453924@N00/376487263
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8040150/#B4
https://youtu.be/25hqWUXcDdA
https://youtu.be/l5jtFqWq5iU
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/for-immigrant-families-whatsapp-is-a-lifeline-and-a-rare-connection-to-the-worlds-they-left-behind
https://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=398
https://medlineplus.gov/evaluatinghealthinformation.html
https://healthliteracy.bu.edu/
https://health.gov/healthliteracyonline/checklist/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fintech.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/virtual-currency.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockchain.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/distributed-ledgers.asp
https://www.creditcards.com/statistics/history-of-credit-cards/
https://wellkeptwallet.com/common-monthly-household-expenses/
https://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/squared-away/financial-misinformation-shared-online/
https://www.factcheck.org/
http://themint.org
http://practicalmoneyskills.org
http://bizkids.com
https://www.youtube.com/bizkidstv
https://practicalmoneyskills.com/about | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/10%3A_Technology_Use_in_Family_Health_and_Money_Management/10.02%3A_References.txt |
Online privacy check
Think your social media site is secure? Commonsense Media offers privacy evaluation of a number of popular sites, along with advice for ensuring online privacy. Check out the page, explore the questions asked in their site evaluations, look at the criteria for pass, warning, and fail ratings, and review the criteria for security testing in categories that include data sharing, device safety, account protection, device security, and software updates.
Then select several sites for evaluation. Type the name in the box “search for a privacy evaluation.”
For example, https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Facebook. As of 2022, it was given a 55% “warning” rating. Read about safety, security, privacy, compliance, and the other factors that this rating is based on. When you apply this evaluation to Instagram, TikTok, or other sites (or games that a family or child might play), what concerns might you have going forward? What might be the “deal breaker” for you in choosing not to continue to use a particular site? Or does it not really matter?
How far can it go? [data tracking and health information]
Threats to the provision of health care, including abortion services, go beyond the availability of doctors and clinics. As this piece from Shira Ovide in the New York Times observes, data trackers will identify the location of individuals crossing state lines, and where abortions and other health care are being offered.
Beyond awareness of this data tracking, what are the recourse for individual citizens’ human rights to privacy, safety, confidentiality?
Children and internet safety
Play Reality Check, selecting at least one of the five missions? How might this game be helpful to a 9-year-old child? What about to a 16-year-old, who has a better understanding of internet safety?
Check your spending on technology
In this activity you’ll estimate the amount you spend on technology for a month and a year. Using this form, identify the amount of money you spend in each category. This is for you, so be honest and use as much flexibility as you need. The costs include:
• Monthly charges for phone data usage/plans, streaming services, and internet service
• Occasional charges for peripherals (e.g., cords, cases, rentals) and repairs
• Annual costs (e.g., service plans, warranties)
• Major costs (devices, annualized for the expected life; if you purchase a laptop for \$1,000 every 4 years, for example, your yearly cost would average \$250.)
Once you have the totals, do a sum for the year, and calculate the monthly average.
• Consider how this compares to the amount you spend in other categories. If you spend \$2,000 a year on technology and \$7,200 a year on rent, your technology costs are 28% of what you pay for rent. Consider your total yearly expenses, which might include tuition, lodging/rent, utilities, food, transportation, and clothing. What is the portion of your total expenses goes to technology use and access?
• Now consider this amount of money for technology use and access for a single parent with two children living at the poverty level of \$21,960 per year. Her household budget will include child care for the two children (on average about \$226/week or about \$20,000). Consider the many ways in which she’ll need to stretch her money; how would she pay for wireless access, a smartphone and data plan, and hardware? If you were in her situation, how could you make the technology dollar stretch?
• You may want to do this activities with others and see how your technology costs compare. What figures into the variation in your costs?
Explore games and apps to teach children about money
Check out “10 Interactive financial websites that teach kids money management skills.” Select three of the websites with a child or group of children in mind (most are written for ages 5–18 years). Explore the ways in which children would learn about spending, saving, and earning money. For your child/group of children, would the site be engaging? Why or why not? Does the site invite participation by an adult or other person who could facilitate the child’s learning and motivation?
eHealth Literacy scenarios
Watch this video tutorial on evaluating health websites. Then select a number between 1 and 16 and, using the scenarios on this document, go online to find information to help resolve the problem that aligns with the number you picked. You can either a) do a search through a browser like Google, DuckDuckGo, or Firefox and select the first few links offered, or b) intentionally find sites that you think will be useful for your question. In both cases, be sure to identify at least one social media source (e.g., Facebook, TikTok, Instagram).
Eating disorders: A critical perspective on technology influence
The chapter discussed the many ways in which social media, the internet, and applications can be beneficial to those dealing with or recovering from an illness, including eating disorders. On the other hand, those predisposed to developing an eating disorder and those dealing with anorexia, bulimia, overeating, or other conditions may be significantly influenced by negative messages seen online. Explore both sides of the issue, form an opinion, and make recommendations for action. Given our current state and use of technology, do you find it more beneficial or more harmful for eating disorders? What are your recommendations for a) the design of social media platforms and b) use by individuals?
10.04: Blog Prompts
In the chapter we’ve looked at financial education games for children, allowance and chore management apps for families, and financial management apps (e.g., Venmo). We’ve also considered the types of health-related questions parents might ask online. Return to those activities, choose one (financial access or health information), and go online to identify at least three different sources. Compare and contrast through the eyes of a parent, and discuss the merits or challenges of selecting a site, app, game, or device.
Check out “10 Interactive financial websites that teach kids money management skills.” Offer your thoughts about one or more of the games or apps as a way for children to learn about money. If you were a parent, would you select one or more of these for your child? Would it depend on the child’s age? What is your assessment of the game or app?
Finding information on health and using technology to manage finances are both commonplace for families. Yet it can be hard to do. Information searches yield an overwhelming amount of information, and navigating apps for tracking finances can feel scary when families hear about security breaches. All of this is even harder when adults don’t speak English, have a disability, or live in highly stressful conditions (e.g., homelessness, abuse). As family professionals, how do we advocate for the health and financial access through technology for everyone?
We’ve discussed spending on technology, and you’ve considered how much of your own budget is spent on digital technology and the internet. Consider this for a family. How might spending on technology cut into a family budget? Look around for guidance on tech spending — particularly important over the holiday season, as technology is a major expenditure. What recommendations would you make to help families keep track of their technology spending online?
10.05: Additional Resources and Readings
Personal and Family Health
Offering and finding health support online (examples):
• Lisa Bonchek Adams’ blog: http://lisabadams.com/ (Links to an external site.)
• Note: Lisa maintained a blog about her cancer diagnosis and family experiences until she passed away in 2015. This is an example of one mother’s use of the Internet and social media as a way to express her personal experiences, inform others, and gain support.
• Video: The Clairity Project, by a young woman who posted videos on YouTube to raise awareness about living with cystic fibrosis. Claire developed a large following and became a strong advocate. She passed away in 2018.
Evaluating health information
• Medline:
• health.gov
• Factcheck.org (from the Annenburg Public Policy Center): background science
Personal and Family Financial Well-being
• Household expenses (to estimate portion of technology costs): https://wellkeptwallet.com/common-monthly-household-expenses/
• Garman, E.T., & Forgue, R.E. (2015). Personal Finance, (12th Ed.). United States: South-Western Cengage Learning.
• Solheim, C. A. (2008). Resource management from multicultural perspectives. In Report: Family Focus On …Resource Management, Issue FF38. Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/10%3A_Technology_Use_in_Family_Health_and_Money_Management/10.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.
― Will Rogers
Chapter Insights
• For family professionals, technology skills and knowledge are critical competencies in the 21st-century workforce.
• Digital citizenship straddles is both a content area for family professionals, and something that must be integrated into practice for ethical and effective delivery of care and services.
• Family professionals’ integration of technology is dependent on attitudes toward technology use, attitudes that are based on models such as Davis’ (1989) that frame use as related to intention, acceptance and attitude, and perceived ease of use and usefulness. Research with family educators validates this framework and identifies workplace conditions as directly and indirectly related to attitudes.
• Individuals’ technological comfort and competence benefit from training that occurs in professional preparation programs and in continuing education. Preparation is often shaped by professional standards of practice inclusive of technology use. Professional standards are present in licenses (e.g., teachers, therapists) and certifications or credentials (e.g., Certified Family Life Educator).
• Family therapists can be guided by organizations such as
• the American Counseling Association and
• the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, which have standards for ethics, client safety, and confidentiality.
• Family educators can be guided by standards of technology integration
• The COVID-19 pandemic greatly impacted family professionals’ comfort, use, and innovation in using technology to deliver programming to families. Research with family educators, for example, indicates that tremendous accommodations and innovations were embraced to address the far-ranging needs and preferences of families and children. Supportive resources for professionals greatly facilitate comfort and skill, and address educators’ own feelings of isolation and being overwhelmed.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Family Professionals
So far, this book has primarily focused on the ways in which families use technology in their lives; the impacts of technology on relationships, human development, and family life; and the research and policy that guides our understanding. But what of the professionals who work with families? In many ways, they are the ones who translate what we know about technology to family members so that the information is useful and meaningful.
Family professionals work full-time in a wide array of fields — as couple/marriage and family therapists; family financial counselors and educators; family and consumer science teachers; Extension educators specializing in home economics, nutrition and foods, financial management, parenting, family life, and more; parenting and/or family life educators, and in family social service administration and coordination. The focus on family-focused professional service is not limited to those whose work is full-time and/or with a title that specifically indicates work with families. In 2017, the author surveyed family educators from several national membership organizations that employ family practitioners (Walker, 2019). Approximately one-fourth of respondents represented fields that would not be traditionally considered “family-first,” including clergy, psychologists, teachers, academics, researchers, and business leaders. Key to our focus in this chapter is that practitioners deliver service to families, parents, and children directly in some way, service that may include integrating technology in ways that help enhance individual and family life.
Given family members’ use of technology for acquiring information, sharing content, and supporting individual and shared goals, ICT offers an obvious avenue for professionals to reach wider audiences and new methods for effective delivery. The intersection of family practice and technology is twofold: 1) as a vehicle through which to assist parents and families with learning how to effectively use and choose technology for their children (e.g., technology as a content area for parenting education), and 2) tools and a virtual environment for the delivery of family services, including family therapy, services for families, and parent and family education. Family professionals integrate knowledge about technology as a reality for family life into their practice, and deploy that knowledge when assisting families across myriad issues and interests.
A couples and family therapist, for example, may aid a young couple experiencing conflict over social media sharing or mobile banking, or may facilitate decision-making with families when children are ready to use a smartphone. And they use technology in their practice. The COVID pandemic pushed many family professionals to find creative ways to continue outreach, communication, and service delivery (LeBouw, 2020). This meant adopting social media, videoconferencing, preparing full classes and courses for online environments, and trying out innovations amidst fears around privacy and comfort. The pandemic pushed family professionals further into a phenomenon now present in their practice.
In short, technology use is not a “one-off” topic for family professionals. It is a new reality of family life and for family professionals that requires considerable understanding and critical perspective for professionals’ effectiveness with families and their comfort, skill, and competence in engaging effectively and ethically in practice.
This chapter focuses on how family professionals use technology in their work, and on avenues to professional development regarding technology. To that end, it also addresses the forces that promote quality in technology use as an area of family professionals’ work, and avenues that provide guidance and support. We begin with a quick look at the intersections of types of family work, then look at the value of using technology in family practice to see how technology can be applied in practice. Then we consider the skills and competencies needed for family professionals in the 21st century, particularly as they relate to integrating technology into practice. This means possessing digital citizenship skills, and the acquisition of these skills. There are three primary avenues to professional development that promote and reinforce (or can act as barriers) to development: pre-service preparation, continuing or professional development, and ongoing workplace conditions. Each of these will be explored, with attention to professional standards and current research. The chapter ends with recommendations on technology integration in family practice.
The Intersections of Family Practice
To best situate technology as both content and delivery in family practice, we begin with a scope of competencies and areas of specialization. Myers-Walls et al. (2011) delineate the boundaries and intersections of family practice across education, therapy, and service fields (see figure below). All dimensions embrace family systems theory, include an ecological context, are sensitive to diversity, follow research-based practice, and hold to professional values. Differences occur in practice specificity — for example, in family education the focus is education and prevention, with an emphasis on normal, healthy functioning. Family therapy features therapeutic intervention, assessment and diagnosis, and psychotherapy. Family Case Management involves family advocacy, meeting family needs and coordinating services. As demonstrated in the figure, each element has overlap with the others. For example, family life education and family therapy intersect through the life course perspective, and encouraging interpersonal relationship skills. Family life education and family case management intersect through family policy (and a solution focus) and in family resource management. All domains intersect through an adherence to family systems theory, and the ecological context, a sensitivity to diversity and marginalized populations, reliance on research-based practice, and values and ethics (if this feels familiar these too are the foundations to this book).
Family Education
Family educators may work in a specific area, such as parenting education or family financial management, or may be generalists (known decades ago as “home economists”). They may be employed in any range of settings — corporations, nonprofits, religious organizations, hospitals, schools, and local, state, and federal governments. In Minnesota, where the author lives, the Early Childhood Family Education program (ECFE) is offered through all school districts to provide parenting education and early childhood enrichment for all families. The program employs licensed teachers, including those holding state teaching licenses in parenting (Minnesota is the only state that offers a license in this content area). Parenting educators in ECFE work full- or part-time as school district employees, and have bachelor’s or master’s degrees. More information about parenting educators can be found through the National Parenting Education Network (npen.org). The National Council on Family Relations offers certification in Family Life Education. More about the CLFE can be found at https://www.ncfr.org/cfle-certification .
Family Therapy
In family therapy, intervention is therapeutic and may include psychotherapy. The focus of the therapist’s work is short-term and solution-focused. According to the AAMFT website, Marriage or Couple and Family Therapists (MFTs)
are mental health professionals trained in psychotherapy and family systems, and licensed to diagnose and treat mental and emotional disorders within the context of marriage, couples, and family systems…. They evaluate and treat mental and emotional disorders, and other health and behavioral problems, and address a wide array of relationship issues within the context of the family system. Marriage and family therapists broaden the traditional emphasis on the individual to attend to the nature and role of individuals in primary relationship networks such as marriage and the family. MFTs take a holistic perspective to health care; they are concerned with the overall, long-term well-being of individuals and their families.
These therapists graduate from accredited post-graduate preparation programs, and are licensed by the states in which they work. The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT.org) provides credentialing standards for programs of higher education that ensure quality and ethics in supervision and training. MFTs may work in a wide range of settings as well, including private practice, government agencies, and nonprofit mental/health organizations, and in research and teaching,
Family Case Management/Family Service
In family case management, the focus is on meeting family needs, family advocacy, and coordination of services. Case management is a component of most licensed social workers’ practice (according to the NASW), and is a specific role adopted by those in the field. According to the NASW:
With its strengths-based, person-in-environment perspective, the social work profession is well trained to develop and improve support systems (including service delivery systems, resources, opportunities, and naturally occurring social supports) that advance the well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Furthermore, social workers have long recognized that the therapeutic relationship between the practitioner and the client plays an integral role in case management. (p. 8)
As you consider these different areas of specialization, what do you see as potential differences in technology for program delivery or technology as a content focus? Others in the social work profession serve in a variety of roles, including working as clinical social workers, with therapeutic practice similar to that of psychologists and marriage and family therapists. As with other family professions listed above, social workers who work with families are licensed by the state in which they work and receive bachelor’s and graduate degrees from accredited institutions. For more information about the range of practice, training, and certification of social workers, see https://www.socialworkers.org/Practice/Practice-Standards-Guidelines.
The Use and Value of Technology in the Delivery of Family Practice
New technologies and digital media can be integrated in family practice for outreach, evaluation, and assessment of learning; to foster discussion for sharing information and perspectives; in the delivery of content; and to facilitate social connections beyond face-to-face meetings (e.g, Blum, 2021; Breitenstein et al., 2014; Darling et al., 2020; Taylor & Robila, 2018; Walker, 2020). This can reduce the cost of program delivery and reach larger numbers of people without sacrificing effectiveness or participant satisfaction (Jones et al., 2014; Kumpfer et al., 2015). And it can mean tailoring to specific audience needs. Technology design addresses the wide-ranging and complex needs of contemporary families (e.g., Alford et al., 2019, addressing smartphone use in foster care). In formal education, technology has long been promoted to help instruction and learning inside the classroom and out (Haythornthwaite & Andrews, 2011; UNICEF, 2017). Technology integration in family practice also reflects growing interest and use by family members. Podcasts, websites, blogs, apps, social media, videos, and mobile applications have been utilized worldwide in the last 20 years (Hall & Bierman, 2015; Myers-Walls & Dworkin, 2015; Suárez-Perdomo et al., 2018).
Family technology researchers observe several areas for growth: program implementation evaluation to include more socioeconomically and culturally diverse populations; attention to device innovation (e.g., the move from desktop to mobile); identifying mechanisms to accommodate wider audience needs and address access inequities; building program delivery on learning theory; and comparisons of online-only, and hybrid (face-to-face plus online) applications.
Bullock and Colvin (2015) observe the history of technology use in social work practice and examine contemporary challenges to integration. In the 1980s, clinical practice involved one-way mirrors with clients to allow for interdisciplinary and team participation in assessment and training. Later in that decade, social work services on the internet emerged as online self-help support groups. By the 1990s, groups of clinicians offered online counseling services to the public using secure websites. Today, social work services include a much wider range of digital and electronic options. These allow social workers to engage clients through email, texting, or video teleconferencing using web cameras. Social workers who refuse to acknowledge technology as a practice trend risk falling out of step.
Piercy et al. (2015) identified a variety of ways in which marriage and family therapists used technology in practice. Interview research with 63 practicing therapists (18 male and 45 female) showed that technology related to business management (e.g., outreach, marketing, administrative services), assessment of clients, psychoeducation, direct treatment, the offering of self-help resources, and accountability. Face-to-face therapy was enhanced through the use of media, instructional videos, and psychoeducation materials. Therapists indicated that some clients were better able to communicate with technology, given their experiences of social anxiety.
Online educational and intervention programs
Evidence-based parenting programs and other face-to-face, short-term programs have been adapted to electronic delivery, including electronic text, audio, video, and interactive components delivered via the internet, DVD, or CD-ROM. Early evidence indicated promise for time efficiency (cutting down on travel cost, implementation), participant completion, maximizing intervention fidelity, and sustainability (Breitenstein et al., 2014).
Nieuwbower et al.’s (2013) meta-analysis of 12 studies of internet-based parenting education applications found short-term benefits to knowledge and attitudes. Their study included programs of 2–15 sessions, with professional and in some cases peer support, deploying novel applications, including instruction by animated characters, remote coaching, progress monitoring, and video vignettes. Spencer et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis of 28 published studies, and Corralejo and Rodriguez’s (2018) and Hall and Bierman’s (2015) analysis of technology-adapted parenting education programs, observed the inconsistency in results and scope of the evaluations, from those indicating feasibility and a high degree of satisfaction with parents and/or staff, to those with more rigorous evaluations that demonstrated impacts on short-term outcomes in parenting, parent confidence, or child behavior. The majority of the studies focused on interventions for parents of young children. Spencer et al.’s analysis, for example, identified only 3 of 28 programs for parents of children 12 or older. And Corralegjo and Rodriguez (2018) observed the need for more research and applications offered in non-English languages. Researchers also observe the need to attend to participation, as rates of attrition seem high with online-only applications.
The availability of online delivery of parenting education programs is so prolific that clearinghouses identify programs that align with populations, topics and outcomes. In some states and countries, parenting education is mandated for divorcing parents or as a first-level response for parents who have been reported to have abused or neglected their children. Online delivery makes completing these requirements convenient. Research on adaptations to existing face-to-face programs has demonstrated positive, albeit short-term, results. Variations of this research include examining wholesale adaptations of evidence-based parenting education program to online delivery (Hall & Beirman, 2015; Long, 2016; Neiuwbower et al, 2013; Spencer et al, 2020), hybridizing online delivery with person-to-person contact (Day & Sanders, 2018), and an online component to complement face-to-face delivery (Love et al., 2016; Walker, 2017). Some of this research is discussed below.
Triple P parenting has adopted its EBP intervention program to technological interfaces with a television series, an online version (Turner & Sanders, 2011), and recorded podcasts (Morawska et al., 2014), all demonstrating short-term effects greater than those in control samples. Day and Sanders (2018) examined clinical outcomes, program engagement, and satisfaction in a random control trial of the online Triple P parenting program, the online program with telephone consultation by a trained practitioner, and no treatment. The supplemented online component revealed greater benefits in reducing overall negative parenting and frequency of child behavior problems. Participants reported greater satisfaction with the program and showed higher rates of module completion than did either the online-only group or the no-treatment group.
while self-directed online programs have value to knowledge acquisition, influencing parenting attitudes and translation to practice are best accomplished with a social, guided component. Similar evidence was found when the self-administered and technology-adapted Incredible Years program incorporated professional coaching and access to an interactive forum (Taylor et al., 2008). Nieuwbower et al. (2013) also asserted that while self-directed online programs have value to knowledge acquisition, influencing parenting attitudes and translation to practice are best accomplished with a social, guided component. This suggests that, while online parenting education can be designed to be user-friendly and to integrate learning design principles (Hughes et al., 2012), including social interaction and direct connection to the practitioner may provide social capital and learning benefits that exceed the value of self-directed learning alone. Deploying mixed methodologies that include a social component may be key to reaching diverse audiences.
Social components can be added to online applications that complement face-to-face parenting education. When the Triple P Parenting program incorporated social media and gaming features (e.g., badges as incentives to participation) in outreach with a highly vulnerable population, outcomes for reducing child behavioral problems, permissive or over-reactive parenting, and parental stress were improved (Love et al., 2016). Respondents appreciated the flexibility, anonymity, and shared aspect of the online community. And a web platform for ECFE parents (Parentopia, introduced in the About the Author page) and staff to connect between classes (or to act as a supplement when parents couldn’t attend face-to-face) proved effective at strengthening social connections and a sense of identity in program affiliation (Walker, 2020). A key was in participatory design of the technology to align with program community orientations, values for parent inclusivity in language and access, and repeated usability testing to make the platform user-friendly (Walker, 2017).
Family education technology researchers observe the need for improvement in the study of online programs: inclusion of more socioeconomically and culturally diverse populations, attention to modern devices (e.g., mobile), building program delivery on learning theory (reviewed programs were absent in theory), and comparisons of tech-only and technology-plus applications. Four of the evaluations in Breitenstein et al.’s (2014) review were of evidence-based programs delivered exclusively online (including the Incredible Years and Triple P parenting). The authors suggested a controlled comparison of online and in-person applications with the same intended program outcomes (parenting skills, parent-child interactions, and children’s outcomes), and suggested that a cost-benefit comparison was warranted for full assessment. After research of in-person programs with investigations of their online adapted counterparts, Nieuwbower et al. (2013) observed that the results of online adaptations cannot be assumed from in-person outcomes. Online delivery is different, and includes many variables to consider in effective deployment.
While research on the design of technology-enriched or online delivery of parenting education is still in its infancy, lying in wait is research on the implementation of these systems for effective and sustained delivery. Forgatch et al. (2013) observed the implementation process of the Parent Management Training Oregon model (PMTO) with community service systems and the search for fidelity in program implementation. They identified a two-system (adopting community and program developer) and four-stage (preparation, early adoption, implementation, sustainability) model that characterizes the many considerations. The PMTO scholars also note the benefits of using technology in program implementation and fidelity. A centralized database incorporating video intervention sessions permitted reliability checks of raters, and a centralized website enabled program leaders to fine-tune implementation and oversight of facilitators’ competence. As the PMTO model has been replicated in multiple states and countries (including Iceland, Norway, and Mexico), online data management enables efficient implementation on a global scale. Even so, the authors raise a number of questions about policy and practice that reveal the added complexity of using ICT in program implementation.
Digital Skills Required for a 21st-century Family Professional Workforce
In 2017, The National Academies of Science (NAS) offered predictions of workforce needs in the 21st century relative to information technologies. They …observe that the ultimate impacts of technology will be determined by technical capabilities, how technology is used, and how individuals, organizations and policy makers prepare for and respond to shifts in the economic and social landscape.the National Academies of Science (NAS) offered predictions of workforce needs in the 21st century relative to information technologies (IT and the U.S. Workforce: Where do we go from here?). They highlight the growth of artificial intelligence and “smart” devices, and observe that the ultimate impacts of technology will be determined by technical capabilities, how technology is used, and how individuals, organizations and policy makers prepare for and respond to shifts in the economic and social landscape. Sadly, without adaptation, professionals could face real consequences.
The NAS calls on the educational system to adapt. Worker skills will require creativity, adaptability, and interpersonal skills over routine and manual tasks, and as noted in Chapter 9, there will be growth in on-demand employment. The NAS also called for multidisciplinary research and improved tracking of the workforce and of technology development.
More recently, the Pew Internet and American Life project interviewed 90+ leaders about the future and about employment skills relative to technology. There was agreement that work would be more flexible and less bounded by time or place, and would require workers to have adaptable skills.
Related to family professionals, in 2016 Nicholas Long offered these predictions for practitioners of parenting education:
1. There will be an increase in studies that examine how provider knowledge, training, and skills impact the effectiveness of different parenting education services.
2. There will be an increased focus on identifying core competencies as well as ethical guidelines for parenting educators.
3. There will be a growing interest in certifying those who provide parenting education services (beyond program-specific certification).
4. There will be a greater focus on how to most effectively train and supervise providers of parenting education services.
And the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences (AAFCS) highlighted technological skills as a necessary component of workplace skills in the “employability skills framework” for the 21st century, as complementary to applied knowledge and effective relationship skills.
As indicated above, media and technology skills are also recognized by the AAFCS as key competencies, along with learning and innovation skills and life and career skills.
In writing about the application of technology to family therapy, Piercy et al. (2015) observe shifts in human behavior and the perception of meaning through both symbolic interaction and social constructivist lenses. Social constructionism believes meanings are transitory and developed through interaction and social agreement. When couples use digital technology, they are creating relationship through online interaction and, even more, are constructing couple identities, expressing themselves as couples, and negotiating the meaning that technology offers to their relationships. The authors also note that, while cyberspace can enhance perceptions of and opportunities for intimacy, it can also reflect deception and fraud. Examples abound of being “ghosted” or “cyberstalked,” and of personal information being used without permission. From such interactions, individuals interpret and make meaning, creating symbolic worlds that can shape behavior. Couples come into therapy having constructed a narrative of themselves through these online interactions — narratives and self-identities which therapists must accommodate. Piercy et al. (2015) hold that it is essential that therapists are aware of the force online interactions can hold for relationships and intimacy. And Blum (2021), who has used TikTok as a medium for relationship and therapy education, warns that users may disregard boundaries and perceive that a therapist’s presence online is an invitation to begin 1:1 therapy.
As educators such as Mike Ribble observe, being a good digital citizen is a requirement for us all, as information technologies are now a part of our daily life. This means having the knowledge to use technology intentionally, and in ways that ensure safety along with effective use. To that end, we require not just digital skills, but a full understanding of information technology as it can impact human life. We need to possess the qualities and knowledge of a good digital citizen. Family professionals assist couples, parents, and families in using media in healthy ways, and understand areas of potential conflict that family members can resolve together.
Digital citizenship
To begin a discussion of technology skills, knowledge, and comfort for family professionals (Godfrey, 2016) is to center on the Elements of Digital Citizenship (Ribble, 2015). These provide broad categories of consideration for safe and effective use of the internet and of information and communications technologies:
• Digital access: full electronic participation in society
• Digital commerce: electronic buying and selling of goods
• Digital communication: electronic exchange of information
• Digital literacy: basics of technology and its use
• Digital etiquette: electronic standards of conduct
• Digital law: electronic responsibility for actions and deeds
• Digital rights and responsibilities: freedoms extended to all in a digital world
• Digital health and wellness: physical and psychological well-being
• Digital security: electronic precautions to guarantee safety
Further clarification of these elements can be found in Godfrey’s article (p.19), and in these scenarios created for teachers.
Digital citizenship strands have been simplified into four dimensions, along with what the Dig Cit Doctors call “enduring understandings:”
Digital Citizens keep themselves and each other safe.
Enduring Understandings:
1. Laws, rules, and social norms govern digital spaces.
2. Digital identities, data, and online activities are commodities.
3. Individuals and organizations may misrepresent themselves online.
Media Information and Literacy
Digital Citizens responsibly consume, create, and share digital content.
Enduring Understandings:
1. Effective search strategies help individuals locate information online.
2. Digital information varies in value, quality, and reliability.
3. Media influences individual perceptions and societal actions.
4. Technology can be used to express and amplify ideas.
Digital well-being
Digital Citizens prioritize their digital well-being and the well-being of others.
Enduring Understandings:
1. Self-awareness and the use of intentional strategies can support a healthy digital diet.
2. Online personas are constructed reflections of an individual’s identity.
3. Technology may play a role in both advancing and impeding human connection.
Social Responsibility
Digital Citizens are socially conscious and empowered to influence change.
Enduring Understandings:
1. Digital citizens have a collective responsibility for the ethical design, use, and regulation of new technologies.
2. Technology is a powerful vehicle for civic engagement.
3. Technology both highlights and perpetuates social inequities.
Framework for teaching digital citizenship
Family educators — whether teaching in formal settings, such as higher education or secondary schools, or in non-formal settings in work with parents — can teach elements of digital citizenship. Ongoing shifts in technology device availability and in applications used in formal education, informal learning, and social worlds (e.g., TikTok, Schoology) mean that parents need to stay current for active engagement, anticipate challenges, identify probable hacks, and provide guidance. Parenting education can acquaint caregivers with relevant information on children’s developmental domains and age stages to help parents understand what children are capable of and responsible for as they navigate their presence online, face potential threats, and reap creative and collaborative rewards.
Educators can assist parents and families with vetting the quality of material when choosing what to read. Parents are curious about how to know when children are ready for smartphones, how much screen time is healthy, preventing threats to privacy and safety, and preventing cyberbullying. And parents vary in their ability to discern differences in online information and in skills that relate to education and literacy. As parents use technology in their roles as parents — texting and video calls to communicate with children and to reassure and coach their children through challenges, learning alongside children with education technologies, and sharing the joy of gaming — parenting education can help promote the value and use of these new media and possibly create new rules for parent-child communication. Finally, parents may need help navigating these spaces, as they too can be subject to social comparison, bullying, and overuse.
When new technologies and workplace policies mean the navigation of flexible work, home, and space boundaries, family professionals can help working parents acquire “digital cultural capital.” This isn’t an exhaustive list of topics that can be covered by family educators, but indicates some of the many elements of parenting and family life that naturally integrate technology.
Ribble (2015) offered a four-stage reflection framework for teaching digital citizenship that can be applied to traditional, formal classroom instruction and non-formal learning opportunities for parents and families:
1. Being aware of technology use and its appropriate use. Students are asked to reflect on their technology use at home and at school.
2. Guided practice.
3. Modeling and demonstrating. Teachers as well as adults need to practice good digital citizenship habits in their own lives.
4. Feedback and analysis. It is important to have a classroom environment where students feel comfortable in discussing how they use technology at home and at school.
Family Professionals and Competency Standards Indicative of Technology Skills and Knowledge
Each of the family professional speciality areas have competency standards that guide preparation and practice; within these lie opportunities to integrate technology as both a knowledge and skill area for professionals. Competency standards are used to inform state and national licensing, as well as credential and accreditation requirements, in turn informing the creation and selection of curricula offered in higher education programs of professional preparation. They are also used to inform professional development opportunities, conference themes, and training. And professional standards inform job descriptions and requirements used by employers of family professionals. In short, these standards hold tremendous importance in shaping practice direction and innovation.
Family Education
The National Parenting Education Network (NPEN) framework on the competencies of parenting educators finds content knowledge bridging both parenting and human development, along with knowledge of the practice of parenting education (figure below). Competencies also include requisite skills to practice and deliver parenting education. These include:
• Foundations of parenting education
• Adult learning and education
• Educational methodology/instructional design
• Working with parents in groups
• Working individually with parents and family (home visits, one-on-one instruction, consultation, coaching)
• Assessment and evaluation
• Relationships and communication with parents and families
• Professional behavior and development
At the center of the competencies are the educator’s attitudes and dispositions (Wadlington & Wadlington, 2011). These include professional conduct (e.g., accepts responsibilities), professional qualities (e.g., demonstrates a commitment to the individual student), and communication and collaboration (e.g., displays sensitivity in interacting with others, UMN, 2017). And all dimensions are informed by ongoing developments in research and theory. For those who practice family life education, working as family and consumer sciences teachers, financial or nutrition educators, or in other family-related specialities, guidelines for practice with technology can be found by professional bodies that promote quality teaching and support teachers.
Technology standards in formal teacher preparation
State teacher licensing includes standards for teaching with technology. In Minnesota, where all teachers must demonstrate competency in teaching standards and in content related to their content area license (e.g., science education, preK-grade 3, parenting and family education), teaching standards include a specific section related to technology competence, with the following elements:
• Technology-enriched learning environments
• Diverse learning
• Assessment
• Discrimination
• Technological knowledge
• Digital citizenship
• Contribution to the teaching profession
• Broadening student knowledge about technology
• Variety of technologies
Competency 2H, for example, reads “demonstrate knowledge and understanding of concepts related to technology and student learning;” Competency 3R reads “identify and apply technology resources to enable and empower learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities.” And 9M reads “understand the role of continuous development in technology knowledge and skills representative of technology applications for education.” These standards are created with guidance from professional bodies for teacher development, some of which specialize in technology. The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) covers the following technology themes within their seven standards areas:
• Student learning
• Clinical practice
• Technology integration
PK-12 instructor standards groups, including the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (https://www.iste.org/standards) and the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC), identify more specific technological themes:
• Modeling (ISTE)
• Real-world issues (ISTE, InTASC)
• Reflective learning (ISTE)
• Communication (ISTE, InTASC)
• Global awareness (ISTE)
• Leadership (ISTE)
• Research / Professional practice (ISTE, InTASC)
• Technology integration (InTASC)
• Professional engagement (InTASC).
Formal education technology theory, research, and practice, inclusive of teacher preparation, has much to offer family education as a basis for how to understand, integrate, and study technology integration and educator support. The TPaCK framework, for example, identifies the intersection of using specific technologies (T) to enhance pedagogical practice (P) and enrich content knowledge (CK) delivery (Mishra and Kohler, 2006; figure below). Other models promote technology selection to align with learner activity levels (passive to active) and desired instructional outcomes of Replace, Augment, Transform (e.g., PICRAT, Kimmons, 2012), or translate particular technology use aligned with traditional learning theories or frameworks, such as Bloom’s taxonomy (Churches, 2010).
Because many who practice family education are not working in formal settings or do not hold teaching licenses, there are likely to be differences in practitioner preparation and oversight. Most definitely there are differences in practice. Those who work in non-formal education often have adults (21–60+ years) as an audience. The participants’ attendance is for enrichment and is often voluntary, not for degree acquisition. Therefore, learner motivations for attending are different. Learning needs are more experiential and problem-focused. These adult learners find value in support and a feeling of community, as much as in knowledge and skill acquisition.
Family education technology integration standards
Standards specific to family education technology integration that match the specificity and breadth of formal classroom (e.g., K-12) teacher preparation do not exist. The American Association of Family and Consumer Science (AAFCS) offers guidance that informs family and consumer science teachers and Extension Educators focused on family and consumer science. Specific to family education, groups like the National Council on Family Relations have standards for Certified Family Life Educators (CFLE). Certification requires demonstration of competence in knowledge across nine content areas and in education methodology. Although technology knowledge and skill is represented in these standards, it is more generally addressed: https://www.ncfr.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FLE-Content-and-Practice-Guidelines-2014-objectives.pdf.
There are sub-specialties in parenting education informed by the National Parenting Education Network (NPEN), in nutrition or health education informed by certification with the National Commission on Health Education Credentialing, and in finance education informed by the Financial Educators Council. Readers are encouraged to explore the specific standards set out by each body for specificity and inclusion of technology knowledge and skill.The National Parent Educators Network (NPEN) has standards for professional and paraprofessionals in parenting education. Within these standards, specifics related to technology as content expertise or in teaching are both implied and explicit. Even so, adherence to national standards related to technology integration in family education and in its specific content areas, like parenting education, varies greatly.
Unlike the discipline of formal education, with its infrastructure of federal and state government involvement, licensing requirements that align with state policies and mandates, and a century of research and professional organization through groups like the American Education Research Association and the National Education Association (nea.org), family education does not have a strong, centralized national presence that directs practice or the preparation to practice. Efforts toward competencies are thus decentralized and inconsistent, and the inclusion of technology is even more fragmented and precarious.
In the U.S., for instance, NPEN (npen.org) lists practice by state, revealing requirements for paraprofessional, professional, degreed, and licensed (MN) educators. While as a network they can offer standards of practice that are inclusive of technology skill for delivery, and these may inform practice, they don’t dictate training or certification in ways that bodies such as those for social work and family therapy do, as discussed below. Until there are more unified efforts toward both family educator standards of practice and preparation, guidance and training on technology will continue to be fragmented and, sadly, dependent on the individual or workplace. In a U.S. study of 722 parent and family educators, the majority (74%) indicated “learning on my own” to a moderate or major extent as the training that prepared them to use technology (Walker, 2019). Reports of training by professional development (50.6%) or in college (42.6%) were lower. Only one-third reported needing technology training to maintain a professional credential, and nearly all of these were licensed teachers.
Family Therapy
Couple and family therapists are guided in practice by competencies set by associations such as the American Counseling Association (ACA), the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (AAMFT), or the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). The ACA’s 2014 edition of ethical standards was the first to include a discussion of social media in practice in the section on Distance Counseling, Teletherapy and Social Media (section H, pp 17–18). The section speaks to informed consent and security, knowledge and legal considerations, distance counseling relationships, client verification, records management and web maintenance, and the use of social media. The AAMFT includes a section on technology-assisted services (section VI) in its ethical standards. As in the ACA guidelines, this section covers delivering services through telehealth, informed consent, confidentiality, documentation and the privacy of records, and professional responsibilities. In part, these guidelines concern the delivery of services beyond traditional place-based therapy — in other words, jurisdiction considerations that cross state or country lines. They also identify the boundaries of professional identities — when, for instance, maintaining separate accounts as a professional and as a private citizen (e.g., virtual professional presence).
Given research by Piercy et al. (2015) that indicates the range of ways in which technology is used by family therapists, while it is very appropriate that professional associations address ethical concerns when using the internet to delivery therapy, there are numerous skill sets needed to effectively deploy technology in practice.
Family Service and Social Work
In 2017, a collective of professional associations for social work — the National Association of Social Work (NASW), the Association for Social Work Boards (ASWB), the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), and the Clinical Social Work Association (CSWA) — created Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice. The work’s table of contents, below, indicates the breadth and depth of interest in the topic as implemented in the field and in preparation of professionals:
Table of Contents for Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice
Section 1: Provision of Information to the Public
• Standard 1.01: Ethics and Values
• Standard 1.02: Representation of Self and Accuracy of Information
Section 2: Designing and Delivering Services
• Standard 2.01: Ethical Use of Technology to Deliver Social Work Services
• Standard 2.02: Services Requiring Licensure or Other Forms of Accreditation
• Standard 2.03: Laws That Govern Provision of Social Work Services
• Standard 2.04: Informed Consent: Discussing the Benefits and Risks of Providing Electronic Social Work Services
• Standard 2.05: Assessing Clients’ Relationships with Technology
• Standard 2.06: Competence: Knowledge and Skills Required When Using Technology to Provide Services
• Standard 2.07: Confidentiality and the Use of Technology
• Standard 2.08: Electronic Payments and Claims
• Standard 2.09: Maintaining Professional Boundaries
• Standard 2.10: Social Media Policy
• Standard 2.11: Use of Personal Technology for Work Purposes
• Standard 2.12: Unplanned Interruptions of Electronic Social Work Services
• Standard 2.13: Responsibility in Emergency Circumstances
• Standard 2.14: Electronic and Online Testimonials
• Standard 2.15: Organizing and Advocacy
• Standard 2.16: Fundraising
• Standard 2.17: Primary Commitment to Clients
• Standard 2.18: Confidentiality
• Standard 2.19: Appropriate Boundaries
• Standard 2.20: Addressing Unique Needs
• Standard 2.21: Access to Technology
• Standard 2.22: Programmatic Needs Assessments and Evaluations
• Standard 2.23: Current Knowledge and Competence
• Standard 2.24: Control of Messages
• Standard 2.25: Administration
• Standard 2.26: Conducting Online Research
• Standard 2.27: Social Media Policies
Section 3: Gathering, Managing, and Storing Information
• Standard 3.01: Informed Consent
• Standard 3.02: Separation of Personal and Professional Communications
• Standard 3.03: Handling Confidential Information
• Standard 3.04: Access to Records within an Organization
• Standard 3.05: Breach of Confidentiality
• Standard 3.06: Credibility of Information Gathered Electronically
• Standard 3.07: Sharing Information with Other Parties
• Standard 3.08: Client Access to Own Records
• Standard 3.09: Using Search Engines to Locate Information about Clients
• Standard 3.10: Using Search Engines to Locate Information about Professional Colleagues
• Standard 3.11: Treating Colleagues with Respect
• Standard 3.12: Open Access Information
• Standard 3.13: Accessing Client Records Remotely
• Standard 3.14: Managing Phased Out and Outdated Electronic Devices
Section 4: Social Work Education and Supervision
• Standard 4.01: Use of Technology in Social Work Education
• Standard 4.02: Training Social Workers about the Use of Technology in Practice
• Standard 4.03: Continuing Education
• Standard 4.04: Social Media Policies
• Standard 4.05: Evaluation
• Standard 4.06: Technological Disruptions
• Standard 4.07: Distance Education
• Standard 4.08: Support
• Standard 4.09: Maintenance of Academic Standards
• Standard 4.10: Educator–Student Boundaries
• Standard 4.11: Field Instruction
• Standard 4.12: Social Work Supervision
Standards such as these are a response to the work of social work practice observers such as Bullock and Colvin et al. (2015), whose research indicates the tensions in the field among practitioners more or less comfortable with using technology in practice.
Workplace Support and Professional Development
As noted, standards for practice in family professions serve many purposes in guiding practitioner training and development, informing curricula in higher education majors and career development programs, and guiding credentialing and licensing of professionals before practice begins. Technology has become a popular topic in professional development, with content foci on technology use by children, privacy and ethics, effective applications, and, in particular COVID-19 and the near complete transfer of delivery from in-person to online. In family therapy, for example, the American Counseling Association offers professional development workshops and materials on cyberbullying, and the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy offers a network to assist with telehealth questions.
Yet a middle ground for professional support on technology use lies in the everyday practice and context of practitioners. Since 2010, the author has conducted research on technology use by parent and family educators and on workplace conditions that influence technology acceptance. Repeatedly, whether sampling educators in a single state and practice emphasis (e.g., parenting education in Minnesota, Walker & Hong, 2017) or nationwide with a diverse sample of 700+ educators representing multiple dimensions of family education (Walker, 2019; Walker, et al., 2021), the findings validate workplace conditions as a significant influence. Those perceiving higher workplace supports in infrastructure (e.g., encouragement) and resources (e.g., access to devices, training) report more accepting attitudes toward technology and are more likely to use a range of technologies.
The research model adopts Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which stems from concepts of behavioral intention (e.g., Ajzen, 1989). Technology attitudes accepting of innovation and information and communications technologies drive the intention towards use, and the use of technology itself. Two factors related to acceptance are PE — perceived ease of use, and PU — perceived usefulness. PU is influenced by PE (this makes sense, since if we believe something is easy to use we are more likely to find it useful to our purposes). Modifications of Davis’ original model include consideration of external conditions, such as in research of preservice teachers in Singapore by Teo et al. (2008).
From our national sample of 722 family education professionals, the perception that technology was easy to use, and the perception that technology had value to their work were directly related to technology acceptance attitudes. Workplace supports were indirectly related to attitudes and had a direct influence on perceptions of technology use and value. Validating this model to align with the conditions and practice of family educators (Walker & Kim, 2015), the author later investigated the role of workplace conditions (Walker, Lee, & Hong, 2021). Although “use” was measured in the studies, it was not used as the dependent variable, since an objective measure of use cannot be determined for a field as wide-ranging as family education. Rather, the models predicted acceptance attitudes, a more flexible indicator of use as conditions, learner needs, and types of applications change. Technology attitudes and the attitude precursors of PE and PU were adapted from measures by Teo et al. (2009). These are 5–7 item constructs, with responses measured by a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Examples included usefulness (e.g., “Using technology will improve my work”), and ease of use (e.g., “I find it easy to get technology to do what I want it to do”). Workplace conditions were measured by a 12-item index from Papanastasiou and Angeli (2008), also measured by a 5-point Likert scale. Workplace attitude constructs of workplace infrastructure (e.g., technology support, devices, including “A variety of hardware and software is easily available for me to use in my program) and workplace encouragement (e.g., discussions about technology, including “I often exchange ideas about technology use with other Parent Educators”). Our analysis method used Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Path Modeling. As previously noted, from our sample of 722 national family educators, technology attitudes were related directly to PE and PU. Workplace encouragement and workplace infrastructure indirectly influenced acceptance attitudes as mediated by PU and PE, respectively. Workplace encouragement also showed a small but direct influence on technology acceptance.
Research like this provides support for examining the primary and often enduring context that shapes family educators’ practice and technology use, and for advocating for conditions conducive to innovation and accommodation with new media. Yet the reality is that family educators are irregularly held to technology standards in the workplace. While some mention the receipt of devices or training by their employers (also highly variable, and far less likely for those who are self-employed or working with non-profits), few note that use of technology is a performance standard for review or for hiring (Walker, 2019). Moreover, workplace conditions of family and parenting educators vary even more greatly, with some workplaces offering tangible encouragement (e.g., performance assessments) and support (e.g., training and technical support) specific to technology use, while most others do not. Parenting educators, occasional family educators (e.g., teachers, counselors), and family life educators vary from those in higher education/administration, who have more technology resources, report more positive attitudes, are more confident about their skills, and view formal technology training as useful. These disparities indicate that those preparing family educators may not have realistic ideas about workplace conditions, and are therefore not adequately preparing or filling the gaps needed by practitioners. They also validate the sense that those working on the front lines with parents and families face less supportive conditions, which weakens their ability in practice.
COVID-19 Impact on the Delivery of Family Practice and Education; The Use of the Internet and Information and Communications Technology
The COVID-19 pandemic provides us with the best evidence for advocating for family professionals’ knowledge and comfort with technology. The pandemic started while we were working to resolve tensions around the use of technology in practice, the value of teaching online or delivering therapy at a distance compared with face-to-face encounters, and the degree to which practitioners deploy new media in their work. Schools, organizations, and businesses were shuttered, and the delivery of service relied on the internet and on the ability of professionals to adapt.
Here is a short video about ECFE (featuring the Bloomington, MN schools)
One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://open.lib.umn.edu/technologyfamily/?p=364#oembed-1
Using her association with Early Childhood Family Education in Minnesota, the author conducted research with educatorswhen COVID hit programming in the spring of 2020, and again one year later. As COVID began, educators were fearful, yet optimistic. They felt that they could adapt their programming, yet knew that they needed strong administrative support, including technology resources. Primarily, they worried for families — that families would not be able to access programming and that those marginalized would be especially vulnerable. They hoped that whatever initiatives were implemented would be sensitive to these needs. When there is stress on existing systems for program delivery, like that brought by the pandemic, the weaknesses in providing for technological training and support are evident. These are quotes from educators faced with adapting their programs for COVID:
With so little planning time, and support for the technology available through the district, It really felt like the train left the station without [me].
At one moment, I would feel ineffective, as though I was working in a vacuum, putting material for families out into a void where it wasn’t doing anyone any good. And I felt selfish for wishing I would hear from families, knowing that they were likely stressed and overwhelmed. I struggled to know that there was anything that I was doing — to meet any real needs.
One year later, and with a sample representative of the whole state and distributed by parenting, early childhood educators, and program coordinators (with some holding two or more roles), educators reported on an amazing array of accommodations used to reach families at home during the pandemic. Smaller, more rural programs could continue with reduced classes, face-to-face. All programs needed to deploy the internet and technology applications for outreach, teaching, and assessment. More than 90% reported using email and videoconferencing (e.g., Zoom); approximately half reported using technologies like social media, a school website, a learning management system, texting programs like Remind, and YouTube.
Sensitivity to differences in parents’ technology skill can mean knowing how to adapt instruction for the greatest attention and engagement. During COVID-19, for example, parenting educators in Minnesota moved group-based discussion and the early childhood learning component to video conferencing (Walker et al., 2020). Within weeks, however, they learned that families were overwhelmed with screens by the end of the day. The educators lowered expectations for attendance, and found other creative ways to engage online (e.g., asynchronous video posts, collaborative tools) and safe face-to-face methods for families to engage in smaller numbers. They also addressed equity through the use of take-home learning packets provided by the district (at no cost to parents), loaned tablets and wifi hotspots, and worked with districts to redistribute budgets to accommodate parents with limited technology access.
Educators expressed pride at pulling together to offer flexible opportunities for learning for parents and children and ways for family relationships to stay strong, along with sadness that more resources weren’t offered to help reach more families and that technology assistance was fair at best (Walker et al., in press). Nearly one-fifth reported receiving no resources, and the majority indicated that their own experiences and support from their peers were the best methods for learning how to use technology. Being “thrown into the fire” of having to use technology did prove to be a good teacher and confidence booster. When asked to compare their proficiency with technology at the beginning and end of the school year, educator ratings (out of 10) changed from a mean of 4.98 to 7.84, a statistical difference significant at p < .001. For many, the experience was mixed, with triumph in maintaining programs to meet families’ needs, and the reality of the challenges faced in making that happen. As one educator said:
So many things! It was an honor to work with families. It was exciting, draining, and everything in between to be able to design, develop, and implement online ECFE classes. I was discouraged often, feeling like I was missing the mark, and then I’d rebound and realize that the work we were doing was potentially the most important of my career to date. At times I was lonely. And I feel intense gratitude for my EC colleague who hung in there and worked so hard for families.
Recommendations for the Future
To address the ICT needs of families means continuing research that translates to practice that fully assists families with managing new digital realities. It also means that we do not assume that family professionals are supported or prepared to integrate technology in their practice. We must identify necessary competencies and standards that will drive preparation, professional development, and workplace conditions (Walker, 2016). The figure below show practitioners who work with families on the issue of technology use as the center of service delivery and as supported in their digital citizenship knowledge and skills by wider bodies of professional development and oversight:
There are additional ways to lend support to professionals. Ttechnology integration, for example, can be included in the higher education curriculum of family science, social science, education, and other applied fields. The University of Minnesota course accompanying this book — FSOS 3015 Families and Technology — is a way to stimulate critical perspectives on the many ways in which technology impacts children and family life. Association professional development efforts can include technology integration as a topic area, conference theme, podcast, or blog series. Online Community of Practices/Professional Learning Communities can focus on technology integration to offer peer ideas and assistance. And agencies can work individually or, as the NASW did, collaboratively to create standards for practice and advocate for their inclusion in licensing or performance. Additional recommendations include the following:
1. Family professionals are naturally situated to aid children and families with the growing responsibilities and challenges for decision-making and wise use of new media and interactions in a virtual world. This means seeing technology as both a content area in practice as well as a means for service and education delivery.
2. Family professionals must feel comfortable and competent as digital educators and integrators. Therefore, they need professional standards that guide preparation and practice. Standards developed for classroom teachers and/or the helping professions (e.g., social work, NASW, 2017) may inform recommendations for the range of those who work with families.
3. Research on technology integration in family practice is still in its early stages. Adapting and testing new ways to communicate, convey information to, assess, and encourage community with parents has yielded valuable information about the costs and benefits from instructor and learner perspectives.
4. Industry can build on the expertise of family professionals in the design of apps and online platforms. This includes parenting apps, for example, that may build on algorithms to tailor advice to parents and also include the rich context of childrearing decisions and influences. Those creating financial education apps, or interactive platforms to teach children money management, can work with family professionals with expertise in this area.
We now move to our final chapter: integrating policy with family practice and research on technology use and impacts. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/11%3A_Technology_Integration_in_the_Practice_of_Family_Professionals/11.01%3A_Technology_Integration_in_the_Practice_of_Family_.txt |
Alford, K. A., Denby, R. W., & Gomez, E. (2019). Use of smartphone technology in foster care to build relational competence: voices of caregivers and implications for prudent parenting. Journal of Family Social Work, 22(3), 209-230
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2022, from http://www.aafcs.org/
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists. (n.d.). About Marriage and Family Therapists. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from aamft.org/About_AAMFT/About_Marriage_and_Family_Therapists.aspx?hkey=1c77b71c-0331-417b-b59b-34358d32b909
Anderson, J., Rainie, L., & Vogels, E. A. (2021, April 5). Experts say the ‘new normal’ in 2025 will be far more tech-driven, presenting more big challenges. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/02/18/experts-say-the-new-normal-in-2025-will-be-far-more-tech-driven-presenting-more-big-challenges/
Blum, D. (2021, January 12). Therapists are on TikTok. and how does that make you feel? The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/well/mind/tiktok-therapists.html
Breitenstein, S. M., Gross, D., and Christophersen, R. (2014). Digital delivery methods of parenting training interventions: a systematic review. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 11(3), 168-176.
Bullock and Colvin (2015). Communication Technology Integration into Social Work Practice. Advances in Social Work Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, 1-14
Certified Family Life Educator (CFLE) Credential Standards & Criteria. National Council on Family Relations. (2020, July). Retrieved from https://www.ncfr.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Final_Standards%20and%20Criteria%202020.pdf
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2020). How child welfare professionals access, use, and share information: Results from the National Child Welfare Information Study. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Churches, A. (2010). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Retrieved from http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/f/BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf
Corralejo, S. M., & Domenech Rodríguez, M. M. (2018). Technology in parenting programs: A systematic review of existing interventions. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(9), 2717-2731.
Darling, C., Cassidy, D., and Rehm, M. (2020). The Foundations of Family Life Education Model: Understanding the Field. Family Relations, 69: 427–441 doi:10.1111/fare.12372
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance information technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340.
Day, J. J., and Sanders, M. R. (2018). Do parents benefit from help when completing a self-guided parenting program online? A randomized controlled trial comparing Triple P Online with and without telephone support. Behavior Therapy, 49(6), 1020-1038.
Family Life Education Content Areas: Content and Practice Guidelines. National Council on Family Relations. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.ncfr.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/FLE-Content-and-Practice-Guidelines-2014-objectives.pdf
Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., and Gewirtz, A. H. (2013). Looking forward: The promise of widespread implementation of parent training programs. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 682-694.
Godfrey, R. (2016). Digital citizenship. Paving the way for Family and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 108(2), 18-22.
Hall, C. M., and Bierman, K. L. (2015). Technology-assisted interventions for parents of young children: Emerging practices, current research, and future directions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 33, 21-32.
Haythornthwaite, C., and Andrews, D. (2011). E-learning: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Health Education Specialist certification – CHES®, MCHES®. NCHEC. (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://www.nchec.org/
Hughes, R., Bowers, J., Mitchell, E., Curtiss, S. and Ebata, A. (2012). Developing online family life prevention and education programs. Family Relations, 61, 711 – 727.
International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.) The ISTE standards. ISTE. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://www.iste.org/standards
Jones, D. J., Forehand, R., Cuellar, J., Parent, J., Honeycutt, A., Khavjou, O., … and Newey, G. A. (2014). Technology-enhanced program for child disruptive behavior disorders: Development and pilot randomized control trial. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 43(1), 88-101.
Kimmons, R. (2012). PICRAT matrix. http://roycekimmons.com/tools/picrat
Lebow, J. L. (2020). Family in the age of COVID-19. Family process. doi: 10.1111/famp.12543
Long, N. (2015). Future trends in parenting education. In J. Ponzetti (Ed.), Evidence-based parenting education: A global perspective (pp. 311– 328). New York, NY: Routledge.
Love, S. M., Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. M., Maurange, M., Knott, T., Prinz, R., … and Ainsworth, A. T. (2016). Social media and gamification: Engaging vulnerable parents in an online evidence-based parenting program. Child Abuse and Neglect, 53, 95-107.
Mishra, P. , & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Morawska, A., Tometzki, H., and Sanders, M. R. (2014). An evaluation of the efficacy of a Triple P-positive parenting program podcast series. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(2), 128-137.
Myers-Walls, J. A., and Dworkin, J. (2015). Parenting education without borders: web-based outreach. In Ponzetti, J., (Ed.) Evidence-based parenting education: A global perspective. pp. 149-166. New York, NY: Routledge.
Myers-Walls, J. A., Ballard, S. M., Darling, C. A., & Myers-Bowman, K. S. (2011). Reconceptualizing the domain and boundaries of Family Life Education. Family Relations, 60(4), 357–372. doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00659.x
Nagarkar, N. (2020, April 14). Digital citizenship for life after COVID-19. Medium. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from medium.com/skills-for-the-future/digital-citizenship-for-life-after-covid-19-ae95f818a87e
National Association of Social Workers (2013) Standards for Social Work Case Management. Retrieved June 15, 2022, from https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=acrzqmEfhlo%3d&portalid=0
National Association of Social Workers (2017) NASW, ASWB, CSWE & CSA Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice. Washington, DC. www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lcTcdsHUcng%3d&portalid=0
Nieuwboer, C. C., Fukkink, R. G., and Hermanns, J. M. (2013). Online programs as tools to improve parenting: A meta-analytic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11) 1823-1829. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.008
Papanastasiou, E. C., & Angeli, C. (2008). Evaluating the use of ICT in education: Psychometric properties of the survey of factors affecting teachers teaching with technology (SFA-T³). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 69-86.
Piercy, F. P., Riger, D., Voskanova, C., Chang, W.-N., Sturdivant, L., & Haugen, E. (2015). What Marriage and Family Therapists Tell Us about Improving Couple Relationships through Technology. In Family Communication in the Age of Digital and Social Media (pp. 207–227).
Professional parenting educator competencies. NPEN. (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://npen.org/Professional-Parent...r-Competencies
Ribble, M. (2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know. International Society for Technology in Education.
Rosa, P., Johnson, A., Shorb, V., Jaeckel, G., Jackson, E., Graves, H., Enders, P., Repak, S., Smith, E., Steuer, T., Webb, S. T., & McCormick, K. (n.d.). Framework for Teaching Personal Finance . National Financial Educators Council . Retrieved from https://www.financialeducatorscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Framework-for-Teaching-Personal-Finance.pdf
Sciences, C. N. A. of. (2017, March 16). Information Technology and the U.S. workforce: Where are we and where do we go from here? Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here? |The National Academies Press. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24649/information-technology-and-the-us-workforce-where-are-we-and
Spencer, C. M., Topham, G. L., & King, E. L. (2020). Do online parenting programs create change?: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 34, No. 3, 364 –374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000605
Suárez-Perdomo, A., Byrne, S., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2018). Assessing the ethical and content quality of online parenting resources. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 26(1)
Taylor, A. and Robila, M. (2018) Global Perspectives on Family Life Education: Synthesis and Future Directions. In M. Robila and A. Taylor (Eds). Global Perspectives on Family Life Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77589-0_25 .
Taylor, T. K., Webster‐Stratton, C., Feil, E. G., Broadbent, B., Widdop, C. S., and Severson, H. H. (2008). Computer‐based intervention with coaching: An example using the Incredible Years program. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 37(4), 233-246.
Teo, T., Lee, C., & Chai, C. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 128–143.
Turner, K. M. T., and Sanders, M. R. (2011). Triple P Online. Brisbane, Australia: Triple P International. Retrieved from http://www.triplep.net.
UNICEF. (2017). Children in a Digital World. United Nations Children’s Fund.
University of MInnesota (2017). Minnesota Educator Dispositions System (MnEDS)™. https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/u...framework/home
Wadlington, E., & Wadlington, P. (2011). Teacher dispositions: Implications for teacher education. Childhood Education, 87(5), 323-326.
Walker, S. (2016). Creating the Future We Want: A Framework for Integrated Engagement in Technology Use in Family and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences. 11, 7-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.14307/JFCS108.2.7
Walker, S. (2017). Creating Parentopia: Design-Based Research to Develop an Interface for Parent Learning Communities and Networks. In Smith, B. K., Borge, M., Mercier, E., and Lim, K. Y. (Eds.). (2017). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computer Supported
Walker, S. (2019). “It Depends:” Technology Use by Parent and Family Educators in the United States. Educational Sciences. 9(4). 293. Special Issue: The Future of Parent and Family Education. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040293
Walker, S. (2020). Parent Learning as Community of Practice and the Potential of an Online Platform. In Progress in Education. Volume 62. R. Nauta (Ed.) Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
Walker, S. and Hong, S. (2017). Workplace Predictors of Parenting Educators’ Technology Acceptance Attitudes, Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45 (4), 377–393.
Walker, S. and Kim, H. (2015). Family Educators Use of Technology and Influences on Technology Acceptance Attitudes. Family and Consumer Science Research Journal. 43(4), 328-342.
Walker, S. K., Lee, S. K., & Hong, S. (2021). Workplace Predictors of Family Educators’ Technology Acceptance Attitudes. Family Relations, 70(5), 1626-1642.
Walker, S., Otremba, E., Jara Pachero, T., Moeller, M., and Morain, B. (2020). Parent reactions and parenting professional experiences in adapting ECFE for online delivery during COVID-19. Presentation to the Minnesota Association of Family and Early Education, September 25, 2020. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/11%3A_Technology_Integration_in_the_Practice_of_Family_Professionals/11.02%3A_References.txt |
Professional standards related to technology integration
Consider the field or specific profession you plan to pursue or are already working in. Identify the technology standards of practice that have been offered. These are often available from professional associations, such as the National Association of Social Workers (NASW.org), the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (aamft.org), or the National Parent Educators Network (npen.org). They may also be present in license requirements for the profession set forth by an individual state. As you review these standards, do you feel ready if you were to be given a test today? Where you would go to get the knowledge and skills required? Will they come from your personal experience? From your training in school? On the job? Through professional development? Based on your own knowledge and experience of technology use by our society and from what you know of the profession, are the standards sufficient? Are there ways you think they could be improved upon? Who or how would you advocate for these changes?
Digital Citizenship application (1)
Ribble proposes nine elements of digital citizenship, below (see also Godfrey, p. 19). For each, propose a scenario in which you would see the element applied to family professional work. It might be the integration of ethical principles in the delivery of practice, or it might be a content area that would be taught or presented in work with families. Here are some examples of digital citizenship scenarios as applied to elementary education.
• Digital access: full electronic participation in society
• Digital commerce: electronic buying and selling of goods
• Digital communication: electronic exchange of information
• Digital literacy: basics of technology and its use
• Digital etiquette: electronic standards of conduct
• Digital law: electronic responsibility for actions and deeds
• Digital rights and responsibilities: freedoms extended to all in a digital world
• Digital health and wellness: physical and psychological well-being
• Digital security: electronic precautions to guarantee safety
Digital citizenship application (2)
Create a digital citizenship lesson to present to parents. Choose the age group of children the parents will have — young children, middle childhood (elementary age), teenagers. Consider whether the children or parents represent specific interests for learning and for technology use — those with disabilities, those who represent a culture or speak and write in a non-English language, those who may be migrants or immigrants or may be separated due to work or military service. Identify the amount of time that you’d have with the parents (and children, if they are included as learners) and the format for your lesson (in-person, online, hybrid). What content would you deliver? What outcomes for learning would you want to achieve? How would you facilitate their learning in ways that build on their own experience and interests?
Parenting educator technology competencies
With the Parenting Educator competency framework in mind (as discussed in the chapter), consider the content and practice needs related to technology use that a parenting educator might need. Consider the content of the book — from our use as a society; to differences in families; use by couples, children, and parents; in the workplace; for health and for money management. Consider both the required knowledge about human development AND about parenting to deliver your practice. What content related to technology might you need to know? What do you need to KNOW about families use of technology that will be integrated into your work? Now consider how you deliver education — is it in person, in classes, online, through an app? Who is your audience? What do you need to be able to DO with technology to deliver your services effectively to families? Are there particular attitudes or dispositions that might be influenced by technology?
11.04: Blog Prompts
Professionals who work with families use technology in their practice. With changes in our interactions and information sharing in virtual environments, the use of mobile devices, and the creation of applications we have yet to imagine, this use will become an even greater part of ongoing professional development, practice, and institutional and field policy landscape. How do family educators, scientists, service providers, therapists and counselors, program administrators, and others keep up? Whose responsibility is it?
Consider your thoughts about the use of laptops and other electronic devices in college classrooms, especially lecture classes, acknowledging the growing research indicating that note-taking is not effective, students are distracted, and technologies can be distracting to others. Although there are a number of reasons why policies might remain flexible, and devices used/encouraged, this doesn’t take away from our need to explore ways that technology, in context, truly supports learning and instruction. As a college student, what does this mean to you? Do you bear responsibility for your learning and, if so, how do you manage your technology use in classes in ways that promote your learning and not a distraction? What expectations do you have for your university to offer you learning environments AND professionals that support your success in integrating technology or otherwise using it wisely? Do you see changes needed?
It can be asserted that family professionals who are on the front lines with families should model and encourage digital citizenship. Or one could argue that this is not the job of a family professional, that our work is about the content and practice of family life, not teaching about technology. What do you believe?
Imagine that you work for an agency that provides education and resources for grandparents raising grandchildren. You feel that an app would help grandparents easily track the children’s developmental milestones, doctor’s appointments, school records, and other information. You’ve done some investigation, but find only apps that seem overly complicated and aimed more at biological parents. You learn that grant money is available from the Brookstone Foundation for the development of innovation for this population. The proposal requires that you indicate how you’d go about designing the app. What would you do to create a piece of technology that would be useful to these families?
COVID-19 created the need for all family professionals to adapt the delivery of their services. Consider the three types of professionals discussed in this chapter: educators, therapists, and family service/case workers. Explore individual accounts of each type of professional. What similarities or differences in their experiences do you observe? What systemic, organizational, or public policy support might address their needs?
11.05: Additional Resources and Readings
About Family LIfe Education
• Darling, C., Cassidy, D., & Ballard, S. (2022): Family Life Education: Working with Families across the Lifespan. Waveland Press. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/11%3A_Technology_Integration_in_the_Practice_of_Family_Professionals/11.03%3A_Learning_Activities.txt |
We all do better when we all do better.
― Paul Wellstone, Senator-MN
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
― Margaret Mead
Chapter Insights
• Policies involving the safe use of the internet, social media and digital devices have evolved over the last 30 years.
• While policies to keep children safe online are essential, they must not stand alone yet stand in complement to myriad other policies for children’s health and well-being across the ecologies that influence their development.
• Areas of ICT policy include digital equity, digital privacy, platform accountability, digital ethics, digital competencies and digital culture.
• ICT policy exists on many levels, from the family, to nearby ecologies of schools and school districts, and public and private institutions, to policies affecting tech companies, and as set by governments and global non-governmental agencies including the United Nations.
• The policy development process applied to other matters can be used with technology, and is a recursive process from understanding the agenda through policy implementation and evaluation.
• Taking a systemic view at policy in which it is integrated with ongoing research and practice with children and families is a way to shift the field of family science and practice. In that way, researchers are informed by the needs of practitioners and families, practitioners have a direct application to ongoing research and are supported by policies, and the policy level can monitor, synthesize and shape research in ways that move the needs of children, families and communities – and the professionals who serve them – forward.
• After reading this chapter, identify what you feel inspired by, the questions that remain for you, and the steps you can take for your own technology use to be more intentional.
Introduction
We complete our journey on technology and the family by addressing ways to implement positive change for families through policy. The quotes above capture the spirit of social justice in policy, and the potential power in coming together to identify strategy for the world. While public or social policy may seem to happen at the widest level of our eco-systemic view of families, policy can realistically occur at any level. Wikipedia offers the most general definition: “Policy is a deliberate system of guidelines to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes.”
For an excellent overview of family policy, readers are encouraged to watch Karen Bogenschneider’s discussion: family_policy_lecture.
This definition works well as we consider that policy can dictate laws and regulations “for the good of the people,” yet can also guide the practices of a school district, company, or, smaller still, a household. It’s essential to include policy in our critical view of families and technology because, as our understanding of its benefits and consequences evolves with the speed of innovation, we realize the need for guidance around decision-making to “achieve rational outcomes” that benefit all (or at least the majority).
Think of children’s safety online. Nearly 30 years ago, guidance consisted mostly of advice to parents about keeping children from exposure to predators in chat rooms. As a parent I vividly remember this in the 1990s when my daughter was interested in playing computer games and encouraged by her friends to explore the internet. But with the explosion of social media, data sharing and privacy violations (some by family members), human trafficking, data tracking, and identity theft, policies and laws have been developed to address what tech manufacturers can and can’t do, specifically for children under 13 years (e.g., Child Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA), what can and cannot be shared (e.g., Children’s Internet Protection Act, or CIPA), and how children’s rights can be protected. A global conference in 2022 focused on data and age-appropriate content in site design, digital literacy, and advocacy against child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online.
In terms of policy, a focus on technology and the family should be in the same conversation as a focus on the complex conditions that influence child and family well-being. It’s also important that, as we talk about policy with regard to technology and the family, we don’t lose site of other policies valuable to the well-being of children and families. Just as our use of technology for communications or for information gathering is used in complement to other media and sources, policies that affect the well-being and safety of children and families act in complement to other policies. [1]
In Chapter 5, for example, we discussed concerns over technology use by teens relative to their wider ecology, observing that those demonstrating risks from technology are likely responding less to the platform or device and more to their environment. Stressors of living in conditions that can affect physical and mental health will only be exacerbated by negative influences from social media, violent videogames, or the lure of apps that encourage endless attention. Technology use and access is part of the wider scope of policies that support families. Technology-focused groups such as Commonsense Media also advocate for more global policy affecting child well-being, and associations that may advocate for technology rights and protections include these as a larger scope. See, for example, the American Psychological Association and the Society for Research on Child Development.
Throughout the book, we’ve discussed policies regarding digital technologies and families. These have been a blend of legal protections and guidance toward “rational outcomes,” and many align with Commonsense Media’s resources for advocacy areas of Digital Equity, Digital Privacy, and Platform Accountability.
• Chapter 3: internet access through infrastructure supports worldwide
• Chapter 4: protections related to safety, trafficking, and tech-facilitated intimate partner biolence
• Chapters 5 & 7: child protection laws; developmental readiness for children’s smartphone ownership; consequences of cyberbullying
• Chapter 6: ethical practice for parents around “sharenting”
• Chapters 7 & 8: family media planning
• Chapter 9: work and family policies (e.g., work-family leave, child care support)
• Chapter 10: HIPPA; privacy and security of health and financial information
• Chapter 11: license, practice, and preparation to practice guidelines for family professionals, including licensed parenting and/or family educators, social workers and family service professionals, and couple and family therapists.
The discussion here focuses on elements of policy as it relates to technology use, evidence of policy that occurs on many levels, and how policy intersects with the eco-system of personal technology use, research on family use and outcomes, and community-level practice that influences family well-being.
Areas of Technology Policy
In its 2017 report, Children in a Digital World (p.11), the United Nations offered six priority actions:
1. Provide all children with affordable access to high-quality online resources.
2. Protect children from harm online — including abuse, exploitation, trafficking, cyberbullying, and exposure to unsuitable materials.
3. Safeguard children’s privacy and identities online.
4. Teach digital literacy to keep children informed, engaged, and safe online.
5. Leverage the power of the private sector to advance ethical standards and practice that protect and benefit children online.
6. Put children at the center of digital policy.
Livingstone and Blum-Ross (2020) offered further recommendations for support to parents’ involvement in children’s digital futures (pp. 191–194):
1. Provide support for parents that encompasses the digital environment.
2. Offer parents a realistic vision in public and media discourses.
3. Recognize the contribution of parents in educational settings.
4. Pay attention to the design and governance of the digital environment.
5. Make room for parents’ voices in policymaking.
6. Make sure the policy, and the design of technology, is based on evidence.
We can add to these recommendations the myriad environments, actions, and competencies for professionals outlined in the previous chapter, integrating technology in their content area knowledge and in their skills for delivery.
Across this ecology, then, we see a variety and types of policy actions relevant to technology and family well-being.
Digital equity
Digital equity focuses on reducing the digital/skills/access/information divides by ensuring greater access to the internet, to devices that connect to the internet and for communication, and to the training and accommodations needed so that all can use technology with the same level of comfort and skill. Commonsense Media offers a state-by-state view of information on digital access. For Minnesota, for example, it states that as of October, 2022,
249,845 students and 6,379 teachers lack adequate internet access. Up to 162,607 students and 1,046 teachers are without the technology and devices at home to support distance learning. About 22% of the students who lack access are Black, Latinx, or Native American.
Digital equity policies include:
Making broadband internet accessible. Increasing internet access not only benefits individual households, but improves family access to health care, education, and employment. One such program in the U.S. is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Lifeline program. The FCC also makes funding available to restore internet access after an emergency, and offers other internet access initiatives. And as noted in Chapter 3, global groups advocate for universal internet access — though given public opposition and infrastructure costs, this may be a significant challenge.
Training and material supports. Groups like the National Collaborative for Digital Equity have programs that offer refurbished laptops, mentoring, assistance to libraries, and company incentives and youth development programs. They include a database of digital equity resources that includes funding ideas, information on early literacy on technology, and help for libraries.
Making digital applications and devices accessible to accommodate language, literacy, and ability. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) / Center of Development Expertise for Accessibility Task Force defined digital accessibility as “the ability for a user to perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with hardware, software, websites, and documents regardless of age and ability.” As indicated, this goes beyond ensuring access to ensuring that a device or the internet is usable and navigable, taking into consideration the range of abilities individuals possess. An excellent example of policy and procedures for full (employee) access comes from the Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities: Digital Accessibility and Accommodations: Learner’s Guide.
Digital privacy
The U.S. Department of Commerce defines digital privacy as “the protection of personally identifiable or business identifiable information that is collected from respondents through information collection activities or from other sources and that is maintained by the [agency.]” [2] A number of federal regulations are in place for digital privacy and safety, particularly as they regard children. Digital privacy is often scope of technology policies proposed and enacted by companies, agencies, and schools for the protection of its citizens. These are discussed below.
Federal actions to ensure children’s digital safety include the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and the Childrens Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA). The U.S. government’s Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act ensures education about online threats. Though non-specific to e-documents, FERPA (Family Education Records Protection Act) and HIPAA (Health Information Portability and Accountability A`ct) protect the sharing of personal information related to school records and health information, respectively.
Microanalytics offers a good overview of digital privacy, including specific threats such as cookies, phishing, and unsecured browsing. At home, parents need to be aware of privacy protections on all devices, including smart toys, smart homes, and virtual and augmented reality, and of advertisements targeted at children.
As many schools moved to distance learning, Commonsense Media offered recommendations for families on digital privacy. These speak to safety and advocacy, and even lean toward suggesting family policy for digital privacy.
1. Make privacy a family value. Commonsense Media has a number of resources to help your family better understand how to protect your privacy and why it’s important, including an FAQ, advice articles, and classroom lessons on privacy and security.
2. Be careful what you share online about your kids and their classmates. It’s worth knowing the facts before posting pictures or letting other people post pictures of your kids. One important rule of thumb with distance learning: Don’t post photos of your kid attending online class to your social media if their classmates are visible.
3. Learn about parental controls to minimize distractions and data collection. You don’t need to be an expert at managing technology to help your kid stay safe and focused online. Check with your school’s technology department to find out what safeguards and filters are already in place and what additional parental controls you can set up.
4. Know whether classes may be recorded or monitored. You should understand your school’s policies regarding video-conferencing and classroom monitoring. It’s useful to know how your kid’s teacher will track student attendance or progress and what this means for their grades. And be sure that your kid — no matter how old they are — knows the expectations for video-chatting in online classrooms.
5. Learn more about your school’s educational apps and platforms. Particularly now, schools have an important job in safeguarding student privacy. Parents and caregivers should get familiar with their school’s tools, try to learn about the risks of the top distance learning apps, and ask the school directly how they are protecting kids
6. Ask questions, and exercise your privacy rights. Remember that you have rights to access your kid’s education records and any information that apps collect from your kid under federal and state laws.
Platform accountability
Platform accountability policies hold websites — and social media companies in particular — responsible for monitoring the content shared online that is offensive and stimulates hate crimes. One group fighting on this issue is Stop Hate for Profit. In mid-September 2022 the White House held a summit on hate-fueled violence, which included discussion of the spread through social media.
Digital ethics
Digital ethics policies address behavior on the internet and digital devices. While this is a broad area, and includes privacy and safety actions, digital ethics covers issues beyond these specific elements. For example, in Chapter 7 we discussed the case of a father who went online in a viral video to complain about the racist bullying his daughter endured. As part of that rant he outed the father of the bullying children, including the man’s name (though stated that he’d informed the man ahead of time). While we can see this as an act of desperation by a caring father, we might also question its ethics considering the consequences that befell the bully’s father in the 24–48 hours after the initial video was posted. Digital ethics often involves cases in which there are unintended consequences. E-portfolios, for example, have become a popular and convenient way for students and professionals to share their work. Yet as Wilson et al. (2018) discuss, too often individuals cited in that work are exposed when permissions have not been secured. Reyman and Sparby’s 2019 book on Digital Ethics presents a number of related cases.
Digital competencies
As presented in the previous chapter, professions — including the family professions — identify standards of excellence for their practitioners. These standards are translated into competencies, and university preparation programs and programs overseeing licensure and other accreditation ensure that pre-professionals demonstrate those competencies. The last twenty years have seen the addition of digital competencies in the practice standards of professionals. These include the nine categories of Ribble’s Digital Citizenship and competence in ensuring that their practice is ethical, safe, protects clients, and effectively deploys the internet and digital media as tools in the delivery of service.
Digital culture
While less specific the policies discussed above, policies that speak to a digital culture embrace the new world of ICT as holding possibilities yet needing intention and shaping. When we examine the professional competencies for professionals, such as those reviewed in Chapter 11 for social workers, we see a wholesale adoption of a new way of working for practitioners.
Consider your university or a place where you work as a setting for shifting the culture to embrace technology. What is the vision at the end of this shift? Who would be affected? How would the institution get there? What policies would be needed to create a digital-positive culture?
Embracing this cultural shift means offering guidance through policy across all dimensions of practice, and ensuring that policies are worded to include an understanding of new virtual worlds, devices, means for communication and social interaction, and the need for re-training and joint decision making. Shifting environments to embrace the digital culture means collaborative, visionary, and informed planning, policy, implementation, and assessment.
Outlets for Technology Policy for Children and Families
In addition to specific laws enacted to protect children and others from invasions of privacy and harm, such as COPPA, CIPA, FERPA, and HIPPA (fun saying them, isn’t it? 🙂) policies related to technology use can be found from global to local levels.
United Nations
The Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) Division for Inclusive Social Development (DISD) identified digital technology as one of four megatrends facing families (along with urbanization, migration, and climate change). In 2021, I prepared a report for the UN on digital technologies’ impacts on the family, specific to parenting education and work and family balance, and recommended a number of policy actions specific to these two areas (and detailed in Chapters 11 and 9, respectively).
The United Nations more broadly promotes Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that address a wide range of issues facing the world’s population. Equity and access for families are key considerations for SDG 3 (health care) and SDG 4 (education) targets. As shown to the right, SDG4.4 deals with ICT skills, with an indicator based on the proportion of the population possessing those skills. Fostering families’ access to technology in developing countries, including those in Africa with the least internet coverage, would help address SDG 9, which promotes inclusive and sustainable industrialization. Similarly, ensuring wider and more equitable access for global families will target the need for information for sustainable living (SDG 12).
National agencies and associations
Professional associations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (AAMFT), the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR), and others, have advocacy arms that provide information on legislation and on action toward policy creation or enactment.
The National Association of Social Workers, for example, offers this guidance in their 2021 Federal Blueprint for Social Welfare Policies:
NASW calls on national leaders to:
• Make telehealth expansion under COVID-19 permanent, including removing geographic or site restrictions, allowing the use of audio-only devices, and ensuring parity in payment with in-person service payment rates.
• Expand internet connectivity for underserved households.
• Unlock government data to drive solutions to social problems by promoting the accessibility and mining across agencies of administrative records.
The International Society of Technology in Education promotes policy in the following areas:
• Educator preparation and professional development
• Broadband internet for learning
• Student privacy and security
• Digital citizenship
• Higher ed modernization
• Computer science and computational thinking
Smaller entities, such as school districts and companies, may have technology policies that primarily act as legal documents to outline safe use. These policies point somewhat inward, conferring guidance and protections for those within the scope of the agency. According to the Sunstate Technology Group,
A Technology Use Policy is a contract between a business and its employees, contractors, vendors and anyone else who is given access to the company’s technology assets (desktops, laptops, phones, software, network, files, etc.). The policy outlines exactly how the technology can be used as well as the consequences for unauthorized use. It’s a good idea to go through the policy with every employee at onboarding and annually thereafter.
School districts
The Roseville (CA) school district offers a comprehensive technology policy, which includes a technology plan for the school district along with actions guidance on a number of areas including security (access, internet safety, student digital safety), employee training, agreements on use for students and for staff (in English/Spanish) and support for parents detailing conditions for home-based use of school software and other technology; see the list at left. Here is a sample student agreement in English. The terms of the agreement relate to use of technology “in a safe, responsible and proper manner in support of instructional programs,” and for the rational outcomes defined as “for the advancement of student learning.” As with many legal agreements (the school district being an agency of the city or state government), definitions are offered, conditions are stated, and penalties are listed, here ranging from removing the student’s account to legal action as appropriate.
The area of student data privacy includes a lengthy list of applications approved for use by the school district. Internet safety ensures CIPA compliance, and safety and legal compliance offers summaries of CIPA, COPPA, and the Family Education Records Protection Act (FERPA).
The Minnetonka School District (MN) offers detailed advice for children and parents on digital safety, indicated at the right. The Stillwater Public Schools (MN) make a clear point about ensuring access for all learners as part of their education technology policy. And Sonia Livingstone offered this salient critique on setting school-based technology policy.
Companies/Industry/Non-profits
Companies also have technology-related policies, many that relate to data security and safe use. These have become so prevalent that template documents are now available for a number of policies. This is a sample from the company Astra-Zeneca.
Technology industry
In addition to policies used with their employees for data safety and security, technology company product policies can ensure user safety by protecting data, prioritizing parental controls, advocating for truth and against hate speech online, funding independent research, designing humane products, and stopping tracking of and marketing to children (Commonsense Media). The degree to which these companies create and follow policy may relate to their dependence on the financial bottom line. Why would a social media platform be motivated to change the algorithm that pushes content to users that might be harmful to mental health, yet keeps the user engaged? Whose job is it to incentivize, monitor, or sanction these companies? Questions arise on the role of the federal government when tech companies fail to monitor or control content (which, admittedly, is a tricky thing).
Family
Family-level policy on technology is a significant step toward collectively maintaining standards of safety and healthy use. All members weigh in and clarify desired outcomes that reflect individual and family well-being, and agree to actions that result in those outcomes. Although there is plenty of guidance for parents on ways to monitor their children’s use and promote safety, a whole-family technology use policy includes adult behaviors as well. This example from Judith Kohlberg (2021) nicely covers elements of a family technology plan and ways to create it collaboratively.
The Policy Development Process
As indicated in the figure to the right, the policy development process involves a series of steps (Hawlett & Geist, 2012), all of which are applicable to creating technology policy, regardless of the jurisdiction or level. The first three steps may be considered policy development, with implementation and assessment completing the cycle. As with any cyclical action, information gained from the evaluation is further integrated with ongoing policy formation and implementation.
Agenda setting establishes the issue at hand and sentiment for the need to create policy. Essential is that all key informants and decision makers are heard during this stage.
Policy formation occurs as key actors construct a policy reflecting the interests of the community and, as Hawlett and Geist (2012) observe, “contingent on the nature and the configuration of the policy community and network in the specific sector concerned” (p. 19). Often, research is conducted and evidence brought forward about the issue, the pros and cons are considered, and actions recommended. Stephanie Schaeffer’s 2001 Understanding Research: Top Ten Tips for Advocates and Policymakers remains a critically helpful guide in assessing the trustworthiness of research (including that published online) to be used as evidence for a policy. Even deliberations at local levels, including the family, should be based on evidence and reasoned thinking. Oftentimes for wide-scale technology policy, data on internet access, technology use and impacts will be used as a foundation for decision-making (e.g., UNICEF, 2016a, b, 2020).
Decision-making, while often subject to small- and large-scale politics, is ideally based on a rational approach to policy making, with policy constructed and implemented to reach rational conclusions. As the Center for Effective Services (CES) in Dublin, Ireland, observes, “Political issues include getting buy-in, setting a vision and managing opposition.” Decision-making also takes into account the steps required to lay out the policy in technical detail for implementation planning, and those that may relate to regulatory integration.
Implementation of a policy puts into place the priorities and actions stated in the policy. It is essential, however, that the policy development process has culminated in a clear road map for efficient implementation. Too often, a weakly phrased and overly general policy leads to chaotic implementation. Imagine the family whose technology policy is that “we respect each others use of devices.” It’s a nice sentiment, but it gives little basis for implementation. The difference in policy setting and implementation is intention vs. action. At the least, according to the CES, there should be leadership, communication, and feedback. Leadership can affect and deploy existing policies, resources, structures, and programs. Communication occurs across the system to provide ongoing reports of action and feedback (including positive reinforcement and cheerleading internally and to stakeholders when necessary). Feedback “should be established between policymakers and front-line practitioners once implementation has begun, to ensure the policy is being implemented as intended, unplanned consequences are addressed efficiently and to support the learning capacity of the system” (CES, 2022). [3]
Evaluation of policy (according to the Centers for Disease Control 2012) applies evaluation principles and methods to examine the content, implementation, or impact of a policy. Evaluation is the activity through which we develop an understanding of the merit, worth, and utility of a policy (p. 1). As this indicates, evaluation is an ongoing process that checks the quality of the policy as written, the steps in implementation, and the effect. Perhaps at its most basic, policy impact evaluation can be sitting back after a policy has been in place and implemented for a while to ask if a difference has occurred (as intended by the policy).
It is up to those setting and implementing the policy to determine what the outcomes might be, whether they be in the short term or the long term. A school district technology policy, for example, may seek more family engagement through its social media platform. In the short term, this might be measured through analytics of platform use, including quantities of parents, and subsets that represent population groups. Longer-term impact might be indicated through engagement that traverses the virtual and physical landscape, with family feelings of connectedness, participation in school policy, and engagement with their childrens’ teachers observed across families representative of the school community.
As the National Collaborating Centre for Public Policy out of Canada observes in their guide to policy evaluation (2012), it is also important to observe the unintended consequences [4] (and benefits) from policy implementation. As discussed in this book, attention to policies regarding technology — information and communications technologies, learning technologies, digital technologies, and the like — has grown over the years. Readers may find that groups such as the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) or the World Bank can be relied upon to document the impact of governmental or educational policies.
Intentional Integration of Policy with Research and Practice
Research is critical for our understanding of phenomena and, as often said, we have learned a lot but have so much more to learn. Our research needs to keep up with technological changes and innovations; preferences and uses by consumers; differences by the many demographic dimensions that characterize individuals, families, and societies; and the many contexts (e.g., work, school, leisure) of family life. It needs to close the gaps in our current knowledge, moving beyond convenient college student, higher-tech, and white higher-SES samples, especially those in the U.S. and other “WEIRD” countries, and explore the range of populations of families and technology users. And it needs to use up-to-date research methods and statistical techniques to ask the questions that, to date, we haven’t even considered.
Research, however, isn’t enough. For any family research study we must ask, how does this finding inform practice with families? How does it contribute to ways to make families’ lives safer and more equitable? Practitioners and policy makers must partner with researchers to ask these questions (and be incentivized to the applied nature of such investigations). Traditionally, this integrated perspective has been the domain of health and public health practice (Brownson & Jones, 2009), education (Read, 2010) ) and criminal justice (Lauren, 1997).
An example from the last chapter provides a good example of policy utilizing research findings. Research has identified ways in which children learn effectively (i.e., understand content and gain cognitive and behavioral skills and attitudes and dispositions) with technology and with which technology, when, and how. It also informs how to teach with technology, including how to differentiate instruction and how specific technologies can be effective (see, for example, the quick turn to Zoom during COVID-19). Such research informs practice by teachers, and also informs policy. A professional association (like the International Society for Technology in Education, ISTE) reviews the research and establishes standards, not only for teachers, but for students, administrators, and teacher coaches. These standards inform state licensing policy, which defines the set of competencies required for licensure, in this case, specific to the use of technology and digital literacy. Yet these policies do more than dictate practice competency. Through its influence on statewide/national and international practice, a more macro level of policy and guidance also promotes a culture of technology integration, a culture which affects professional development, employment practices, and occupational supports. this more macro level of policy and guidance also promotes a culture of technology integration, a culture which affects professional development, employment practices, and occupational supports. Over time, the attitudes and skills of professionals rise to this standard of expectation because their actions are not isolated, but part of a systemic response. This raises the probability that any family working with that professional will be met with a technology-forward attitude, and that practice will accommodate the families’ needs.
Integrating research, practice & policy as a framework toward collective action on family and technology
In 2016 I authored a piece for the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences titled Creating the Future We Want: A Framework for Integrating Family and Consumer Sciences Research, Practice, and Policy on Technology Use (Walker, 2016). The framework was informed by other systemic models, such as the Head Start Family, Practice, Community Engagement framework (Office of Head Start, 2011), which links wider policy with practice to influence direct and indirect outcomes. With regard to family engagement, parenting education and parenting support are a direct outcome of policy and practice efforts (practice that includes supports to teachers); the influence parents have on their children’s academic achievement and development is an indirect outcome of policy and practice engagement work.
In the case of our field addressing technology, I proposed that,To create the future we want, we need to take a systemic approach to technology, rather than allowing it to be up to the whims of those interested in using tech, to occur in a piecemeal and uncoordinated fashion, and to be left only to programs with the resources to deploy technology. “to create the future we want,” we take a systemic approach to technology, rather than allowing it to be up to the whims of those interested in using tech, to occur in a piecemeal and uncoordinated fashion, and to be left only to programs with the resources to deploy technology. I became passionate about this because, after a decade of playing in the sandbox with my colleagues in education, where technology was heralded as a new tool for learning and instruction and where I witnessed family professionals literally “left to their own devices” (Walker, 2019), I decided it was time that we step back and create a culture of technology in our practice — one that regards the value of our ongoing research, respects the needs of practitioners, and embraces a systems approach to implement lasting change. Readers are strongly encouraged to read the article for component-by-component explanations.
Here is an overview of the systemic framework offered in that paper:
Research on technology that focuses on related dimensions of a) technology use as demonstrated by access, comfort, and skill, and b) individual and family processes and outcomes.
• Technology use research variables include:
• user characteristics (demographics, tech attitude, comfort, skill),
• technology (type, context , characteristics), and
• functions and purposes for technology use (e.g., communication, entertainment).
• Works backward: presents the outcomes desired, then the actions which directly influence the outcome.
• Process and outcomes facilitated by technology include:
• Individual family member well-being,
• Family well-being and satisfaction,
• Individual and family processes (e.g. learning, communication, social capital, connectedness), and
• Outcomes external to the individual or family (e.g., technology developed, community well-being)
Professional Impacts Areas and Delivery Strategies Related to Technology
• Individual and family impact areas
• As a knowledge area (to promote balanced, effective use)
• As a skills area (to promote effective use)
• Impact strategies
• Technology employed as effective practice (e.g., instruction, program design, counseling)
Field Foundations Related to Technology Integration
• Training: preparation of professionals on the use of technology (preservice, inservice)
• Standards for technology use in practice
• Maintaining and promoting quality research through methodology, summaries, directions
• Theoretical and conceptual models to frame research, practice, and policy
The framework is not linear, but interactive:
Research on technology use and family processes and outcomes informs:
(1) the design of technology to aid service delivery and effectiveness,
(2) the promotion of effective use by individuals families through knowledge and skill,
and
(1) the development and advocacy for policies regarding tech use by families, and
(2) the coordination on research methodologies and conceptual frameworks.
Research on effective use of technology in practice, and on technology as a content and skill outcome area for professionals, informs the need for field support and standards for training, implementation, guidance, workplace assistance, and regulation.
Field foundations, which hold an integrative understanding of technology use by families and the role that practitioners and policy play in effective technology use by families, enact a vision for positive family and individual outcomes by:
• promoting effective knowledge and practice by professionals AND
• advocating for progressive public policies, and – promoting quality research on practice and by families
The essential point of the framework is that as a family field (this holds for family service, family education, and family therapy), our research on technology use and impacts informs our practice so we may best serve families, and our foundations are inclusive, visionary, and integrative.
This is only one of many possible scenarios in which our field looks broadly at technology as an influence on family life, and on practice and policy. There are many ways to bring about progressive change, yet it is critical that we address the topic with the complexity and future thinking it deserves. Our ten truths about technology, covered in Chapter 1, remain truths. Our global world will continue to evolve, technological change will continue to impact family life in ways we have only begun to imagine, and the call for research to investigate the use and impacts on family and child development processes and outcomes will only get louder.
In Conclusion
As I close out this book, it is my fervent hope that we indeed take technology seriously, no longer keeping our heads in the sand or treating it as something to be feared, something for other fields, or something that we use in If we look at ourselves as future participants on this earth (i.e. Salk’s ‘good ancestors’), and as practitioners, researchers, administrators and policy makers, how can we not be interested in the ways that ICT influence us, and ways that we can be — and help others to be — more intentional in our use, alone, together, and as a global society. some domains (such as our teaching) but cannot translate to influences on the populations we care about. Whether our interest is in special populations of children or families (e.g., military families, transgender youth, Hmong divorced couples), information and communications technology impacts their lives. Usually for the better. And if our work is in supporting practitioners (or supporting ourselves as practitioners), we must advocate that resources and training and standards for our work be created and updated.
I hope that reading this book has inspired you to ask how technology shows up in our field, and question how it can be more present as a topic in what we teach and in our lines of research. If we look at ourselves as future participants on this earth (i.e. Salk’s ‘good ancestors,’) and as practitioners, researchers, administrators, and policy makers, how can we not be interested in the ways that ICT influence us, and the ways that we can be — and help others to be — more intentional in our use, alone, together, and as a global society.
1. This point has been made about other policy foci that don't address the full scope of the issue. For instance, Stephanie Murray in the Atlantic (2022). recently wrote about policies for childrens academic achievement that ignore parents' and family contributions to learning.
2. The Department of Commerce's digital privacy policy is stated here.
3. Readers interested in CES' complete policy implementation guide can find it here.
4. As Sonia Livingstone observes, sometimes tech policies aimed at children can implicate their caregivers in not-so-positive ways | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/12%3A_Shifting_the_Culture-_Policy_Practice_and_Research_toward_Healthy_Family_Technology_Use/12.01%3A_Shifting_the_Culture-_Po.txt |
AAFCS. (2015b). Preprofessional Assessment and Certification in Broad Field Family and Consumer Sciences. Alignment to 21st century student outcomes developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from www.aafcs.org/res/Credentialing/prepac/Alignment/Broad_Field_Crosswalk_21st_Century_Skills.pdf
Araral, E., Fritzen, S., Howlett, M., & Ramesh. M (2015). (Eds.).Routledge handbook of public policy. London: Routledge.
Head Start Parent Family Community Engagement Framework. (2006). https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-11-06
Hung, M., Conrad, J., Hon, S. D., Cheng, C., Franklin, J. D., & Tang, P. (2013). Uncovering patterns of technology use in consumer health informatics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 5(6), 432-447.
Reyman, J., & Sparby, E. M. (2019). Digital Ethics. New York-London: Routledge.
UNICEF (2020) UN: creating policy including technology use related to teen mental health: https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/adolescent-mental-health-using-a-participatory-mapping-methodology-to-jointly-identify-key-topics-questions-and-priorities-for-future-work/
UNICEF (2016b) UN: research efforts to inform policy: https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/piloting-research-toolkit-child-internet-use-rural-south-africa/
Walker, S. K. (2016). Creating the Future We Want: A Framework for Integrating Family and Consumer Sciences Research, Practice, and Policy on Technology Use. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 108(2).
Wilson, C. B., Slade, C., Kirby, M. M., Downer, T., Fisher, M. B., & Nuessler, S. (2018). Digital Ethics and the Use of ePortfolio: A Scoping Review of the Literature. International Journal of ePortfolio, 8(2), 115-125.
12.03: Learning Activities
Integrating research, practice, and policy
Consider one of the topics in the list below. A) Suggest a clear research question related to the topic, indicating at least two dimensions of technology use and specifying the family processes and/or outcomes being studied by the research. Be sure to include ideas from early in the book about our understanding of family dynamics and of technology use. B) Identify ways in which a practitioner would make use of that research with families. How might we see that professionals employ that knowledge from the research in practice? C) Finally, considering the type of practitioner and/or the research, indicate the role played by policy or an organization to provide support to that practitioner on that topic. Be as specific as possible.
• College students communicating with their parents using texting.
• Fathers and their sons playing videogames together
• Schools using online platforms to share grades and school information with parents.
• New mothers using Facebook to gather information about infant feeding.
• Couples using a money management app for their household finances.
Family Impact Seminar brief
The Family Impact Seminar process is an amazing way for professionals and citizens to inform policy makers on issues related to families. Research impact reports are created that summarize issues and identify potential policy issues. See, for example, this list from the Purdue Family Impact Seminar.
You’ll notice that there’s no topic related to technology.
• Create an outline for a Family Impact Seminar research brief on technology and the family. Consider what background research you’d include and the policy areas you would promote. OR
• Review the existing topics. Would you enhance any of them with research or policy recommendations related to technology?
Policy formation
Policy making is not for the faint of heart. It takes a deliberative, evidenced, collaborative process to articulate policy clearly, and with enough information to guide implementation. Policy implementation takes leadership, communication, and ongoing assessment to ensure that all elements and players are fulfilling policy tasks. Review the chapters in the book and the topics covered. From what you’ve read, as a group, identify an issue around which policy would be created. You may want to take on different roles — for example, if you are setting technology for a school, your roles may be that of school board member, principle, teacher, student, and parents.
1. What is the topic?
2. What is the level of policy? (For whom is the policy proposed?)
3. What are the conditions the policy is intended to affect? Will this set well politically with all players and among those involved with and influenced by the policy?
4. What are the realistic policy actions? Now refine what you’ve written to make them cost-effective, time-efficient, and with the biggest payoff for the most people.
5. How will the policy be implemented?
6. How will you know the policy is successful? What might you learn that will help you revise implementation or elements of the policy?
Context-specific Policy formation
This article from BBC describes a village in India that mandates a time each day when TV and the internet is turned off. This is to encourage family time. According to the article,
“We decided at the village meeting on 14 August – the eve of India’s Independence Day – that we needed to stop this addiction,” Vijay Mohite, president of the village council, told BBC Hindi. “From the next day, all television sets and mobiles were shut down when the siren went off.”
What kind of technology policy might a group or jurisdiction you are part of, enact?
As a group, identify a jurisdiction you are familiar with – your home town, your high school, the company you work for, the sports team you play with. Each person take a role: parent, employee, director, player, owner, etc. In your role, is there a socially progressive policy regarding technology that would benefit the whole group, and of course, you? As a group discuss policy options until you land on one you all agree on.
Using the guidelines for consideration from the activity above, identify the purpose for the policy (what are you trying to change? improve? ) and then what it might require to implement such a policy – again so that each member of the team/organization/town/high school or whatever can follow it?
12.04: Blog Prompts
Reflect back on the content from the beginning of the book about technology and society, tech’s functions, and warnings about its benefits and its challenges, thinking through to the many ways in which families use and are affected by technology, and to professionals’ use. Now that you’ve reached the end of the course and have reflected on myriad topics affecting your own use, your use with friends and family, and future perspectives, how, if at all, have your perspectives about technology changed? If things haven’t shifted for you, why might that be? Are you inspired to make any changes? How about your role as family professional? How do you see yourself integrating technology in your practice and in ways that build on new research?
In 2018, Pew reported that a majority of people in the U.S. disagreed that the internet has been good for society. What do you believe, and why?
This piece in Bold cites researcher Candace Odgers, who advocates for closing the digital gap for youth (Odgers was also mentioned in Chapter 5). She says that “closing the digital divide will require public and private investments in infrastructure, equipment, and digital literacy across multiple sectors” and “will need to involve young people in designing solutions that will stick.” Recommendations target parents, teachers, the tech industry, and policymakers. And they focus on improving youth well-being and mental health, and on ensuring privacy and security. This is a tall order. These policy recommendations cut across home, school, community, industry, and government. How might such a shift in digital equity and youth well-being be possible? Is it top down?
12.05: Additional Readings and
Digital Citizenship and Digital Ethics
For additional resources on these topics, please see the items listed in Chapter 11 Additional Resources | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Critical_Perspectives_on_Technology_and_the_Family_(Walker)/12%3A_Shifting_the_Culture-_Policy_Practice_and_Research_toward_Healthy_Family_Technology_Use/12.02%3A_References.txt |
Chapter 1: Changes and Definitions
Family Structures
The family structures that were very common a century ago are not nearly as common today. In the US around the year 1900 most families had 3 generations living in one home (e.g., children, parents, and uncle/aunt/grandparent) and most did manual labor. Today, very few families live with multiple generations. Most modern families fall into one of two types: nuclear, or blended. The Nuclear Family is a family group consisting of mother & father and their children. This is the family type that is mostly preferred. One variation of this type is the single-parent family, which can be created by unwed motherhood, divorce, or death of a spouse. The second most common form is the Blended Family, which is the family created by remarriage including step-siblings and parents. Finally, all of the family relations you have past your nuclear or blended family we call Extended Family, which are one's relatives beyond nuclear and blended family levels (i.e. cousins, aunts & uncles, grand and great grandparents).
The US Census Bureau conducts annual surveys of the US population and publishes them as the Current Population Surveys. Table 1 represents the US family Types as of October 1, 2008. You will notice that marrieds comprise the largest proportion of family types in 2008. Single never marrieds are the second largest type and include another 6.8 million cohabiters of opposite sex and an unknown number of same sex cohabiters. Next is divorced, widowed, then separated (see Table UC1. Opposite Sex Unmarried Couples by Labor Force Status of Both Partners: 2008 retrieved 30 March 2009 from www.census.gov/population/www...m/cps2008.html).
Table 1: US Family Types, 2008
Types Numbers Percentages
Married 123,671,000 52%
Widowed 14,314,000 6%
Divorced 23,346,000 10%
Separated 5,183,000 2%
Never Married - Single 71,479,000 30%
Total Families 15 and over 237,993,000 100%
Look at Figure 1 below to see the US trend of actual numbers in millions of family types. It shows that the single largest type of family in the US has always been marrieds then never marrieds. The divorced overtook widowed category in the 1970s and has been higher ever since. Why are the trends upward? Simply put, these are numbers and not rates nor percentages. The population has grown and therefore the population size has been steadily increasing.
What are the functions of families? In studying the family, Functional Theorists (See Chapter 3) have identified some common and nearly universal family functions. That means almost all families in all countries around the world have at least some of these functions in common. Table 2 shows many of the global functions of the family.
Table 2: Global Functions of the Family
1. Economic support - food, clothing, shelter, etc.
2. Emotional support - intimacy, companionship, belonging, etc.
3. Socialization of child - raising children, parenting
4. Control of sexuality - defines and controls when and with whom (e.g, marriage)
5. Control of reproduction - the types of relationships where children should/could be born
6. Ascribed status - contexts of race, SES, religion, kinship, etc.
Economic Support
By far, economic support is the most common function of today's families. When your parents let you raid their pantry, wash clothes in their laundry, or replenish your checking account, that's economic support. For another young adult, say in New Guinea, if she captures a wild animal and cooks it on an open fire, that's also economic support in a different cultural context. I've always been amazed at how far family economic cooperation extends. Some families cooperate in business-like relationships. In Quebec, Montreal there is an established pattern of Italian immigrants who help family and friends emigrate from Italy to Canada. They subsidize each other's travel costs, help each other find employment once in Canada, and even privately fund some mortgages for one another. Each participant is expected to support others in the same manner. To partake in this form of economic cooperation is to assume a very business-like relationship.
Emotional Support
Emotional relationships are also very common, but you must understand there is a tremendous amount of cultural diversity in how intimacy is experienced in various families around the world. Intimacy is the social, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and physical trust that is mutually shared between family members. Family members share confidences, advice, trust, secrets, and ongoing mutual concern. Many family scientists believe that intimacy in family relationships functions as a strong buffer to the ongoing stresses experienced by family members outside of the home.
Socialization
Socialization of children is covered in more detail in a Chapter Four. For now, keep in mind that children are born with the potential to be raised as humans. They will realize this potential if older family members or friends take the time to protect and nurture them into their cultural and societal roles. Today the family is the core of primary socialization. But many other societal institutions contribute to the process including schools, religion, workplace, and media.
Sexuality and Reproduction Control
The family has traditionally asserted control of sexuality and reproduction. A few centuries ago the father and mother even selected the spouses for many of their children (they still do in many countries). Today, U.S. parents want their adult children to select their own spouses. Older family members tend to encourage pregnancy and childbirth only in marriage or a long-term relationship. Unwed mothers are mothers who are not legally married at the time of the child's birth. Being unwed brings up concerns of economic, emotional, social, and other forms of support for the mother that may or may not be present from the father. Many fathers reject their fatherly obligations in the case of unwed mothers.
When an unwed mother delivers the baby, it is often the older female family members who end up providing the functions of support for that child rather than the birth father. Table 3 shows the unwed mother births for the US in 2000 and 2006. Most of the 4,266,000 live US births in 2006 were to married mothers. But about 1/10 of teen mothers and 38 percent of all mothers were unwed (retrieved 30 March 2009 from www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/09s0077.pdf). This trend of increasing unwed birth rates suggests that more and more families have less control by sanctioning childbirth within marriage. On the other side of the coin, many of these unwed mothers marry the child's fathers and many of those marriages eventually end in divorce.
Table 3: Percentage of All Births that were to Unwed Teens and Mothers of All Ages Years 2000 and 2006
Year Births to Unwed Teens Births to All Unwed Mothers
2000 11.8% 33.2%
2006 10.4% 35.8%
Taken from Statistical Abstracts of the US on 30 March 2009 from Table 87. Births to Teenage Mothers and Unmarried Women and Births With Low Birth Weight-States and Island Areas: 2000 to 2006 www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/09s0087.pdf
Ascribed Status
Finally, ascribed status is there at birth. With your friends, have you noticed that one or two tend to be informally in charge of the details? You might be the one who calls everyone and makes reservations or buys the tickets for the others. If so, you would have the informal role of “organizer.” Status is a socially defined position, or what you do in a role. There are three types of status considerations: Ascribed Status is present at birth (race, sex, or class), Achieved Status is attained through one's choices and efforts (college student, movie star, teacher, or athlete), and Master Status is a status which stands out above our other statuses and which distracts others from seeing who we really are.
You were born into your racial, cultural-ethnic, religious and economic statuses. That shaped to some degree the way you grew up and were socialized. By far in our modern societies, achieved status (which comes as a result of your own efforts) is more important than ascribed (which you're born with) for most members of society. Although the degree of achievement you attain often depends heavily on the level of support families give to you.
Another consideration about groups and our roles in them is the fact that one single role can place a rather heavy burden on you (e.g., student). Role strain is the burden one feels within any given role. And when one role comes into direct conflict with another or other roles you might experience role conflict. Role conflict is the conflict and burdens one feels when the expectations of one role compete with the expectations of another role.
Groups
The first and most important unit of measure in sociology is the group, which is a set of two or more people who share common identity, interact regularly, and have shared expectations (roles), and function in their mutually agreed upon roles. Most people use the word “group” differently from the sociological use. They say group even if the cluster of people they are referring to don't even know each other (like 6 people standing at the same bus stop). Sociologists use “aggregate,” which is a number of people in the same place at the same time. So, people in the same movie theater, people at the same bus stop, and even people at a university football game are considered aggregates rather than groups. Sociologists also discuss categories. A category is a number of people who share common characteristics. Brown-eyed people, people who wear hats, and people who vote independent are categories-they don't necessarily share the same space, nor do they have shared expectations. In this text we mostly discuss trends and patterns in family groups and in large categories of family types.
Family groups are crucial to society and are what most of you will form in your own adult lives. Groups come in varying sizes: dyads, which are groups of two people and triads, which are groups of three people. The number of people in a group plays an important structural role in the nature of the group's functioning. Dyads are the simplest groups because 2 people have only 1 relationship between them. Triads have three relationships. A group of 4 has 6 relationships, 5 has 10, 6 has 15, 7 has 21, and one of my students from Brazil has 10 brothers and sisters and she counts 91 relationships just in her immediate family (not counting the brothers and sisters in law). When triads form it looks much like a triangle and these typically take much more energy than dyads. A newly married couple experience great freedoms and opportunities to nurture their marital relationship. A triad forms when their first child is born. Then they experience a tremendous incursion upon their marital relationship from the child and the care demanded by the child. As Bill Cosby said in his book Fatherhood, “Children by their very nature are designed to ruin your marriage” (1987, Doubleday Publisher, NY).
As sociologists further study the nature of the group's relationships they realize that there are two broad types of groups: primary groups, which tend to be smaller, less formal, and more intimate (families and friends), and secondary groups, which tend to be larger, more formal, and much less personal (you and your doctor, mechanic, or accountant). Look at the diagram below in Figure 2. Typically with your primary groups, say with your family, you can be much more spontaneous and informal. On Friday night you can hang out wherever you want, change your plans as you want, and experience fun as much as you want. Contrast that to the relationship with your doctor. You have to call to get an appointment, wait if the doctor is behind, address him or her as “Doctor,” then once the diagnoses and co-pay are made you leave and have to make another formal appointment if you need another visit. Your Introduction to Sociology class is most likely large and secondary. Your family and friends tend to be few in numbers and primary in nature.
Family Systems Theory
One core definition that will help you in studying the family is that of Family Systems. Family Systems Theory claims that the family is understood best by conceptualizing it as a complex, dynamic, and changing collection of parts, subsystems and family members. Much like a mechanic would interface with the computer system of a broken down car to diagnose which systems are broken (transmission, electric, fuel, etc.) and repair it, a therapist or researcher would interact with family members to diagnose how and where the systems of the family are in need of repair or intervention. Family Systems Theory comes under the Functional Theory umbrella and shares the functional approach of considering the dysfunctions and functions of complex groups and organizations.
Sociological Imagination
The average person lives too narrow a life to get a clear and concise understanding of today's complex social world. Our daily lives are spent among friends and family, at work and at play, and watching TV and surfing the Internet. There is no way one person can grasp the big picture from their relatively isolated lives. There's just not enough time or capacity to be exposed to the complexities of a society of 310 million people. There are thousands of communities, millions of interpersonal interaction, billions of Internet information sources, and countless trends that transpire without many of us even knowing they exist. What can we do to make sense of it all?
Psychology gave us the understanding of self-esteem, economics gave us the understanding of supply and demand, and physics gave us the Einstein theory of E=MC2. When I learned of the sociological imagination by Mills, I realized that it gives us a framework for understanding our social world that far surpasses any common sense notion we might derive from our limited social experiences. C. Wright Mills (1916-1962), a contemporary sociologist, suggested that when we study the family we can gain valuable insight by approaching it at two core societal levels. He stated, “neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both" (Mills, C. W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination page ii; Oxford U. Press). Mills identified “Troubles” (challenges on the personal level) and “Issues” (challenges on the larger social level) as key principles for wrapping our minds around many of the hidden social processes that transpire in an almost invisible manner in today's societies. Look at Figure 3 below to see a diagram of the Sociological Imagination and its two levels (personal and larger social).
Personal Troubles are private problems experienced within the character of the individual and the range of their immediate relation to others. Mills identified the fact that we function in our personal lives as actors and actresses who make choices about our friends, family, groups, work, school, and other issues within our control. We have a degree of influence in the outcome of matters within the personal level. A college student who parties 4 nights out of 7, who rarely attends class, and who never does his homework has a personal trouble that interferes with his odds of success in college. But, when 50 percent of all college students in the country never graduate we call it a larger social issue.
Larger Social Issues lie beyond one's personal control and the range of one's inner life. These pertain to society's organization and processes. To better understand larger social issues, let us define social facts. Social facts are social processes rooted in society rather than in the individual. Émile Durkheim (1858-1917, France) studied the “science of social facts” in an effort to identify social correlations and ultimately social laws designed to make sense of how modern societies worked given that they became increasingly diverse and complex (see Émile Durkheim, The Rules of the Sociological Method, (Edited by Steven Lukes; translated by W.D. Halls). New York: Free Press, 1982, pp. 50-59).
The national cost of a gallon of gas, the War in the Middle east, the repressed economy, the trend of having too few females in the 18-24 year old singles market, and the ever-increasing demand for plastic surgery are just a few of the social facts at play today. Social facts are typically outside of the control of average people. They occur in the complexities of modern society and impact us, but we rarely find a way to significantly impact them back. This is because, as Mills taught, we live much of our lives on the personal level and much of society happens at the larger social level. Without a knowledge of the larger social and personal levels of social experience, we live in what Mills called a false social conscious, which is an ignorance of social facts and the larger social picture.
A larger social issue is illustrated in the fact that nationwide, students come to college as freshmen ill-prepared to understand the rigors of college life. They haven't often been challenged enough in high school to make the necessary adjustments required to succeed as college students. Nationwide, the average teenager text messages, surfs the Net, plays video or online games, hangs out at the mall, watches TV and movies, spends hours each day with friends, and works at least part-time. Where and when would he or she get experience focusing attention on college studies and the rigors of self-discipline required to transition into college credits, a quarter or a semester, study, papers, projects, field trips, group work, or test taking.
In a survey conducted each year by the US Census Bureau, findings suggest that in 2006 the US has about 84 percent who've graduated high school ( http:// www.factfinder.uscensus.gov; see table R1501 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...&-format=US-30). They also found that only 27 percent had a bachelors degree ( http:// www.factfinder.uscensus.gov; see table R1502 at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...G00_R1501_US30). Given the numbers of freshman students enrolling in college, the percentage with a bachelors degree should be closer to 50 percent.
The majority of college first year students drop out, because nationwide we have a deficit in the preparation and readiness of Freshmen attending college and a real disconnect in their ability to connect to college in such a way that they feel they belong to it. In fact college dropouts are an example of both a larger social issue and a personal trouble. Thousands of studies and millions of dollars have been spent on how to increase a freshman student's odds of success in college (graduating with a 4-year degree). There are millions and millions of dollars in grant monies awarded each year to help retain college students. Interestingly, almost all of the grants are targeted in such a way that a specific college can create a specific program to help each individual student stay in college and graduate.
The real power of the sociological imagination is found in how you and I learn to distinguish between the personal and social levels in our own lives. Once we do that we can make personal choices that serve us the best, given the larger social forces that we face. In 1991, I graduated with my Ph.D. and found myself in very competitive job market for University professor/researcher positions. With hundreds of my own job applications out there, I kept finishing second or third and was losing out to 10 year veteran professors who applied for entry level jobs. I looked carefully at the job market, my deep interest in teaching, the struggling economy, and my sense of urgency in obtaining a salary and benefits. I came to the decision to switch my job search focus from university research to college teaching positions. Again the competition was intense. On my 301st job application (that's not an exaggeration) I was interviewed and beat out 47 other candidates for my current position. In this case, knowing and seeing the larger social troubles that impacted my success or failure in finding a position was helpful. Because of the Sociological Imagination, I understood the larger social job market and was able to best situate myself within it to solve my personal trouble.
There are larger social trends that will be identified in the 16 chapters that follow this one. Some of them can teach you lessons to use in your own choices. Others simply provide a broad understanding of the context of the family in our complicated society. This free online textbook comes with 93 self-assessments designed to enlighten YOU about YOUR personal family circumstances. They are not therapy, and they are not diagnostic. They are simply insightful and designed to help you understand better your personal family circumstances.
In this textbook you will find larger social evidences of many current United States family trends. Figure 4 shows these trends and where they will be discussed in this textbook. These changes were initiated in the Industrial Revolution where husbands were called upon to leave the cottage and venture into the factory as breadwinners. Women became homemakers and many eventually ended up in the labor force as well. The trend of having fewer children and having fewer of them die in or immediately after birth is directly related to medical technology and the value of having smaller families in our current service-based economy. The trend of lowering our standards of what exactly a “clean house” means is an adjustment that arguably needed to be made, because the post-World War II marketing campaigns convinced women that a spotless house was a good woman. Today, good women have varying levels of a clean house.
Of concern to many are the continuing high rates of divorce. I fully intend to present you with knowledge about what is happening and what you can do to prevent divorce and enhance the quality and satisfaction of your marriage. These other relatively high, yet declining rates will be discussed in further detail, also providing you with information about what you can do and what works. The higher categories include many trends. Some may comfort you while others may threaten or concern you. I urge you to study them, to listen to your professor, and to ask questions about the things in the study of the family that become important to you.
Simply studying something does not imply that you agree with it or support it for yourself or others any more than studying diseases in your basic health class means you have to go out and get one or support others in getting one. One of the many benefits of being a college student is that it expands and broadens your opinions. I found in my 8 years of college and university that my opinions became more entrenched and I was able to better understand my values and defend my own views. By keeping my mind open and my willingness to learn new things, I graduated a better person than when I started. I challenge you to keep your mind open. Trust that learning doesn't mean changing for the worse.
As mentioned above, the Industrial revolution changed societies and their families in an unprecedented way, such that Sociology as a discipline emerged as an answer to many of the new-found societal challenges. Societies had change in unprecedented ways and had formed a new collective of social complexities that the world had never witnessed before. Western Europe was transformed by the industrial revolution. culture . The Industrial Revolution transformed society at every level. Look at Table 4 below to see pre and post-Industrial Revolution social patterns and how different they were.
Table 4: Pre-Industrial and Post-Industrial Revolution Social Patterns
Pre-Industrial Revolution Post-Industrial Revolution
Farm/Cottage Factories
Family Work Breadwinners/Homemakers
Small Towns Large Cities
Large Families Small Families
Homogamous Towns Heterogamous Cities
Lower Standards of Living Higher Standards of Living
People Died Younger People Die Older
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, families lived on smaller farms and every able member of the family did work to support and sustain the family economy. Towns were small and very similar (homogamy) and families were large (more children=more workers). There was a lower standard of living and because of poor sanitation people died earlier. After the Industrial Revolution, farm work was replaced by factory work. Men left their homes and became breadwinners earning money to buy many of the goods that used to be made by hand at home (or bartered for by trading one's own homemade goods with another's). Women became the supervisors of home work. Much was still done by families to develop their own home goods while many women and children also went to the factories to work. Cities became larger and more diverse (heterogamy). Families became smaller (less farm work required fewer children). Eventually, standards of living increased and death rates declined.
It is important to note the value of women's work before and after the Industrial Revolution. Hard work was the norm and still is today for most women. Homemaking included much unpaid work. For example, my 93 year old Granny is an example of this. She worked hard her entire life both in a cotton factory and at home raising her children, grand-children, and at times great grand-children. When I was a boy, she taught me how to make lye soap by saving the fat from animals they ate. She'd take a metal bucket and poked holes in the bottom of it. Then she burned twigs and small branches until a pile of ashes built up in the bottom of the bucket. After that she filtered water from the well through the ashes and collected the lye water runoff in a can. She heated the animal fat and mixed it in the lye water from the can. When it cooled, it was cut up and used as lye soap. They'd also take that lye water runoff and soak dried white corn in it. The corn kernel shells would become loose and slip off after being soaked. They'd rinse this and use it for hominy. Or grind it up and make grits from it. We'll talk more about women and work in Chapter 4.
These pre and post-industrial changes impacted all of Western civilization because the Industrial Revolution hit all of these countries about the same way, Western Europe, United States, Canada, and later Japan and Australia. The Industrial Revolution brought some rather severe social conditions which included deplorable city living conditions, crowding, crime, extensive poverty, inadequate water and sewage, early death, frequent accidents, extreme pressures on families, and high illness rates. Today, sociology continues to rise to the call of finding solutions and answers to complex social problems, especially in the family.
Family Research
The American Sociological Association is the largest professional sociology organization in the world. There is a section of ASA members that focuses its studies specifically on the family. Here is an expert of their mission statement:
“Many of society's most pressing problems -- teenage childbearing, juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, domestic violence, child and elder abuse, divorce -- are related to or rooted in the family. The Section on Family was founded to provide a home for sociologists who are interested in exploring these issues in greater depth (retrieved 18 May, 2010 from www.asanet.org/sections/family.cfm).”
Many family sociologists also belong to the National Council on Family Relations (www.ncfr.org). Their mission statement reads as follows:
“The National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) provides an educational forum for family researchers, educators, and practitioners to share in the development and dissemination of knowledge about families and family relationships, establishes professional standards, and works to promote family well-being (retrieved 18 May, 2010 from ncfr.org/about/mission.asp).”
There are other family-related research organizations in the world, but these two rank among the largest and most prestigious organizations in the field of family studies. As with all of sociology and other social sciences, science and scientific rigor is paramount. It is not enough to simply study the family from our narrow personal points of view. We have to reach into the larger social picture and see the hidden social processes that teach us how to inform marriage and family therapy, provide useful and accurate data to governmental and policy-making figures, and provide reliable advice that will help the most people in the most efficient way.
This becomes a scientific endeavor then to study and examine the family with rules of scientific engagement and analysis. For those earning a Ph.D. in a family-related field, science is learned and executed with rigor. If the results of a study are made public and presented for critical review by other family scientists then scientific rigor is even stronger and more credibility can be afforded to those findings. For example, studies have shown that the leading factor of divorce is not any of the following: sex problems, failures to communicate, money mismanagement, nor even in-law troubles. What is the leading cause of divorce? Would you believe it is marrying too young? Specifically, if you marry at 17, 18, or 19 you are far more likely to divorce than if you wait to marry in your 20s. This was discovered and confirmed over decades of studying who divorced and which factors contributed more to divorce than others (See Chapter 12). The cool thing about knowing the risks of marrying as a teen is that you can choose to wait until you are older, more established in your sense of self, and more experienced in knowing your own likes and dislikes.
Family Culture
Another key point in studying the family is to understand that all families share some cultural traits in common, but all also have their own family culture uniqueness. Culture is the shared values, norms, symbols, language, objects, and way of life that is passed on from one generation to the next. Culture is what we learn from our parents, family, friends, peers, and schools. It is shared, not biologically determined. In other words, you are only born with drives, not culture. Most families in a society have similar family cultural traits. But, when you do marry you will learn that the success of your marriage is often based on how well you and your spouse merge your unique family cultures into a new version of a culture that is your own.
Yet, even though family cultures tend to be universal and desirable, we often judge other cultures as being “good, bad, or evil,” with our own culture typically being judged good. We have to consider our perspective when studying families from different cultures. Are we ethnocentric or cultural relativist?
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to judge others based on our own experiences. In this perspective, our culture is right, while cultures which differ from our own are wrong. I once visited a beautiful Catholic cathedral, Cathédrale St. Jean in Lyon, France. I fell in love with this beautiful and historic monument to the religious devotion of generations of builders. I learned that it took about 300 years to build, that England's King Henry the VIII married his Italian bride there, and that the a few families had 9 generations of builders working on it. I left with a deep sense of appreciation it all. On the bus back to our hotel, we met some American tourists who were angry about their vacation in France. The gentleman said, “these people will eat anything that crawls under the front porch, they never bathe, they dress funny, and they can't speak one *#&@ word of English!”
Another more valuable and helpful perspective about differing cultures is the perspective called Cultural Relativism, the tendency to look for the cultural context in which differences in cultures occur. If you've eaten a meal with your friend's family you have probably noticed a difference in subtle things like the food that is served and how it is prepared. You may have noticed that that family communicates in different ways from your own. You might also notice that their values of fun and relaxation also vary from your own. To dismiss your friend's family as being wrong because they aren't exactly like yours is being closed-minded. Cultural relativists like all the ice-cream flavors, if you will. They respect and appreciate cultural differences even if only from the spectators' point of view. They tend to be teachable, child-like, and open-minded. They tend to enjoy or learn to enjoy the many varieties of the human experience.
An ethnocentric thinks on the level of carrot soup, peel carrots, add water, and boil. The cultural relativist tends to think on the level of a complex stew, peel and prepare carrots, potatoes, onions, mushrooms, broth, tofu, and 10 secret herbs and spices and simmer for 2 hours. The diversity of the human experience is what makes it rich and flavorful.
Socialization
From the first moments of life, children begin a process of socialization wherein parents, family, and friends transmit the culture of the mainstream society and the family to the newborn. They assist in the child's development of his or her own social construction of reality, which is what people define as real because of their background assumptions and life experiences with others. An average US child's social construction of reality includes knowledge that he or she belongs, can depend on others to meet their needs, and has privileges and obligations that accompany membership in their family and community. In a typical set of social circumstances, children grow up through predictable life stages: infancy, preschool, K-12 school years, young adulthood, adulthood, middle adulthood, and finally later-life adulthood. Most will leave home as young adults, find a spouse or life partner in their mid-to late 20s and work in a job for pay. To expect that of the average US Child is normal.
Also when discussing the average US child, it's safe to say that the most important socialization takes place early in life and in identifiable levels. Primary socialization typically begins at birth and moves forward until the beginning of the school years. Primary socialization includes all the ways the newborn is molded into a social being capable of interacting in and meeting the expectations of society. Most primary socialization is facilitated by the family, friends, day care, and to a certain degree various forms of media. Children watch about 3 hours per day of TV (by the time the average child attends kindergarten he has watched about 5,000 hours of TV). They also play video games, surf the Internet, play with friends, and read.
Around age 4-5 pre-school and kindergarten are presented as expectations for the children. Once they begin their schooling, they begin a different level of socialization. Secondary Socialization occurs in later childhood and adolescence when children go to school and come under the influence of non-family members. This level runs concurrently with primary socialization. Children realize at school that they are judged for their performance now and are no longer accepted unconditionally. In fact, to obtain approval from teachers and school employees, a tremendous amount of conformity is required-this is in contrast to having been accepted at home for being “mommy's little man or woman.”
As students children have to learn to belong and cooperate in large groups. They learn a new culture that extends beyond their narrow family culture and that has complexities and challenges that require effort on their part. This creates stressors for the children. By the time of graduation from high school the average US child has attended 15,000 hours of school away from home. They've also probably watched 15,000 hours of TV, and spent 5-10,000 playing (video games, friends, Internet, text messaging, etc.).
Friends, classmates, and peers become increasingly important in the lives of children in their secondary educational stage of socialization. Most 0-5 year-olds yearn for affection and approval from their parents and family members. By the time of pre-teen years, the desire for family diminishes and the yearning now becomes for friends and peers. Parents often lament the loss of influence over their children once the teen years arrive. Studies show that parents preserve at least some of their influence over their children by influencing their children's peers. Parents who host parties, excursions, and get-togethers find that their relationship with their children's friends keeps them better connected to their children. They learn that they can persuade their children at times through the peers.
The K-12 schooling years are brutal in terms of peer pressures. Often, people live much of their adult lives under the labels they were given in high school. Then it happens. You've probably already done this-graduation! Many new high school graduates face the strikingly harsh realities of adulthood shortly after graduation. Anomie often follows and it takes months and years at times for young adults to discover new regulating norms which ground them back into expectable routines of life.
The third level of socialization includes college, work, marriage/significant relationships, and a variety of adult roles and adventures. Adult socialization occurs as we assume adult roles such as wife/husband/employee/etc. We adapt to new roles which meet our needs and wants throughout the adult life course. Freshmen in college, new recruits in the military, volunteers for Peace Corps and Vista, employees, missionaries, travelers, and others find themselves following the same game plan that lead to their success during their primary and secondary socialization years-find out what's expected and strive to reach those expectations.
Opportunity
In the US and throughout the world there are rich and poor families. Where you belong has a great deal to do with who you were born to or adopted by. Where you end up in your economic standing has a great deal to do with how you act, given your own set of life chances. As identified by Max Weber, life chances are access to basic opportunities and resources in the marketplace. There are differences among family systems in which people live and have opportunities. This brings up a very important concept from Max Weber. Not all of us have the same life chances as others. For example, one of my best friends in high school came from a wealthy family. Her father was a neurosurgeon and they had many resources that myself and others like me didn't have (she and I were friends because we dated for a short while). When I went to college, I was the first ever on either my mother or father's side to go to college. I had no financial aid, no family support, and such bad high school grades that I had no scholarship funding. My friend on the other hand had a new car, new Apple computer, all expenses paid apartment and living costs. She and I had very different life chances from one another. Nevertheless I was able to earn my PhD. I worked numerous part-time jobs and eventually got my GPA high enough to earn a scholarship, and later graduate assistantship. I also had to take out thousands in student loans. But, even I had far greater life chances than most people in the world today. So did you. We have K-12 education, access to college, and the possibility of a career of our choosing. In many less developed countries low to no formal education is common fare.
Life chances can also be applied to the quality of your own marriage and family. If you came from a highly shaming family culture, then you are more likely to develop an addiction. If you came from a family where the parents divorced, then you are more likely to divorce. If you were born to a single mother you are more likely to become a single mother or father. These are known correlates but not causes. In other words you may be slightly disadvantaged because of the difficult family circumstances you were born in, but you are by no means doomed.
Understanding life chances simply raises your awareness by demonstrating trends from the larger social picture that might well apply to you in your personal level. For example, I have about 21 known correlates to divorce (see Workbook assignment to discover your own). My wife and I have been married now for 25 years. We knew we would have an uphill battle in some regards. But we faced our life chance issues together (still do) and try specifically to avoid some of the same mistakes our parents made.
Demography
Finally, the US family in our day has an important underpinning that influences the family in the larger social and personal levels. Demography is the scientific study of population growth and change. Everything in society influences demography and demography conversely influences everything in society. After World War II, the United States began to recover from the long-term negative effects of the war. Families had been separated, relatives had died or were injured, and women who had gone to the factories then returned home at war's end. The year 1946 reflected the impact of that upheaval in its very atypical demographic statistics. Starting in 1946 people married younger, had more children per woman, divorced then remarried again, and kept having one child after another. From 1946 to 1956 the birth rate rose and peaked, then began to decline again. By 1964 the national high birth rate was finally back to the level it was at before 1946. All those millions of children born from 1946-1964 were called the Baby Boom Generation (there are about 78 million of them alive today). Why was there such a change in family-related rates? The millions of deaths caused by the war, the long-term separation of family members from one another, and the deep shifts toward conservative values all contributed. The Baby Boom had landed. And after the Baby Boom Generation was in place, it conversely affected personal and larger social levels of society in every conceivable way.
The Baby Boomers are most likely your parents (Born 1946-1964). For a few of you they may be your grandparents. Their societal influence on the family changed the US forever. The earliest cohort of Baby Boomers (1946-51) has the world record for highest divorce rates. Collectively baby Boomers are still divorcing more than their parents ever divorced. They had their own children and many of you belong to Generations X or Y (X born 1965-1984 and Y born 1985-present). There are many of you because there were many Baby Boomers. The demographic processes of this country include these baby Boomers, their legacy, and their offspring. To understand the US family, you must understand the Baby Boomers and the underlying demographic forces in our day.
The core of demographic studies has three component concerns: births, deaths, and migration. All of demography can be reduced to this very simple formula:
(Births-Deaths) +/- ((In-Migration)-(Out Migration))=Population Change.
This part of the formula, (Births-Deaths) is called Natural increase, which is all births minus all the deaths in a given population over a given time period. The other part of the formula, ((In-Migration)-(Out Migration)) is called Net Migration, which is all the in-migration minus all the out-migration in a given population over a given time period. In all the chapters that follow this one, the issues pertaining to the family are heavily influenced by demography's social force in the United States. This formula is not just a measure of larger social trends, it is also an indirect factor that impacts those social trends.
The Industrial revolution set into motion a surge of births and a lowering of deaths. After a century of this type of growth, billions of people lived on the earth. Eventually as the Industrial Revolution became the era of the computer chip, birth rates declined and death rates continued to increase. In Western civilizations this explains why migration is so important. Because fewer births mean less workers for the economy and more need for immigrants. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.01%3A_Changes_and_Definitions.txt |
Chapter 2: Marriage and Families
Scientific Sociology
One of the most remarkable traits that August Comte mandated for Sociology was a core of scientific rigor. He proposed the concept of Positivism, the scientific-based sociological research that uses scientific tools such as survey, sampling, objective measurement, and cultural and historical analysis to study and understand society. Although the current definition of positivism expands far beyond Comte's original vision, Sociological scientific methodology is used through government and industry researchers and across higher education and the private sector. Comte was originally interested in why societies remain the same (social Statics) and why societies change (social dynamics). Most sociological research today falls within these broad categories. Sociologists strive for Objectivity, which is the ability to study and observe without distortion or bias, especially personal bias. Bias-free research is an ideal that, if not present will open the door to extreme misinterpretation of research findings.
Sociological science is both different and similar to other scientific principles. It differs from Chemistry, Biology, and Physics in that sociology does not manipulate the physical environment using established natural science theories and principles. It's similar to Chemistry, Biology, and Physics in that statistical principles guide the discovery and confirmation of data findings. Yet, Sociology has no universally social laws that resemble gravity, E=MC2, or the speed of light. This is because Chemistry, Biology, and Physics have the luxury of studying phenomenon which are acted upon by laws of nature. Sociologist study people, groups, communities, and societies which are comprised of agents, people who use their agency to make choices based on their varied motivations (Google Anthony Giddens-human agency, January 18, 1938 British Sociologist).
Sociologist Perform Survey Research
Sociologists study people, who chose, decide, succeed, fail, harm others, harm themselves, and behave in rational and irrational ways. I've often explained to my students that if I took an ounce of gasoline and placed a burning match upon it, the gas would have to burn. The gas has no choice just as the flame has no choice. But, if someone placed a burning match on your arm, or the arm of your classmate, you or they might respond in any number of ways. Most would find the experience to be painful. Some might enjoy it, others might retaliate with violence, and yet others might feel an emotional bond to the one who burned them. Sociologist must focus on the subjective definitions and perceptions that people place in their choices and motivations. In fact, sociologists account for human subjectivity very well in their research studies. The most common form of Sociological research of the family is survey research.
Surveys are research instruments designed to obtain information from individuals who belong to a larger group, organization, or society. The information gathered is used to describe, explain, and at times predict attitudes, behaviors, aspirations, and intended behaviors. Types of surveys include political polls, opinion surveys, national Census, paper, verbal interview, online, and audience voting- call in (American Idol votes), and polls. The National Study of Families and Households, the General Social Surveys, and other large-scale surveys that address family issues are common.
Polls are typically surveys which collect opinions (such as who one might vote for in an election, how one feels about the outcome of a controversial issue, or how one evaluates a public official or organization. The Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/) by the Constitutional mandate must count its entire population every 10 years (Such as the 2010 US Census). Population is the entire membership of a country, organization, group, or category of people to be surveyed (e.g., US population=305,000,000). A sample is only some portion of the population but not all of it (e.g., a US Census Bureau's American Community Survey of 35,000 US Citizens See http://www.census.gov/acs/www/). Surveys can ask a certain category of people on a one-time basis; a Cross-Sectional Survey is a survey given once to a group of people. Surveys can also ask the same people to fill out a survey over an extended number of years, a Longitudinal Survey is a survey given to the same people more than once and typically over a set of years or decades.
Table 1: Hypothetical University Student Body Population ABC University with 10,000 Students
Female (5000/50%) Male (5000/50%)
African American (1000/10%) African American (1000/10%)
Hispanic (1000/10%) Hispanic (1000/10%)
Asian (1000/10%) Asian (1000/10%)
Caucasian (1000/10%) Caucasian (1000/10%)
Other Races (1000/10%) Other Races (1000/10%)
Look above at the box in table 1 and we'll use this hypothetical ABC university student body population to better understand sampling. One of the most important issues when doing survey research is to ensure a good scientific sample. Random Sample is a portion of the population that is drawn in such a way that every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the survey (e.g., ABC University Registrar's office uses their computer software to randomly select 1 out of every 10 students for a survey about student opinions in favor of or against getting a football team). Representative Sample is a sample drawn from the population, the composition of which very much resembles that of the population. Typically this is obtained via a stratified random sample.
Stratified Random Sample is a portion of the population that is drawn in such a way that every member of the population and important sub-categories of the population have an equal chance of being selected for the survey, yielding a sample that is demographically similar to population (e.g., using the demographic table above, ABCU would sample 1 out of 10 students or 1,000. They would also want half of those students to be female and half male. They would also want to select for the racial groups. The easiest strategy to do this would be for the Registrar to program the computer to select only the female student's files. Then they would have the computer select only the African American files and select 1 out of 10 students until they have 100 selected. They would repeat this for all other racial groups and then do the same for the males. Ideally, every student would respond to the request to take the survey and they would have a 1,000 student sample that was _ female and _ male; with all 5 racial groups represented equally (see Table 2 below for example). This is both ideal and hypothetical, but it's typical of the goal sample takers have of a stratified random and representative sample and the closer they get to this ideal the better the sample).
Table 2: The Hypothetical ABCU Sample Composition of 10,000 Students (this never happens in the real world)
Total Student Body Numbers/Proportions Sample Student Body Numbers Sample Student Body Proportions Percentage Comparison of Population and Sample Proportions
Females (5000/50%) 500 50% 100% representative
Males (5000/50%) 500 50% 100% representative
African American (2000/20%) 100 Females / 100 Males 10% Females / 10% Males 100% representative
Hispanic (2000/20%) 100 Females / 100 Males 10% Females / 10% Males 100% representative
Asian (2000/20%) 100 Females / 100 Males 10% Females / 10% Males 100% representative
Caucasian (2000/20%) 100 Females / 100 Males 10% Females / 10% Males 100% representative
Other Races (2000/20%) 100 Females / 100 Males 10% Females / 10% Males 100% representative
A Convenience Sample is a portion of the population that is NOT scientifically drawn, but is collected because they are easy to access (e.g., a group of ABCU students waiting at a bus stop; a group of ABCU students who respond to a radio talk show web poll; or a group of ABCU students who have children and bring them to the campus daycare). Convenience samples yield weak results. Or as one of my Mentors, Dr. Tim Heaton, BYU, once said, “If you start the presentation of your research results with we didn't really do good science, but here's what we found…then few will stick around or care about what you found.”
It is also important to consider a few other scientific principles when conducting survey research. You need an adequate number of respondents. Sample Size is the number of respondents who are designated to take the survey (30 minimum in order to establish statistical confidence in the findings). You also have to obtain a relatively high Response Rate, the percentage of the original sample who successfully completed the survey. For example, at ABC university, if we set out to survey 1,000 out of the student body of 10,000 students, but only got 200 to take the survey, then our response rate risk being too low. One would say that 200/1,000=20 percent response rate. While 750/1,000=75 percent response rate. A sample of only 200 would likely not yield enough diversity in responses to get a broad understanding of the entire student body's reaction to the football team issue.
With a high enough response rate and a good scientific sample, one could feel comfortable comparing the sample's results to what the entire student body population might have said, had they all been surveyed. Generalizability means that the results from the sample can be assumed to apply to the population with confidence (as though the population itself had been studied). Also important is the quality of the survey itself as a scientific instrument. Valid Survey Questions are questions that are accurate and measure what they claim they'll measure (e.g., If the football survey asked, “Every campus needs a football team” versus “This campus would benefit from a football team.” The first lacks validity because it isn't really getting the answer needed for the study, it's seeking an opinion about campuses and football teams in general). Reliable Survey Questions are survey questions that are relatively free from bias errors which might taint the findings. In other words, reliable survey questions are consistent.
Components of Good Surveys
There are 2 types of survey questions. Open Survey Questions are questions designed to get respondents to answer in their own words (e.g., “what might be the benefits of having a football team?”________________________________ or “what might be a negative consequence of having a football team?”________________________________).
Closed Survey Questions are questions designed to get respondents to choose from a list of responses you provide to them (e.g., About how many college football games have you ever attended? __1 __2 __3 __4 __5 __6 __7 __8 __9 __10+). Likert Scale Questions are the most common response scale used in surveys and questionnaires. These questions are statements which respondents are asked to agree or disagree with (e.g., Our campus would be deeply hurt by a football team). The respondents choose from the scale below for their answer:
1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree
Demographic Questions are questions which provide the basic categorical information about your respondent including age, sex, race, education level, marital status, birth date, birth place, income, etc. In order to run statistical analysis on survey results, one must enter the data into Excel, Statistical Packages for the Social Science (SPSS), or Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) in order to run analysis. Most statistics are run on numbers. By converting responses into numbers, most results can be analyzed. For example on the Disagree…Agree scale above one would use the number 1 in lieu of Strongly Disagree. Words can be analyzed using content analysis software. Content Analysis is the counting and tabulating of words, sentences, and themes from written, audio, video, and other forms of communication. The goal of content analysis is to find common themes among the words. For example if an open ended question such as this were asked, “what might be a negative consequence of having a football team?” then the results would be carefully read with tabulations of common responses. When we asked this question to our university students in a random sample, the worry about the high expenses required to fund the team and program was one of the most common negative consequence reported.
There are a few specific types of data that can be analyzed using statistical measures. Nominal Data are data which have no standard numerical values. This is often referred to as categorical data (e.g., what is your favorite type of pet? __Reptile __Canine __Feline __Bird __Other). There is no numerical value associated with reptile that makes it more or less valuable than a canine or other type pet. Other examples include favorite color, street addresses, town you grew up in, or ice cream flavor. Ordinal Data are rank ordered data which has standard numerical values. This is often referred to as numerical data. (e.g., How many movies have you seen in the last two weeks? __0 __1 __2 __3 __4 __5). Ordinal data has the assumption that seeing 2 movies took twice as much effort than seeing just 1 movie and seeing4 movies was twice the effort of seeing just 2. The values are equally weighted. The same could be said about how many A's you earned last semester, how much you get paid per hour at work, or how many cars your family drives…they are numerical values that can be compared and contrasted. Ratio Data=data that is shown in comparison to other data. For example, the Sex Ratio=the number of males per 100 females in a society. The sex ratio in the US is reported as follows on 5 February, 2009: Alaska 107/100; US Total 97.1/100; Rhode Island 93.6/100 (these were 2006 estimates from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...&-format=US-30 Ratios provide uses comparative information and we can see that in 2006 Alaska had more males than females, 7 extra per 100 females. Rhode Island had nearly 7 fewer males per 100 females.
All of the examples above of football team related questions are considered variables. Variables are survey questions that measure some characteristic of the population (e.g., if married students were more financially strapped than single students, one might find that they were more or less supportive of a football team based on their perception of how adding a football team might hinder or support their personal needs. Marital status as a consideration when comparing the findings of the survey becomes a variable in its own right). Two types of variables are measured: dependent and independent variables. Dependent Variables are survey variables that change in response to the influence of independent variables. The dependent variable would be desire or opposition for a football team. Independent Variables are survey variables that when manipulated will stimulate a change upon the dependent variables (e.g., by considering married, widowed, divorced, separated, cohabiting, and never married students, one might find differing support/opposition to an ABCU football team).
When basic statistics are performed on data, we often call theme measures of central tendency (Mean, Median, or Mode). Consider this list of numbers which represents the number of movies 9 separate ABCU students had seen in the last 2 weeks:
0
1
1
1
3
4
4
5
8
Mean is the arithmetic score of all the numbers divided by the total number of students (e.g., 27÷9=3). Median is the exact mid-point value in the ranked list of scores (e.g., 0, 1, 1, &1 fall below and 4, 4, 5, & 8 fall above the number 3 thus 3 is the median). Mode is the number which occurs the most in a list of numbers (e.g.,1 occurs the most, so the mode is 1). Extreme value is an especially low or high number in the series (e.g., 8 movies in 2 weeks takes an inordinate amount of time for an average student. Notice that if you removed the 9th student's score and averaged only the remaining scores the mean=2.375. Extreme values can throw the mean way off. If you'd like to learn more about survey research, then take a research methods class. Chances are you will enjoy taking on the role of statistical detective. Here is an overview of simple questions to see if you are building a good survey.
1. What do you want to accomplish in this survey?
2. Who will your survey serve?
3. Who is the target audience for the survey?
4. How will the survey be designed?
5. How will you obtain a sample for the survey?
6. How will the survey be administered?
7. How big should your response rate be to give your results credibility?
8. How will the data be analyzed?
9. How will the results be presented?
10. Are humans or animals going to be at risk of harm in the survey?
Components of a good survey include clear purpose for taking the survey, clear understanding of desired outcomes of survey, good research supporting development and design of survey, appropriate sampling technique when collecting survey, reliability and validity in survey and its question and design, and clear and accurate presentation of survey findings that are appropriate for the type of survey used.
Can You Figure Out What Might Be Wrong With These Survey Questions?
1. Have you ever attended a college football or basketball game? __Yes __No
2. Are you in favor of spending all ABCU's money on an expensive football program? __Yes __No
3. Are you not opposed to supporting a football program? __Yes __No
4. I think the ABCU's administration pays too much attention to community service.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree
5. It would be fiducially incompetent to initiate the cost-to-benefit ratio projections for a football team.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree
1. Double barreled question…it asks two questions in one and you can't clearly answer.
2. Biased question…uses emotionally laden language which might change the response.
3. Double negative…creates confusion.
4. Irrelevant question for the survey about student interest in a football team.
5. Too many technical words that the average person would not understand…creates confusion.
Better Versions of the Same Questions
1. Have you ever attended a college football game? __Yes __No
2. Have you ever attended a college basketball game ? __Yes __No
3. Are you in favor of ABCU spending student fees on a football program? __Yes __No
4. Are you in favor of a football program? __Yes __No
5. I think the ABCU's administration should hold forums with students about the issue of a future football program.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree
6. I am concerned about a new football program being too expensive.
1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree
Which Responses Categories Are Useful For Which Survey Question? It Depends on the Question!
1. 1 ___Yes 0___No
2. 4 Excellent 3 Good 2 Fair 1 Poor
3. 5 Very Likely 4 Somewhat Likely 3 No Preference 2 Unlikely 1 Very Unlikely
4. 0 Never 1 Seldom 2 Often 3 Regularly
5. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree
6. 1 Strongly Disapprove2 Disapprove 3 Don't know 4 Approve 5 Strongly Approve
7. 3 Better 2 About the Same 1 Worse
When doing sociological research it helps if you understand the SMART Paradigm
Samples
Methods
Attitude of skepticism
Researcher bias
Thorough understanding of literature
Samples have to be random and representative. If not the results are fairly worthless. One of my graduate school professors explained that if you start a sentence with, “we didn't really do good scientific sampling, but here's what we found.” Most people won't care about your findings after they know your science was weak. I compare it to this hypothetical incident. Your car is broken down late at night in a dangerous part of town. A passerby stops to help and says, “I don't know how to fix cars, but I'll go ask those people hanging out at the bus stop. He returns 10 minutes later and explains that 3 of the people there once had their cars break down and every time it was their spark plugs. So I'd recommend you change your spark plugs.” Believe me, I know this is a cheesy example, but it conveys the point. Asking three people at a bus stop is a convenience sample of people (not even mechanics). True, it does look and feel like a survey, but it is a terrible sample.
I watch this all the time on TV news stories where a few people on the street give their opinions; Internet polls where people who visit certain Websites give their opinions; and radio talk shows where votes are counted among those who are selected to comment on the air are treated as though they somehow represent all people everywhere. Smart people always check the sample for representativeness and random selection.
Methods typically include experiments, participant observations, non-participant observations, surveys, and secondary analysis.
Experiments are studies in which researchers can observe phenomena while holding other variables constant or controlling them.
In experiments, Experimental group gets the treatment and the Control group does not get the treatment. Even though Sociologists rarely perform experimental surveys, it is important to understand the rigors required to execute this type of research. In this example let's assume that researchers are testing the affect of a drug called XYZ. Among Herpes sufferers, XYZ may help to completely repel an outbreak. But, how can you discern if it was the medicine or simply that patient improvement came because they were in the study? We'd need some form of control/controls. In the diagram below you can see how scientists might administer an experimental study. If they took 300 patients and randomly assign them to Group A, which was an inert gum-only control, Group B which was the gum and sugar control (yes, sometimes 2 control groups are needed), or Group B which is the experimental XYZ laced gum.
Let's assume that the patients chewed their respective chewing gums for 11 months then the medical results were gathered. Look at the next diagram below to see a set of hypothetical results. Group A was the control-gum only group and they showed a 5 percent improvement. Group B was the control-gum and sugar group and they showed 7 percent improvement. Group C was the experimental/treatment group and they showed a whopping 27 percent improvement. Now one study like this does not an FDA approved drug make. But, the results are promising. Interestingly, this is a pharmaceutical, medical study…not a sociology study. Almost all experiments are very tightly controlled and many transpire in laboratories or under professional clinical supervision. Sociologists rarely study in laboratories. Scientists who do perform experiments can make causal conclusions. In order to establish cause there must be 3 criteria that are met, a correlation, time ordering (one preceded the other); and no spurious correlations. In the case of education and crime these 3 are not met. Causation means that a change in one variable leads to or cause a change in another variable, (e.g. XYZ chewing gum causes less Herpes outbreaks).
Sociologists do perform studies that allow for correlation research conclusions. There are three types of correlations. Direct correlation which means that the variables change in the same direction (e.g., the more education you have the more money you make). Inverse correlation which means that the variables change in opposite directions (e.g., the more education you have the less criminal activity you get caught doing). Spurious correlation which is an apparent relationship between two variables which indicates their relationship to a third variable and not to each other (e.g., the more education you have, the higher your family's standard of living, and the lower your likelihood of participating in criminal activities). In other words there are other correlated factors that influence criminal behavior that simultaneously are at play.
Sometimes sociologists perform Field Experiments are studies which utilize experimental design but are initiated in everyday settings and non-laboratory environments. For example, a sociologist might manipulate the levels of lighting to study how factory work performance is impacted (Google Hawthorn Effect). A few other methods are sometimes used by Sociologists. Participant Observation is a research method where the researcher participates in activities and more or less assumes membership in the group she studies. Content Analysis occurs when the researcher systematically and quantitatively describes the contents of some form of media. Secondary Analysis is the analysis of data that have already been gathered by others. Family Research studies tend to be survey studies, clinical observations, participant observations, secondary analysis of existing data, or qualitative interviews of family members.
One of the largest social surveys taken in the United States has been the General Social Surveys collected almost every year since 1972. It has provided 27 national samples with over 50,000 survey takers and thousands of variables as of 2008 (see http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey retrieved 5 February, 2010). These large volumes of data and variables allow researchers to study the family at a scale that most could never attain if left to fund and collect the data for themselves. I published an article recently about the financial plight of elderly widowed women in the US. The married women had much higher financial resources than the unmarried women. In general women had fewer resources than the men (see Hammond et al. 2008, Resource Variations and Marital Status among Later-Life Elderly, JACS Vol2 #1, pages 47-60). By the way, my four co-authors on that article were Senior Students in our department here at UVU.
In Great Britain, the Family Resource Survey began in 1992 and has provided much needed insight into the needs and functioning of these families (Search http://www.natcen.ac.uk/ for family research studies online). In China, a US team of researchers performed a survey research study called the National Health and Nutrition Survey (retrieved 5 Feb., 2009 from http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/China_H...trition_Survey). Numerous family and health data were collected for study. In Iraq, a medical family survey was conducted by the World Health Organization and Iraqi officials wherein over 9,000 households were surveyed (see http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Fa..._Health_Survey). The focus here was on the ravages that the ongoing war had taken on families and social networks.
Clinical observation studies typically take place in counseling, medical, residential treatment settings, or community centers. Perhaps two of the most prominent clinical researchers of the family have been Doctors Judith Wallerstein and John Gottman. Doctor Wallerstein studied children of divorce over the course of 25 years and has made a thorough study of the impacts that divorce has had on these children and their adult marriages and life experiences (see research-based books: The Good Marriage (1995 HM); Second Chances: 1996 HM); Surviving the Breakup (1996 HC); and The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (2000H)).
Dr. John Gottman studied couples in depth by videotaping them in clinically controlled apartments “love labs” where he observed their daily interaction patterns and carefully analyzed the footage of their interaction patterns. His research lead to the “Four Horsemen of Divorce” and the classification of 4 aspects of deeply troubled marriages: Defensiveness, Stonewalling, Criticism, and Contempt (see research-based books: The Relationship Cure (2002 TRP); Why Marriages Succeed or Fail (1995 FP); Seven Principles (2007 TRP); and Ten Lessons to Transform Your Marriage (2007 TRP).
Participant observations are much less common than surveys and clinical studies. They basically are studies where the researcher lives in, belongs to, or participates in the very social familial experience that is being studied. I read of one researcher who sat on a chair in the home of parents of newly adopted children with disabilities make their adjustments of the new family member into the family system. This and similar studies tend to take many hours and yield lots of information about a very narrow and specific research question.
The National Survey of Families and Households was collected in the early 1990s where 13,000+ families were interviewed in depth for survey information (Search Web for “Bumpass and Sweet NSFH”). This massive data set now exist in electronic form and can be analyzed by anyone seeking to look at specific research questions that pertain to many different aspects of the family experience in the US at that time. When a researcher analyzes existing data it is called Secondary Analysis. This would apply to a research examining any of the above mentioned surveys, the US Census, or even the Population Reference Bureau's world data available free at www.prb.org.
Finally, family members can be interviewed through in-depth qualitative interviews designed to capture the nuances of their experiences. This is what Dr. Judith Wallerstein did when she wrote the book, The Good Marriage (1995). She carefully interviewed 50 happily married couples that were considered by those around them to have a really good marriage. Her work was published in an era of family research that was flooded with studies about divorce and family dysfunction. The Good Marriage began, in my estimation, a turn of events that made it more acceptable to study the positive functioning and side of family experiences in the US.
Just for fun I've added an interesting survey my students and I developed to study dating patterns here at UVU in 2006. Some of my students were interested in why we are drawn to those we date and which factors lead us toward staying together or breaking up. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.02%3A_Marriage_and_Families.txt |
Chapter 3: Theories and Family
Making Sense of Abstract Theories
Sociological theories are the core and underlying strength of the discipline. They guide researchers in their studies. They also guide practitioners in their intervention strategies. And they will provide you with a basic understanding of how to see the larger social picture in your own personal life. Theory is a set of interrelated concepts used to describe, explain, and predict how society and its parts are related to each other. The metaphor I've used for many years to illustrate the usefulness of a theory is what I call the “goggles metaphor.” Goggles are a set of inter-related parts that help us see things more clearly. Goggles work because the best scientific components work together to magnify, enlarge, clarify, and expand to our view the thing we are studying.
Theories are sets of inter-related concepts and ideas that have been scientifically tested and combined to magnify, enlarge, clarify, and expand our understanding of people, their behaviors, and their societies. Without theories, science would be a futile exercise in statistics. In the diagram below you can see the process by which a theory leads sociologist to perform a certain type of study with certain types of questions that can test the assumptions of the theory. Once the study is administered the findings and generalizations can be considered to see if they support the theory. If they do, similar studies will be performed to repeat and fine-tune the process. If the findings and generalizations do not support the theory, the sociologist rethinks and revisits the assumptions they made.
Here's a real-life scientific example. In the 1960's two researchers named Cumming and Henry studied the processes of aging. They devised a theory on aging that had assumptions built into it. These were simply put, that all elderly people realize the inevitability of death and begin to systematically disengage from their previous youthful roles while at the same time society prepares to disengage from them (see Maddox et al. 1987 The Encyclopedia of Aging, Springer Pub. NY) for much more detail. Cumming and Henry tested their theory on a large number of elderly persons. Findings and generalization consistently yielded a “no” in terms of support for this theory. For all intents and purposes this theory was abandoned and is only used in references such as these (for a more scientifically supported theory on aging Google “Activity Theory and/or Continuity Theory”). Theories have to be supported by research and they also provide a framework for how specific research should be conducted.
By the way theories can be used to study society-millions of people in a state, country, or even at the world level. When theories are used at this level they are referred to as Macro Theories, theories which best fit the study of massive numbers of people (typically Conflict and Functional theories). When theories are used to study small groups or individuals, say a couple, family, or team, they are referred to as being Micro Theories, theories which best fit the study of small groups and their members (typically Symbolic Interactionism or Social Exchange theories). In many cases, any of the four main theories can be applied at either the macro or micro levels.
There are really two distinct types of theories. First, Grand Theory is a theory which deals with the universal aspects of social processes or problems and is based on abstract ideas and concepts rather than on case specific evidence. These include Conflict, Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Social Exchange Theories; second, Middle-Range Theory is a theory derived from specific scientific findings and focuses on the interrelation of two or more concepts applied to a very specific social process or problem. Robert K. Merton (1910-2003) was a functional theory-based sociologist who taught the value of using smaller more specifically precise theories in trying to explain smaller and more specific social phenomena. These theories include Continuity, Activity, Differential Association, and Labeling theories. (see American Sociology Association, Theory http://www.asatheory.org/).
Let's consider the 4 grand theories one at a time. The Conflict Theory is a macro theory. Macro theory is a sociological theory designed to study the larger social, global, and societal level of sociological phenomena. This theory was founded by a German philosopher, economist, sociologist, and revolutionary (1818-1883). Marx was a witness to oppression perpetrated by society's elite members against the masses of poor. He had very little patience for the capitalistic ideals that undergirded these powerful acts of inhumane exploitation of the average person. To him struggle was innate to all human societies. Later another German named Max Weber (1864-1920; pronounced “Veybur”) further developed this sociological theory and refined it to a more moderate position. Weber studied capitalism further but argued against Marx's outright rejection of it.
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory is especially useful in understanding war, wealth and poverty, the haves and the have nots, revolutions, political strife, exploitation, divorce, ghettos, discrimination and prejudice, domestic violence, rape, child abuse, slavery, and more conflict-related social phenomena. Conflict theory claims that society is in a state of perpetual conflict and competition for limited resources. Marx and Weber, were they alive today, would likely use Conflict Theory to study the unprecedented bailouts by the US government which have proven to be a rich-to-rich wealth transfer.
Conflict Theory assumes that those who have perpetually try to increase their wealth at the expense and suffering of those who have not. It is a power struggle which is most often won by wealthy elite and lost by the common person of common means. Power is the ability to get what one wants even in the presence of opposition. Authority is the institutionalized legitimate power. By far the bourgeoisie, wealthy elite (royalty, political, and corporate leaders), have the most power. Bourgeoisie are the “Goliaths” in society who often bully their wishes into outcomes. The Proletariat are the common working class, lower class, and poor members of society. According to Marx (see diagram below) the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat cannot both have it their way and in order to offset the wealth and power of the Bourgeoisie the proletariat often rise up and revolt against their oppressors (The French, Bolshevik, United States, Mexican, and other revolutions are examples).
In fact Marx and Weber realized long ago that society does have different classes and a similar pattern of relatively few rich persons in comparison to the majority who are poor-the rich call the shots. Look below at the photographic montage of homes in one US neighborhood which were run down, poor, trashy, and worth very little. They were on the West side of this gully and frustrated many who lived on the East side who were forced to drive through these “slums” to reach their own mansions.
The Conflict Theory has been repeatedly tested against scientifically derived data and it repeatedly proves to have a wide application among many different levels of sociological study. That is not to say that all sociological phenomena are conflict-based. But, most Conflict theorist would argue that more often than not Conflict assumptions do apply. Feminist theory is a theoretical perspective that is couched primarily in Conflict Theory assumptions.
Functionalism or Structural Functionalism Theory
The next grand theory is called Functionalism or Structural Functionalism. Functionalist theory claims that society is in a state of balance and kept that way through the function of society's component parts. This theory has underpinnings in biological and ecological concepts (see diagram below). Society can be studied the same way the human body can be studied-by analyzing what specific systems are working or not working, diagnosing problems, and devising solutions to restore balance. Socialization, religious involvement, friendship, health care, economic recovery, peace, justice and injustice, population growth or decline, community, romantic relationships, marriage and divorce, and normal and abnormal family experiences are just a few of the evidences of functional processes in our society.
Sure, Functionalists would agree with Conflict Theorists that things break down in society and that unfair treatment of others is common. These break downs are called Dysfunctions, breakdowns or disruptions in society and its parts, which threaten social stability. Enron's collapse, the ruination of 14,000 employees' retirement funds, the loss of millions in shareholder investments, and the serious doubt it left in the mind of US investors about the Stock Market's credibility and reliability which lasted for nearly a decade are examples of dysfunctions in the economic sector of the economy. But, Functionalists also look at two types of functions, manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions is are the apparent and intended functions of institutions in society. Latent functions are the less apparent, unintended, and often unrecognized functions in social institutions and processes.
Back to Enron, the government's manifest function includes regulation of investment rules and laws in the Stock market to ensure credibility and reliability. After the Enron collapse, every company offering stocks for trade underwent a government supervised audit of its accounting processes in order to restore the public trust. For the most part balance was restored in the Stock Market (to a certain degree at least). There are still many imbalances in the investment, mortgage, and banking sectors which have to be readjusted; but, that's the point society does readjust and eventually recover some degree of function.
Does the government also provide latent or accidental functions to society? Yes. Take for example the US military bases. Of all the currently open US military bases, all are economic boons for the local communities surrounding them. All provide jobs, taxes, tourism, retail, and government contract monies that would otherwise go somewhere else. When the discussion about closing military bases comes up in Washington DC, Senators and members of Congress go to work trying to keep their community's bases open.
As you can already tell, Functionalism is more positive and optimistic that Conflict Theory (the basis for much criticism by many Conflict Theorists). Functionalists realize that just like the body, societies get “sick” or dysfunction. By studying society's parts and processes, Functionalists can better understand how society remains stable or adjust to destabilizing forces when unwanted change is threatened. According to this theory most societies find that healthy balance and maintain it (unless they don't and collapse as many have in the history of the world. Equilibrium is the state of balance maintained by social processes that help society adjust and compensate for forces that might tilt it onto a path of destruction.
Getting back to the Conflict Example of the gully separating extremely wealthy and poor neighborhoods, look at this Habitat for Humanity picture below. I took this close to my own home, because it represents what Functional Theorists claim happens-component parts of society respond to dysfunctions in ways that help to resolve problems. In this house the foundation was dug, poured, and dried within a week. From the foundation to this point was three working days. This house is now finished and lived in, thanks mostly to the Habitat non-profit process and the work of many volunteers. From the Functionalism perspective, optimism is appropriate and fits the empirical data gathered in society.
Symbolic Interactionism Theory
Interactionism comes in two theoretical forms, Symbolic Interaction and Social Exchange. By far, my favorite sociological theory is Symbolic Interactionism. Symbolic Interaction claims that society is composed of ever present interactions among individuals who share symbols and their meanings. This is a very useful theory for understanding other people; improving communications; learning and teaching skills in cross-cultural relations; and generally speaking, “not doing harm to your roommates” as many of my students often say after understanding this theory. Values, communication, which hunting, crisis management, fear from crime, fads, love and all that comes with it, “evil and sin,” what's hot and what's not, alien abduction beliefs, “who I am,” litigation, mate selection, arbitration, dating joys and woes, and both personal national meanings and definitions (September 1, 2001-WTC) can all be better understood using Symbolic Interactionism.
Once you realize that individuals are by their social natures very symbolic with one another, then you begin to understand how to persuade your friends and family, how to understand others' points of view, and how to resolve misunderstandings. This theory magnifies the concepts of meanings. Think about these three words, LOVE, LUST, and LARD. Each letter is a symbol. When combined in specific order, each word can be defined. Because we memorize words and their meanings we know that there is a striking difference between LOVE and LUST. We also know that LARD has nothing to do with either of these two terms (for most people at least). Contrast these word pairs, hate versus hope, help versus hurt, advise versus abuse, and connect versus corrupt. These words, like many others, carry immense meaning and when juxtaposed sound like the beginning of philosophical ideas.
Symbolic Interactionism makes it possible for you to be a college student. It makes it so you understand your professors' expectations and know how to step up to them. Our daily interactions are filled with symbols and an ongoing process of interactions with other people based on the meanings of these symbols. “How's it going?” Ever had anyone you've greeted actually answer that question? Most of us never have. It's a greeting, not a question, in the US culture.
If you want to surprise someone, answer them next time they say How's it going? If they have a sense of humor, they might get a kick out of it. If not, you may have to explain yourself. Symbolic Interactionism Theory explores the way we communicate and helps us to understand how we grow up with our self-concept (see socialization chapter). It helps you to know what the expectations of your roles are and if you perceive yourself as doing a good job or not in meeting those expectations.
There are many other Symbolic Interactionism concepts out there to study, let's just talk about one more-The Thomas Theorem or Definition of the Situation. Thomas Theorem is often called the “definition of the situation” which is basically if people perceive or define something as being real then it is real in its consequences. I give a few examples from the media, a woman was diagnosed as HIV positive. She made her funeral plans, made sure her children would be cared for then prepared to die. Two-years later she was retested. It turned out her first test results were a false positive, yet she acted as though she had AIDS and was certainly going to die soon from it.
In a hypothetical case, a famous athlete (you pick the sport) defines himself as invincible and too famous to be held legally accountable for his criminal behavior. He is subsequently found guilty. A politician (you pick the party and level of governance) believes that his/her constituents will tolerate anything. When he/she doesn't get reelected no one is surprised. The point is that when we define our situation as being real, we act as though it is real (regardless of the objective facts in the matter).
Symbolic Interactionism is very powerful in helping people to understand each other. Newlyweds, roommates, life-long friends, young adult children and their parents, and teammates can all utilize the principles to “walk a mile in the other's shoes;” “see the world through their glasses;” and/or simply “get it.” One of the major realization that comes with Symbolic Interactionism is that you begin to understand the other people in your life and come to know that they are neither right nor wrong, just of a different point of view. They just define social symbols with varying meanings.
To understand the other person's symbols and meanings, is to approach common ground. Listen to this statement by Rosa Parks (1913-2005), “All I was doing was trying to get home from work.” In 1955 when she refused to give up her seat on the bus to a White person, it proved to be a spark for the Civil Rights Movement that involved the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. and many other notable leaders. It was Rosa Park's simple and honest statement that made her act of defiance so meaningful. The lion share of the nation was collectively tired and sick of the mistreatment of Blacks. Many Whites joined the protests while others quietly sympathized. After all that was written in the history books about it, a simple yet symbolic gesture by Rosa Parks symbolically started the healing process for the United States.
Social Exchange Theory
The remaining theory and second interactionist theory is Social Exchange. Social Exchange claims that society is composed of ever present interactions among individuals who attempt to maximize rewards while minimizing costs. Assumptions in this theory are similar to Conflict theory assumptions yet have their interactistic underpinnings. Basically, human beings are rational creatures, capable of making sound choices once the pros and cons of the choice are understood. This theory uses a formula to measure the choice making processes.
(REWARDS-COSTS)=OUTCOMES
or
(“What I get out of it”-“What I lose by doing it”)=”My decision”
We look at the options available to us and weigh as best we can how to maximize our rewards and minimize our losses. Sometimes we get it right and other times we make a bad choice. One of the powerful aspects of this theory is the concept of Equity. Equity is a sense that the interactions are fair to us and fair to others involved by the consequences of our choices. For example, why is it that women who work 40 hours a week and have a husband who works 40 hours per week do not perform the same number of weekly hours of housework and childcare? Scientists have surveyed many couples to find the answer. Most often, it boils down to a sense of fairness or equity. Because she defines it as her role to do housework and childcare, while he doesn't; because they tend to fight when she does try to get him to perform housework, and because she may think he's incompetent, they live with an inequitable arrangement as though it were equitable (don't get me started on the evidence that supports men sharing the actual roles of housekeepers and childcare providers-see Joseph Pleck, “Working Wives/ Working Husbands” Sage Pub, CA).
Each of us tries constantly to weigh pros and cons and to maximize the outcomes of our choices. I often provide a rhetorical challenge to my students when I ask them to go down to the cafeteria, pick the least attractive person they can find, take them on a date where they drive and they pay for everything, then give the person a 7 second kiss at the end of the date. “Why would we do that?” they typically ask. “That's my point,” I typically reply, having increased a bit of their understanding of the Social Exchange Theory.
Any of the four theories can be used to study any individual and collective behaviors. But, some do work better than others because their assumptions more precisely match the issue of interest. Divorce might be studied from the Conflict Theory to understand how things become adversarial and how and why contested divorces sometimes become violent. Divorce might be studied from the Functionalism Theory to understand how divorce is a means to resolving untenable social circumstance-it is a gesture designed to restore balance and equilibrium. Divorce might be studied using the Symbolic Interactionism Theory to identify how people define their roles before, during, and after the divorce and how they reestablish new roles as unmarried adults. Divorce might also be studied using the Social Exchange Theory to understand the processes and choices that lead to the final divorce decision, distribution of assets, child custody decrees and the final legal change of status (see Levinger and Moles, “Divorce and Separation: Context, Causes, and Consequences” 1979, Basic Books).
I've enclosed a simple summary sheet of the four basic theories used most by sociologists. It serves well as a reference guide, but can't really replace your efforts to study sociological theories in more detail. On the next page I've enclosed a self-assessment that may help you to assess your leanings towards these four main theories and two others that are often used by sociologists. On the self-assessment don't be surprised if you find that all four theories fit your world-view. Keep in mind they have been extensively studied for a very long time.
Family Systems Theory
When understanding the family, the Family System Theory has proven to be very powerful. Family Systems Theory claims that the family is understood best by conceptualizing it as a complex, dynamic, and changing collection of parts, subsystems and family members. Much like a mechanic would interface with the computer system of a broken down car to diagnose which systems are broken (transmission, electric, fuel, etc.) and repair it; a therapist or researcher would interact with family members to diagnose how and where the systems of the family are in need of repair or intervention. To fully understand what is meant by systems and subsystems look at Figure 6 below. Family Systems Theory comes under the Functional Theory umbrella and shares the functional approach of considering the dysfunctions and functions of complex groups and organizations.
Figure 6 shows the extended family system which centers around a middle-aged couple named Juan and Maria Rodriguez. Juan is a tenured university professor who lives with his parents, his wife's widowed mother, his two children Anna and José, Anna's husband Alma and the 3-month old triplets Anna just delivered C-section. Notice that Maria's father passed away, so he has an X over his place in this diagram. Because Juan is financially established he can support the large extended family. This represents a 4-generation complex family system. There are three couples living within this home, Juan and Maria, Grandpa and Grandma, and Alma and Anna. But, there are various levels of strain felt by each couple.
Today multi-generational family systems are becoming more common, but are typically three generations where the married adult child and his or her spouse and children move back home. Juan and Maria raised their two children Anna and José with tremendous support from grandparents. Maria's mother was a college graduate and has been a big help to José who is a sophomore in junior college and a basketball team member. Juan's mother and father are the oldest family members and are becoming more and more dependent. Juan's mother requires some daily care from Maria.
In fact, Maria has the most individual strain of any family member in this family system. Juan and Maria have each felt a strain on their marriage because of the strains that come from each subsystem and family member who depends upon them. Think about it-they both have in-laws in the house; they both contribute to the care needs of the elderly family members; and they both try to support their son's basketball games and tournaments. But, most of all, there are three brand new babies in the house.
Those new babies have strained the entire family system, but extreme strain lands on Maria because Alma is a second year medical student and spends long hours in class and training. Anna is extremely overwhelmed by bottle-feedings, diapers, and other hands-on baby care demands. So, Maria is supporting both her daughter and three grandsons, but it's overwhelming. Look at Figure 7 Below.
Maria is the Matriarch of this family system. She simultaneously belongs to the following subsystems, Daughter-Mother, Daughter-in-law-Father & Mother-in-law, Spousal, Mother-Son, Mother-Daughter, Mother-in-law-Son-in-law, and Grandmother-grandchildren. Normally a large number of subsystems in one's life does not imply strain or stress. But, Juan and Maria have very demanding circumstances with Maria providing caregiving to Juan's Mother, caregiving to her post-childbirth daughter, Anna, and to the newborn triplets. Maria consults with Juan during a diner date. Juan holds a family meeting on Sunday evening. In it Juan's father volunteers to help Anna with the feeding and holding of the triplets. Juan arranges for elder-care nursing for his mother.
Anna decides to hire a team of teenaged young women to work hourly as her assistants. Maria's mother feels that she can help with meal preparation. Interestingly, Maria insists that she continue to contribute as a grandmother and on the weekend with Juan's mother (perhaps she felt the need to fulfill her role expectations and preserve some self-dignity). All agree and move forward. Juan, as do many Marriage and Family Therapists, already knows that a by looking at the family as a complex system with inter-locking and interdependent subsystems, solutions can be found among the members of the system and subsystems.
This brings up the issue of boundaries. "Boundaries” is a concept used in human relationships and family systems which are basically defined as distinct: emotional, psychological, or physical separateness between individuals, roles, and subsystems in the family. Boundaries are crucial to healthy family functioning. In my many years of teaching Family Systems theory I have found that the “My House, My Boundaries” (developed by Ron J. Hammond, 1998) metaphor is very useful in understanding why and how healthy and unhealthy boundaries impact the family systems as strong as they do (See Figure 8 below).
My House, My Boundaries
Social scientists have known for years that boundary maintenance is important for healthy relationships. From the Family Systems perspective we learn that family subsystems need to be maintained properly so that the overall family system functions properly. It is also important that interpersonal boundaries be maintained. But how exactly does one maintain them in our families which tend to be diverse and complex? One answer is to use the house paradigm of personal boundaries. Think of yourself as having a personal house which exists in the suburbs of your many relationships. We put locks and latches on our real house doors and windows to keep intruders out. This paradigm will teach you how to put relationship locks and latches on our personal house so that only those you choose to invite into your house will be allowed in and at a level of interaction that you are comfortable with.
Each of us has the responsibility of taking charge of our own house. That means we choose which people we invite in, when they are invited in, and which level of closeness in our house we allow them to share with us. We also have the responsibility of ensuring that we don't violate others' house boundaries. Look at the floor plan included here. Think of it in terms of varying levels of intimate or personal interaction with others. The gate is the most superficial level of interaction; whereas the bedroom is the deepest level. Let's consider each part of the house and its level of intimacy. The Gate is where we typically interact with strangers. We say hello, hi, how's it going'? We often don't really want to have the person respond. These are simply polite greetings we use with people we don't know.
The Porch & Entry Way is for people you are getting to know better, say another student you sit next to in class. You might begin to share personal information about your name, where you are from, or your major. At these levels you rarely share extremely personal information. That is reserved for people you have known for a long time and already trust.
Let's say that after a few weeks of school, you form a study group including the classmate you previously introduced yourself to. After a few tests and projects, you find that everyone in the study group has been sharing personal information. This might include information about your family, career aspirations, struggles with your parents, and the like. You are now interacting at the Living Room level in your house. You share information but are still guarded about the more vulnerable things about yourself.
In the Kitchen you share more personal information. This you might do with someone you are going steady with, dating, or feel very close to. In this level of interacting, you have deeply established trust and can share your fears, concerns, weaknesses, and hopes with someone in conversation. In the kitchen, confidences are kept. Each knows and respects this fact. The kitchen is often the deepest level of intimacy outside of marriage, cohabitation, or long-term commitments. The Bedroom represents the level of intimacy that spouses and partners experience. Here a person expresses intimacy at the most intimate level. You can think of the bedroom as representing a haven where physical and emotional intimacy can flourish. In the bedroom we are seen by our partner in our naked form. This implies that we are our true naked self here. In other words, our spouse or partner accepts us and interacts with us knowing our less apparent flaws. But even for couples, boundaries must be maintained. Each of us has a Safe.
Our safe represents the most intimate, vulnerable, and personal part of who we are. We rarely open it, even for our spouse or partner. When we do open it we must train our significant other to treat its contents with the utmost in respect and dignity. This takes practice, time, and lots of forgiveness for couples to achieve. Only we know the combination to our safe and we choose when to open and close it. You will notice that the bedroom can be attached to another bedroom. You and your spouse or partner each have your own house and each interact in each other's bedroom simultaneously.
Often newlyweds have the challenge of removing extended family members from the bedroom level (especially parents).
We have heard horror stories of parents interfering with their married children's relationship by giving unsolicited financial, sexual, and/or contraceptive advice; setting up financial deals which keep the children indebted to them; and over involving their married children in their family so that their children have to struggle to establish their own marriage traditions and customs. Couples sometimes have to be extremely diligent in removing the parents or other offenders from their bedroom issues. If this is the case for you keep in mind that in the long run, it will be worth it. Relationships tend to be healthier and people tend to be happier when boundaries are maintained. The other two rooms represent unique concepts in this paradigm.
The Washroom represents a place where you can clean up the messes people sometimes bring into your house. For example, sometimes parents get too personal with their newly married children and can be offensive at times. After you and your spouse or partner remove them to the level of interacting you are comfortable with, you can symbolically wash their muddy footprints out of your rug, forgive, and get on with things. The Family Room represents the level of interacting that is appropriate to the family but not necessarily to others outside of the family system. Family jokes, stories, traditions, and other appropriate interactions occur in this room.
When family boundaries are violated there tends to be two forms of violation. Home invasion where the individual inserts themselves into the your intimate life uninvited (e.g., “how much money do you make?; why do you keep making the same mothering mistakes over and over?; or what types of sexual maneuvers do you practice?”). Then there is the Abduction, where the individual kidnaps you into his or her personal intimacies against your will (e.g., Let me tell you what my partner and I did in bed last night…; my husband is such a loser when it comes to making money. Just last week he got passed over for a promotion…; or my mom gives her pain meds to any of us children who ask.”). Neither the home invasion nor abduction is healthy when unwanted or invited.
As was mentioned before, you are responsible for maintaining the level of interaction in your house. You should interact at levels that you define as comfortable and appropriate for you. Many in our society are conditioned not to respect boundaries and most who don't are not even aware of why it is such an unhealthy practice. There are numerous methods you can use to either remove an intruder from rooms in your house or to remove yourself if you are invited into someone else's house at a level you are not comfortable with.
First, you might distract the other person by changing the subject or talking to another person in the room. Make sure NOT to give approval to those who violate boundaries, since many are hungry for constant affirmations and will continue to violate boundaries if it rewards them this way. Second, you might educate the person about boundaries and the level of intimacy he or she is interacting on and why you are uncomfortable with it. Third, you might also consider harshly confronting the other person (the sooner the better in most relationships) or if your previous efforts appear to have brought little change in the relationship. Fourth, and most extremely, you may need to sever destructive relationships where boundary violations threaten the unity and cohesiveness of the family system (e.g., a person seeking extramarital intimacy).
You are the very best judge of specifically how to maintain your personal boundaries. Keep in mind that this paradigm is based on the belief that personal boundary maintenance is really about interacting with others based on your true feelings, needs, and wants. It is not about controlling others. It is about self-control and to a large degree honesty with our self. We have included a worksheet to assist you in thinking through those strategies you might employ for specific people. We have given you an example of a generic floor plan of the house (you would do best to draw your own). In the Workbook there is a self-study questionnaire, worksheet, disposition toward theories, and a boundary maintenance questionnaire to help you personalize these principles. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.03%3A_Theories_-_Family.txt |
What Is The Difference Between Sex and Gender?
By far, sex and gender has been one of the most socially significant social factors in the history of the world and the United States. Sex is one's biological classification as male or female and is set into motion at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. Sex can be precisely defined at the genetic level with XX being female and XY being male. Believe it or not, there are very few sex differences based on biological factors. Does this surprise you? Many of my students say “but what about that whole opposite sex argument?” Truth is, biologically there is no opposite sex. Look at table 1 below to see sex differences. For the sake of argument, ignore the reproductive differences and you basically see taller, stronger, and faster males. The real difference is the reproductive body parts, their function, and corresponding hormones. The average US woman has about 2 children in her lifetime. She also experiences a monthly period. Other than that and a few more related issues listed in Table 1, reproductive roles are a minor difference in the overall daily lives women, yet so very much importance has been placed on these differences throughout history.
Table 1: Known Biological Sex Differences
Female Male
Reproductive
Vagina Penis
Uterus Testicles
Ovaries Scrotum
Breast Development Breast Dormant
Cyclic Hormones -
Other
Shorter Taller
Less aggression - Testosterone More aggression - Testosterone
Runs a bit slower Runs a bit faster
Less upper body strength More upper body strength
Live years longer (7 years in developed countries)
Live shorter lives (3 years shorter worldwide)
We have much more in common than differences. In table 2 you see a vast list of similarities common to both men and women. Every major system of the human body functions in very similar ways to the point that health guidelines, disease prevention and maintenance, and even organ transplants are very similar and guided under a large umbrella of shared guidelines. True, there are medical specialists in treating men and women, but again the similarities outweigh the differences. Today you probably ate breakfast, took a shower, walked in the sunlight, sweated, slept, used the bathroom, was exposed to germs and pathogens, grew more hair and finger nails, exerted your muscles to the point that they became stronger, and felt and managed stress. So did every man and woman you know and in very similar ways.
Table 2: Known Biological Sex Similarities
1. Digestive System
2. Respiratory System
3. Circulatory System
4. Lymphatic System
5. Urinary System
6. Musculoskeletal System
7. Nervous System
8. Endocrine System
9. Sensory System - 5
10. Immune System
11. Urinary System
12. Integumentary System - Skin, Hair, and Nails
13. Excretory System
Answer this question, which sex has Estrogen, Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Luteinizing Hormone, Prolactin, mammary glands, nipples, and even Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (at times)? Yes, you probably guessed correctly. Both males and females have all these hormones, plus many others, including testosterone.
Not only are males and females very similar, but science has shown that we truly are more female than male in biological terms. So, why the big debate of the battle of the sexes? Perhaps it's because of the impact of Gender is the cultural definition of what it means to be a man or a woman. Gender is cultural-based and varies in a thousand subtle ways across the many diverse cultures of the world. Gender has been shaped by political, religious, philosophical, language, tradition and other cultural forces for many years. To this day, in most countries of the world women are still oppressed and denied access to opportunities more than men and boys. This can be seen through many diverse historical documents.
When reading these documents, the most common theme of how women were historically oppressed in the world's societies is the omission of women as being legally, biologically, economically, and even spiritually on par with men. The second most common theme is the assumption that women were somehow broken versions of men (Google Aristotle's The Generation of Animals, Sigmund Freud's Penis Envy, or John Grey's Mars and Venus work).
Biology has disproven the belief that women are broken versions of men. In fact, the 23rd chromosome looks like XX in females and XY in males and the Y looks more like an X with a missing leg than a Y. Ironically, science has shown that males are broken or variant versions of females and the more X traits males have the better their health and longevity.
Debunking Myths About Women
In Table 1 you saw how females carry the lion share of the biological reproduction of the human race. Since history assumed that women were impaired because of their reproductive roles (men were not), societies have defined much of these reproductive traits as hindrances to activities. I found an old home health guide at an antique store in Ohio. I bought it and was fascinated that in 1898 the country's best physicians had very inaccurate information and knowledge about the human body and how it worked (See, if you can find one, The Book of Health A Practical Family Physician, 1898, by Robert W. Patton). Interestingly, pregnancy was considered “normal” within most circumstances while menstruation was seen as at type of disease process that had to be treated (back then most physicians were men and still are today). On pages 892-909 it refers to menstrual problems as being “unnatural” and normal only if “painless” and thus the patient should be treated rather than the “disease.” Indeed from a male scientific perspective in 1898, females and their natural reproductive cycles were problematic.
But, to the author, females were more fragile and vulnerable and should be treated more carefully than males especially during puberty. Patton states, “The fact is that the girl has a much greater physical and a more intense mental development to accomplish than the boy…” As for public education, he states that “The boy can do it; the girl can-sometimes…” He attributes most of the female sexual and reproductive problems to public school which is a byproduct of “women's rights, so called.”
He'd probably be stunned to see modern medicine's discoveries today. In our day, women are not defined as being inferior in comparison to men. But, in 1898, a physician (source of authority and scientific knowledge) had no reservations about stating the cultural norm in print, that women were considered broken in contrast to men.
Gender Socialization is the shaping of individual behavior and perceptions in such a way that the individual conforms to the socially prescribed expectations for males and females. One has to wonder what might have been different if all women were born into societies that valued their uniqueness and similarities in comparison to men. How much further might civilizations have progressed? It is wisdom to avoid the exclusion of any category of people-based on biological or other traits-from full participation in the development of knowledge and progress in society. In the history of the world, such wisdom has been ignored far too often.
Gender Roles as a Social Force
One can better understand the historical oppression of women by considering three social factors throughout the world's history, religion, tradition, and labor-based economic supply and demand. In almost all of the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and many others) very clear distinctions have been made about Gender Roles are socialized expectations of what is normal, desirable, acceptable, and conforming for males and females in specific jobs or positions in groups and organizations over the life course. These gender roles have very specific meanings for the daily lives and activities of males and females who live under the religious cultures in nations throughout history and even in our day. The Book of Leviticus in the Judeao-Christian Old Testament has many biological rituals based specifically on Women's' hygiene. A close friend of mine performed her Master's thesis in Ancient Near East Studies on the reproductive hygiene rituals described in the book of Leviticus (see Is God a Respecter of Persons?: Another Look at the Purity Laws in Leviticus / Anne M. Adams, 2000 in BYU Library Holdings). In brief, she found no modern-day scientific support for these religious rituals on female's health nor on their reproduction. Her conclusion was that these were religious codes of conduct, not biologically-based scientifically beneficial codes.
Many ancient writings in religions refer to the flaws of females, their reproductive disadvantages, their temperament, and the rules that should govern them in the religious community. Please don't get me wrong, if it sounds like I'm bashing religious beliefs, I'm not. In fact many current religious doctrines have transformed as society's values of gender equality have emerged. I am also a fan of religious worship and participation in whatsoever religion a person chooses to follow. My point is that throughout history, religions were a dominant social force in many nations and the religious doctrines, like the cultural values, often placed women in a subjugated role to men and a number of different levels.
The second social force is tradition. Traditions can be and have been very harsh toward women. Look at Table 3 below which shows a scale of the outcomes of oppression toward women that have and currently do exist somewhere in the world. I have always found it remarkable that even though the average woman out lives the average man by 3 years worldwide and 7 years in developed countries, there are still a few countries where cultural and social oppression literally translates into shorter life expectancies for women.
Table 3: Outcomes of the 10 Worse Forms of Oppression of Women - Worst to Least
10 - Death from cultural and social oppression1 (Various Countries)
9 - Sexual and other forms of slavery (Western Africa and Thailand)
8 - Maternal deaths (Sub-Sahara Africa and developing nations)
7 - Female Genital Mutilation (Mid-Africa about 120 million victims)
6 - Rape and sexual abuse (South Africa and United States are worst countries)
5 - Wage disparity (Worldwide)
4 - No/low education for females (Various degrees in most countries of the world)
3 - Denial of access to jobs and careers (many developing nations)
2 - Mandatory covering of females' bodies head to toe (Traditional countries, Muslim)
1 - Public demeaning of women (Still practiced, public and private)
1www.prb.org World Population Data Sheet2008; pages 7-15. http://www.prb.org/pdf08/08WPDS_Eng.pdf (Niger, Zambia, Botswana and Namibia have lower death rates for women while Kenya, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Micronesia have a tie between men and women's life expectancy-this even though in developing nations the average woman outlives the average man by 3 years)
Some cultural traditions are so harsh that females are biologically trumped by males-this by withholding nutrition, abandoning wife and daughters, abuse, neglect, violence, refugee status,, diseases, and complications of childbirth unsupported by the government. If you study this online looking at the Population Reference Bureau's many links and reports, you will find a worldwide concerted effort to persuade government, religious, and cultural leaders to shift their focus and efforts to nurture and protect women/females (www.PRB.org see also United Nations www.un.org ). Progress has already been made to some degree, but much change is still warranted because life, health and well-being are at stake for billions of women worldwide.
One of the most repugnant traditions in our world has been and is the sales of children/women into sexual and other forms of slavery. Countless civilizations that are still influential in our modern thought and tradition have sold girls and women the same way one might sell a horse or cow. It's estimated by a variety of organizations and sources that about 1 million women are currently forced into the sex slavery industry (boys are also sold and bought into slavery). India, Western Africa, and Thailand are some of the most notorious regions for this atrocity Google amnesty International, Sexual Slavery, PRB.org, United Nations, and search Wikipedia.org). Governments fail at 2 levels in the sexual slavery trade. First, they allow it to occur as in the case of Thailand where it's a major draw of male tourists; and Second, they fail to police sexual slavery which is often criminal and/or organized crime in nature. The consequences to these girls and women are harsh at every level of human existence and is often connected to the spread of HIV and other communicable diseases.
Although pregnancy is not a disease it carries with it many health risks when governments fail to provide resources to expecting mothers before, during, and after delivery of their baby. Maternal Death is the death of a pregnant woman resulting from pregnancy, delivery, or recovery complications. Maternal deaths number in the hundreds of thousands and are estimated by the United Nations to be around _ million per year worldwide (See www.UN.org ). Typically very little medical attention is required to prevent infection, mediate complications, and assist in complications to mothers. To answer this problem one must approach it at the larger social level with government, health care systems, economy, family, and other institutional efforts. The Population Reference Bureau puts a woman's risk of dying from maternal causes at 1 in 92 worldwide with it being as low as 1 in 6,000 in developed countries and as high as 1 in 22 for the least developed regions of the world (See www.prb.org World Population Data Sheet 2008). The PRB reports “little improvement in maternal Mortality in developing countries (see page 3 of the Data Sheet).
Female Genital Mutilation is the traditional cutting, circumcision, and removal of most or all external genitalia of women for the end result of closing off some or part of the vagina until such time that the woman is married and cut open. In some traditions, there are religious underpinnings. In others, there are customs and rituals that have been passed down. In no way does the main body of any world religion condone or mandate this practice-many countries where this takes place are predominantly Muslim-yet local traditions have corrupted the purer form of the religion and its beliefs and female genital mutilation predates Islam (see Obermeyer, C.M. March 1999, Female Genital Surgeries: The Known and the Unknowable. Medical Anthropology Quaterly13, pages 79-106;p retrieved 5 December from http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/...q.1999.13.1.79 ). An analogy can be drawn from the Taliban which was extreme in comparison to most Muslims worldwide and which literally practiced homicide toward its females to enforce conformity. It should also be explained that there are no medical therapeutic benefits from female genital mutilation. Quite the contrary, there are many adverse medical consequence that result from it from ranging from pain, difficulty in childbirth, illness, and even death.
Many human rights groups, the United Nations, scientists, advocates, the United States, the World Health Organization, and other organizations have made aggressive efforts to influence the cessation of this practice worldwide. But, progress has come very slowly. Part of the problem is that women often perform the ritual and carry on the tradition as it was perpetrated upon them. In other words, many cases have women preparing the next generation for it and at times performing it on them.
As was mentioned in the chapter on rape and sexual assault, Rape is not the same as sex. Rape is violence, motivated by men with power, anger, selfish, and sadistic issues. Rape is dangerous and destructive and more likely to happen in the United States than in most other countries of the world. There are 195 countries in the world today. The US typically is among the worst 5 percent in terms of rape (Yes, that means 95% of the world's countries are safer for women than the US). Consecutive studies performed by the United Nations Surveys on crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems confirm that South Africa is the most dangerous, crime-ridden nation on the planet in all crimes including rape (see http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a...e-Systems.html).
The world's histories with very few exceptions have recorded the pattern of sexually abusing boys, girls, and women. Slavery, conquest of war, kidnapping, assault, and other circumstances are the context of these violent practices. Online there is a Website at www.rainn.org which is a tremendous resources for knowledge and information especially about rape, assault, incest and issues relating to the United States. The United Nations reported that, “Women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, motor accidents, war and malaria, according to World Bank data (Retrieved 5 December, 2008 from http://www.un.org/women/endviolence/docs/VAW.pdf, UNite To End Violence Against Women, Feb. 2008). The UN calls for a criminal Justice System response and for increased prioritization and awareness. Anything might help since almost every country of the world is struggling to prevent sexual violence and rape against its females.
Opportunities
Wage disparities between males and females is both traditional and labor-based economic supply and demand. Statistics show past and current discrepancies in lower pay for women. Diane White made a 1997 presentation to the United Nations General Assembly stated that “Today the wage disparity gap cost American women \$250,000 over the course of their lives” (Retrieved 5 December from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/s...ne%20White.pdf. Indeed evidence supports her claim that women are paid less in comparison to men and their cumulated losses add up to staggering figures. The US Census Bureau reported in 2008 that US women earn 77 cents for every US man's \$1 (See: American Community Survey . They also reported that in some places (Washington DC) and in certain fields (Computers and mathematical) women earn as much as 98 cents per a man's \$1. At the worldwide level “As employees, women are still seeking equal pay with men. Closing the gap between women's and men's pay continues to be a major challenge in most parts of the world” (retrieved 5 Dec., 2008 from the UNstats.org from The World's Women 2005: Progress and Statistics http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demograph..._4_Work_BW.pdf; page 54).
The report also discussed the fact that about 60 countries have begun to keep statistics on informal (unpaid) work by women. Needless to say even though measuring paid and unpaid work of women is not as accurate as needed for world considerations, “Women contribute to development not only through remunerated work but also through a great deal of unremunerated work” (page 47).
Why the lower wages for women? The traditional definition of the reproductive roles of women as being “broken, diseased, or flawed” is part of the answer of wage disparity. The idea that reproductive roles interfere with the continuity of the workplace and the idea that women cannot be depended on plays heavily into the maltreatment of women. The argument can be made that traditional and economic factors have lead to the existing patterns of paying women less for their same education, experience, and efforts compared to men.
Efforts to provide formal education to females worldwide have escalated over the last few decades. The 2002 Kids Count International Data Sheet estimated rates as low as 11 percent of females in primary school in Somalia (retrieved 8 December , 2008 from http://www.prb.org/pdf/childrenwallchartfinal.pdf. A 1993 World Bank report made it very clear that females throughout the world were being neglected in receiving their formal educations when compared to males (see Subbarro, K. and Raney, L. 1993, “Social Gains from Female Education: A Cross-National Study”. World Bank Discussion Papers 194; retried from Eric ED 363542 on 8 December, 2008). In 1998 another example is found in efforts specific to Africa via the Forum of African Women Educationalists which focuses on governmental policies and practices for female education across the continent (retrieved 8 Dec 2008 from http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/...x/114sped3.htm ). Literally hundreds of studies have since focused on other regions around and below the equator where education levels for females are much lower.
In 1999 it was reported by UNICEF that 1 billion people would never learn to read as children with 130 million school aged children (73 million girls) without access to basic education (retrieved, 8 Dec 2008 from http://www.unicef.org/sowc99/ ). Another UNICEF 2008 report clearly identifies the importance of educating girls who grow up to be mothers because of the tremendous odds that those educated mothers will ensure that their children are also formally educated ( see http://www.unicef.org/sowc08/docs/sowc08.pdf). In its statistical tables it shows that Somalia is now up to 22 percent for boys and girls in primary schools, yet in most countries females are still less likely to be educated ( see http://www.unicef.org/sowc08/docs/sowc08_table_1.pdf). The main point from UNICEF and many other formal reports is that higher formal education for females is associated with life, health, protection from crime and sexual exploitation, and countless other benefits, especially to females in the poorer regions of the world.
In the United States most females and males attend some form of formal education. After high school, many go to college. Even though the US numbers of 18-24 year old men are higher than women (www.USCensus.gov ) women are more likely to attend college based on percentages, 57% are Women (retrieved 8 December 2008 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/educati...ge-cover_x.htm ).
A projection from the National Center for Education Statistics projects a continuing trend up and through the year 2016 where about 58 percent of US college students will be female (retrieved 8 December, 2008 from “Projections of Education Statistics to 2016” http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projecti...2016/sec2c.asp ). By 2016 about 60 percent of graduated students will be females (see http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projecti...2016/sec4b.asp). These numbers reflect a strong and concerted push toward equality of opportunity for females in formal education that does date back over a century. The challenge is to avoid defining progress for US females in public and private education as having been made at the expense of males. That's much too simplistic.
They also reflect a change in the culture of breadwinning and the adult roles of males. Males and/or females who don't pursue a college degree will make less money than those who did. To make sense of this trend, many males have been identified as having a prolonged adolescence (even into their 30's), video game playing mentality, and a "live with your parents indefinitely" strategy until their shot at the labor force has passed them by. Others have pointed out the higher rates of learning disabilities in K-12, the relatively low percentage of K-5 teachers who are males, and the higher rate of male dropouts. Still others blame attention deficit and hyperactivity as part of the problem. Here is a truism about education in the US:
Higher education=higher pay=higher social prestige=higher income=higher quality of life.
Many countries of the world have neutralized the traditional, religious, and labor-force based biases against women and have moved to a merit-based system. Even in the US, there have been “men's wages, then women and children's wages (1/10th to 12/3rd of a man's). In a sense, any hard working, talented person can pursue and obtain a high-end job, including women. Communism broke some of these barriers early on in the 20th century, but the relatively low wages afforded those pursuing these careers somewhat offset the advances women could have made. In the US progress has come more slowly. Physicians are some of the brightest and best paid specialists in the world. Salaries tend to begin in the \$100,000 range and can easily reach \$500,000 depending on the specialty (see http://www.allied-physicians.com/sal...n-salaries.htm ). Prior to 1970 most physicians were white and male, but things are slowly changing.
See Table 4 for trends between 1970 and 2006.
Table 4: The Percentage of Physicians who are Male and Female1
Year % Male % Female
1970 92.4% 7.6%
1980 88.4% 11.6%
1990 83.1% 16.9%
2000 76.3% 24.0%
2002 74.8% 25.2%
2003 74.2% 25.8%
2006 72.2% 27.8%
1Retrieved from the American Medical Association 8 December, 2008 from “Table 1- Physicians By Gender (Excludes Students)” http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12912.html]
The upward trend shows a concerted effort to provide equal opportunity for females and males. Engineers have also seen a concerted effort to facilitate females into the profession. The Society of Women Engineers is a non-profit organization which helps support and recognize women as engineers (see http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/index.php ). Look at Figure 1 below.
Computer-based careers are seeing striking gains in some areas for women who will be hired competitively based on merit. The same cannot be said for doctoral level employment in the more prestigious fields. In Figure 2 you can see 2005 estimates from the US National Science Foundation.
The first 6 fields are the highest paying fields to work in while social and psychological sciences are among the least paying. Women clearly dominate Psychology and nearly tie in social sciences and biology. True, at the doctoral level pay is higher than at the masters and bachelors levels, but the difference in engineering and psychology is remarkable at every level of education (see http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000 ).
The mandatory covering of females' bodies head to toe has been opposed by some and applauded by others. Christians, Hindus, and many other religious groups have the practice of covering or veiling in their histories. Yet, over the last 30 years, as fundamentalist Muslim nations and cultures have returned to their much more traditional way of life, Hijab, the Arabic word that means to cover or veil, has become more common. Often Hijab means modest and private in the day to day interpretations of the practice. For some countries it is a personal choice, while for others it becomes a crime not to comply. The former Taliban, punished such a crime with death (they also punished formal school of females and the use of makeup by death).
Many women's rights groups have brought public attention to this trend, not so much because the mandated covering of females is that oppressive, but because the veiling and covering is symbolic of the religious, traditional, and labor-forced patterns of oppression that have caused so many problems for women and continue to do so today.
I interviewed a retired OBGYN nurse who served as a training nurse for a mission in Saudi Arabia on a volunteer basis. She taught other local nurses from her 30 years of experience. Each and every day she was guarded by machine gun toting security forces everywhere she went. She was asked to cover and veil and did so. I asked her how she felt about that, given that her US culture was so relaxed on this issue.
“I wanted to teach those women and knew that they would benefit from my experience. I just had to do what I was told by the authorities,” she said.
“What would have happened if you had tried to leave the compound without your veil?” I asked.
“I suspect, I would have been arrested and shot.” She chuckles. “Not shot, perhaps, but If I did not comply, my training efforts would have been stopped and I would have been sent home.”
“So, you complied because of your desire to train the nurses?”
“That and the mothers and babies.” She answered.
(Interview with HB, 12 June, 2005)
The public demeaning of women has been acceptable throughout various cultures because publically demeaning members of society who are privately devalued and/or considered flawed fits the reality of most day-to-day interactions. Misogyny is the physical or verbal abuse and mistreatment of women. Verbal misogyny is unacceptable in public in most Western Nations today. With the ever present technology found in cell phones, video cameras, and security devices a person's private and public misogynistic language could easily be recorded and posted for millions to see on any number of Websites.
Perhaps, this fear of being found out as a woman-hater is not the ideal motivation for creating cultural values of respect and even admiration of women and men. As was mentioned above, most of the world historical leaders assumed that women were not as valuable as men and it has been a few decades since changes have begun. Yet, an even more sinister assumption has and does persist today, that women were the totality of their reproductive role, or Sex=Gender (Biology=Culture). If this were true then women would ultimately just be breeders of the species, rather than valued human beings they are throughout the world today.
An early pioneer and one of my personal heroines is an anthropologist named, Margaret Mead (1901-1978). Dr. Mead earned her Ph.D. under the direction of some of the best anthropologists of her day. But, she was a woman in a mostly male-dominated academic field. In my own readings of her works-her works are regularly quoted in many different disciplines today-I marvel that she successfully challenged the sexist and misogynistic notions established in academics at the time.
Bold Research on Gender
Mead's work entitled, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) became a major seminal work in the women's liberation movement and thereby in the redefinition of women in many Western Societies. Her observations of gender in three tribes, Arapesh, Mundugamor, and Tchambuli created a national discussion which lead many to reconsider the established Sex=Gender assumption. In these tribes she found the following:
Arapesh-both men and women displayed what we typically call feminine traits: sensitivity, cooperation, and low levels of aggression.
Mundugamor-both men and women were insensitive, uncooperative, and very aggressive. These were typical masculine traits at the time.
Tchambuli-women were aggressive, rational and capable and were also socially dominant. Men were passive assuming artistic and leisure roles.
Why then, Mead argued, if our reproductive roles determined our cultural and social opportunities were the gender definitions varied and unique among less civilized peoples? Were we not less civilized ourselves at one point in history and have we not progressed on a similar path the tribal people take? Could it be that tradition (culture) was the stronger social force rather than biology? Mead's work and her public influence helped to establish the belief that biology is only a part of the Sex and Gender question (albeit an important part). Mead established that Sex≠Gender. But, even with the harshest criticism launched against her works, her critics supported and even inadvertently reinforced the idea that biology shapes but cultures are more salient in how women and men are treated by those with power.
Misogyny is easier to perpetrate if one assumes the weakness, biological frailty, and perhaps even diminished capacity that women were claimed to have had. I personally witnessed the rise and fall of some who tried to persist in the traditional definition of women. Andrew Clay Silverstein (1957-present) was a nationally successful comedian who also played in a movie and TV show (although he recently appeared on Celebrity Apprentice). His career ended abruptly because of his harsh sexist themes which were being performed in an age of clarity and understanding about gender values. Mr. Clay failed to recognize the social change which surrounded him. We often overlook the change and the continuing problems ourselves. It is advantageous to you and I not to make the same mistake in our own career paths.
Professional and volunteer organizations have made concerted efforts to raise awareness of the English language and its demeaning language toward females. English as a derivative of German has many linguistic biases against women, non-whites, poor, and non-royalty. Raising awareness and discussing the assumptions within English or any other language has been part of the social transformation toward cultural and biological fairness and equality. If we understand how the words we use influence the culture we live in and how the value of that culture influence the way we treat one another, then we begin to see the importance of language on the quality of life.
The quality of life for women is of importance at many different levels in the world. As you've read through this chapter, you've probably noticed that much is yet to be accomplished worldwide. The United States has seen much progress. But, other nations continually rank the “world's best nation for women”. Many European countries far outrank the US for quality of Women's lives. In Fact, in 2008 the US ranked number 27th (retrieved 9 December, 2008 from http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...omen-to-live/1 ).
The Global Gender Gap Index was developed to measure the quality of life for women between countries. It measures the gap between males and females in objective statistics that focus on equality. There are four pillars in the index which include economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival using 14 indicators from each countries national statistics. From 1998-2006, there was a reported net improvement for all countries (page 27).
When one considers the day-to-day lives of women in these national statistics, and perhaps more importantly in their personal lives, the concept of what women do as their contribution to the function of society becomes important. Instrumental Tasks are goal directed activities which link the family to the surrounding society, geared toward obtaining resources. This includes economic work, breadwinning, and other resource-based efforts. Expressive Tasks pertain to the creation and maintenance of a set of positive, supportive, emotional relationships within the family unit. This includes relationships, nurturing, and social connections needed in the family and society. Today, women do both and typically do them well.
Prior to the Industrial revolution both males and females combined their local economic efforts in homemaking. Most of these efforts were cottage industry-type where families used their children's' labor to make products they needed from soap, thread, fabric, butter, and many other products. When the factory model of production emerged in Western Civilizations, the breadwinner and homemaker became more distinct. The breadwinner is a parent or spouse who earns wages outside of the home and uses them to support the family. The homemaker is typically a women who occupies her life with mothering, housekeeping, and being a wife while depending heavily on the breadwinner.
What About Men?
In the past two decades a social movement referred to as The Men's Movement has emerged. The Men's Movement is a broad effort across societies and the world to improve the quality of life and family-related rights of men. Since the Industrial revolution, men have been emotionally exiled from their families and close relationships. They have become the human piece of the factory machinery (or computer technology in our day) that forced them to disconnect from their most intimate relationships and to become money-acquisition units rather than emotionally powerful pillars of their families.
Many in this line of thought attribute higher suicide rates, death rates, accident rates, substance abuse problems, and other challenges in the lives of modern men directly to the broad social process of post-industrial breadwinning. Not only did the Industrial revolution's changes hurt men, but the current masculine role is viewed by many as being oppressive to men, women, and children. Today a man is more likely to kill or be killed, to abuse, and to oppress others. Table 5 lists some of the issues of concern for those in the Men's Movement.
Table 5: Concerns in the Men's Movement
1. Life and health challenges
2. Emotional isolation
3. Sexual research and rights
4. Post-divorce/separation father's rights
5. False sex of physical abuse allegations
6. Early education challenges for boys
7. Declining college attendance
8. Protection from domestic abuse
9. Man-hating or bashing
10. Lack of support for fatherhood
11. Paternal rights and abortion
12. Affirmative action-sex and race
The list of concerns displays the quality of life issues mixed in with specific legal and civil rights concerns. Men's Movement sympathizers would most likely promote or support equality of rights for men and women. They are aware of the Male Supremacy Model, where males erroneously believe that men are superior in all aspects of life and that should excel in everything they do. They also concerns themselves with the Sexual Objectification of Women, where men learn to view women as objects of sexual consumption rather than as a whole person. Male Bashing is the verbal abuse and use of pejorative and derogatory language about men.
These and other concerns are not being aggressively supported throughout the world as are the women's rights and suffrage efforts discussed above. Most of the Men's Movement efforts are in Western Societies, India, and a handful of others.
Figure 3 below shows the transition in family gender roles over the course of the Industrial Revolution through to Post World War II. Families in Pre-Industrial Europe and the US were subsistence-based, meaning they spent much of their daily lives working to prepare food and other goods on a year-round basis. Men, women, children, and other family and friends succeeded because they all contributed to the collective good of the family economy.
The Industrial Revolution created the roles of breadwinners and homemakers. After the Industrial revolution was in full swing, women continued their subsistence work and remained homemakers while men continued in their breadwinning roles. After World War II, there was a social structural change where women began assuming the breadwinner role and became more and more common among the ranks of paid employees, especially beginning in 1960s-1980s. They had managed to remain homemakers, but men had not moved into the homemaking role to the same degree that women had moved into the breadwinning role. This creates a strong level of burden and expectation for US women who find themselves continuing to work outside the home for pay and inside the home for their informal domestic roles.
You will read later about intimacy and how it works between people. For now, suffice it to say that men often find a closer bond to their wife, children and other family members when they engage in domestic homemaking roles. Mundane family work is the activity that facilitates ongoing attachments and bonds among those who participate in it together.
Many couples today already share homemaking roles, just out of practical and functional need. They often find the co-homemaking/breadwinning role to be defined in a few typical styles. First, is the Tourist Husband style. The Tourist Husband is a visitor to the homemaking role who contributes the occasional assistance to his wife as a courtesy-much like a tourist might offer occasional assistance to their host. He often believes himself to be very generous since it is hers and not his role. Second, is the Assistant Homemaker where the husband looks to his wife for direction and for instruction on how to “help” her out in her homemaking role. Like one of the children, housework and homemaking task are the mother/wife's job and he helps if called upon.
Finally, there is the Co-homemaker husband who never “helps” his wife with homemaking task, but assumes that she and he equally share their breadwinning and homemaking responsibilities. The Co-homemaker husband is most likely to bond with his children, understand the daily joys and sorrows of all his individual family members, and feel a strong connection to his home and family (something Men's Movement advocates lament having lost).
Housework is one area of life that allows men to return to the intimacy and close familial influences they once enjoyed prior to the Industrial Revolution. Housework is mundane and repetitive. Yet, studies have shown that when men do housework with their children an emotional bonding process takes place and they create positive working memories together. I once heard it explained by a friend of mine who is a Clinical Psychologists. He suggested “turn off the TV, shut down the computer, unplug the games, take all phones of the hook. Then just try one hour of housework. Something magical will happen between parents and children as the boredom of housework begins to settle in-they begin to talk about things.” This is often true. Parents are much more interesting to children when all their friends and electronic distractions are removed. Children will open up while working with parents. And parents who avoid the urge to preach or make a speech, and who just talk to their children the way they might to their friends will find this very rewarding.
Listen carefully. I've said for 22 years that “men and children should never help their wife or mother with housework.” I truly mean this. If nearly 2/3rds of women work for pay, and if she has an average of 2 children, and if men truly respect and support their wife they will assume the responsibility as co-homemakers and not leave the burden solely upon her. They can't “help” her if it is their work too! It baffles me how husbands and wives even talk about work. She might ask, “I'm going out tonight can you babysit the children?” I say, “How can a man babysit his own children?” He doesn't. He just serves as a father to them while his wife is away.
With housework, it is his and his children's house too. Children and fathers who do housework together with their mothers find less stress for her and more closeness between family members. For women who come from traditional homes it is tempting to take on the role of housework police. She has in her mind what needs to be done and how it should appear once finished. To truly incorporate all members of the family in the housework, she often has to accept a clean house that may not exactly fit her ideals. Figure 7 shows a continuum of housework standards.
On the far left little to no housework gets done. The home is not clean nor is it attractive. Confusion is common in unclean households. No one has control over cleaning. On the far right the woman (wife, Mother, or Partner) does all the work and can keep the home precisely as she wants it to be. She may have to use coercion to get other family members to comply. One of my fellow professors is quoted as having said, “Do you want it clean or do you want us happy?”
Even if women in the sole home cleaning role find themselves capable of resisting the urge to manipulate other family members to join her in her ideal cleaning efforts, she keeps all the control and essentially becomes the ruler of house cleaning. Her children may grow up expecting to be cleaned up after by a woman. They may also feel emotionally disconnected from her. She can present a clean and attractive home but does not have the benefits of the bond that comes with all family members doing their part.
Today, the average US woman works for money outside the home. She has children or grandchildren and a male spouse or partner. If she chooses to share control and to accept a moderate level of hygiene and appearance, she can facilitate a group effort that includes all family members in the house cleaning work. This teaches children to learn how to work and work well with others. This also facilitates time spent together away from the distractions of technology where all members take responsibility for the home's care and maintenance. There is great potential for family unity and close bonds. The matriarch of the home often leads the family on this matter. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.04%3A_Gender_and_Socialization.txt |
Chapter 5: Love and Intimacy
Love and intimacy go hand in hand. Love is the physical, emotional, sexual, intellectual, or social affection one person holds for another. A thesaurus lists related concepts to love which include adore, desire, prefer, possess, care for, serve, and even worship as similar concepts. Intimacy, on the other hand, is a close relationship where mutual acceptance, nurturance, and trust are shared at some level. In order to understand love in human relationships you must first understand how the self either enhances or inhibits your capacity to love.
You self developed under the watchful eyes of your caregiver or parents. When you were a newborn you were totally dependent upon the adults in your life to take care of your needs and raise you in a safe environment. You had to be fed and clothed, bathed and held, and loved and appreciated. While your caregivers provided for those basic needs in your life, you attached to them and they attached to you. An attachment is an emotional and social bind that forms between one person and another. Humans are considered highly motivated to form attachments through their lives.
Attachments are crucial to human existence and are essentially the emotional context of those relationships we all have in life. As an infant you learned to trust those who cared for you. You learned that they return once they are out of view and that they can be depended upon. Eventually your brain allows you to love the person you are attached to and to care for them whether or not they are giving care to you. You learn then that your attachments facilitate your needs and wants being met. How you attached as an infant and young child shape (at least in theory) how you will likely attach as an adult. If you had strong attachments in childhood then forming adult relationships should be easier for you. If you had weak or interrupted attachments in childhood then forming adult relationships-especially loving ones will be more difficult for you.
As adults, one of the very first symptoms that you are falling in love is that you begin to feel better about yourself when you are with the other person. One of my students commented in class, “That's true for my boyfriend and me. We started off just hanging out with mutual friends. Then we were talking a lot on the phone. But, both us felt that feeling of wanting to be together more often and feeling good, you know safe together.”
It can be argued that you can only be in love as much as your self will allow you to be.
Why? Because intimacy develops along with love and intimacy requires that you have the ability to be your true self with the other person. Figure 1 shows what I call the “Zone of Vulnerability,” or the birthplace of intimacy. The photos of the young man and woman in this figure represent you and your other and how you traverse the dangers of getting to know someone while you enter and reside in the zone of vulnerability. The guy and gal in this figure as total strangers to one another enjoy a certain safety that comes by keeping safely away from relationships, away from personal conversations, and away from any risks of being hurt (or hurt again).
She or he can go to classes, work, social events, even on dates and never leave her or his private comfort zone. It doesn't take much to mask the fact that you are hiding safely away from risks even when outwardly you appear to be very confident and socially skilled (watch the Movie “Hitch, 2005 with Will Smith, Eva Mendes, and Kevin James).
But, if and when intimacy and love enters the equation, you have to leave your safety zone. Typically when two strangers meet they self-disclose. Self-disclosure is the process or revealing the true nature of oneself to another person. Once you or the other person open up and share something vulnerable (see the blue arrow in the diagram) you enter an emotional mine field of sorts. You become at risk. Your fears and pains from past relationships, your feelings of being emotionally vulnerable or naked, and especially your fears of being exposed as a flawed individual all sift the process of you letting the other person sneak a peek into the nature of your true self.
This sifting process is shaped by countless interactions with others that preceded this moment in time. The sifting through past experience can make it very risky for some.
But, once you self-disclose the potential for intimacy and love can be realized. There is a greater chance of intimacy developing when the other person self-discloses back to you, or reciprocates your efforts to connect. For example, let's say that the guy and gal in this figure had their pictures taken so that they could submit them to the university cheer squad tryouts. On the day of tryouts they meet one another for the first time and make casual conversation in the registration line.
During tryouts they are assigned to team up to perform a series of lifts. Circumstances have brought them together, but intimacy is typically more deliberate. He might ask,
“Where did you cheer in high school?”
She might tell him the school name and place then ask, “What about you?” At this level of questioning, just talking is mildly risky, but they are only talking at a level called Shop Talk, which is safe conversation about superficial things (places, time, weather, etc.). If she came back with a question of her own such as, “What do you think the chances are we make the team?” she has begun a conversation about opinions and feelings.
He might reply, “I think we have as good a chance as the others. I hope we both make it.
Hey, uh, you sound like your really need this to happen.”
“Yeah, I need the scholarship and I'm majoring in dance so it will help me keep in shape.” What about you?”
“Oh, I'm majoring in pre-law. The scholarship would be great, too. Hey, would you like to go get a juice or something…”
In this example, their shop talk quickly transformed into the mutual sharing of personal information. This is essential for intimacy to have a chance to form. Perhaps, if they feel safe enough over time and with a number of interactions they can become very close and trusting of one another as friends or lovers. Nice that it works that way sometimes, but truth be known we more often miss than hit when forming intimate relationships.
Consider what might have happened if the conversation went like this: He might ask,
“Where did you cheer in high school?” She might tell him the school name and place.
Then continue packing her things making no more comments. “My name is Jeff. What's yours?” He might ask, extending his hand to shake. “Melisa. Good luck with the tryouts.” As she walks away not shaking his hand nor making eye contact. Because mutual involvement did not occur, intimacy stopped before it every really had a chance.
Remember, once self-disclosure take place the risk factor comes into play. If self-disclosure is mutually reciprocated then intimacy may begin. If it is not reciprocated then intimacy typically will not develop. We are built to experience love. Psychologists and Biologists will tell you that best friends or not chemicals either reinforce feelings of love or inhibit them. Our attractions are connected to our testosterone, oxytocin, luteinizing, estrogens, serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, and other chemicals and hormones levels in our bodies. Sociologists will tell you that the need for social relationships, especially attachments, drive much of our daily social interactions with others. Theologians will tell you that love is divine and is part of our eternal natures.
Psychologists have taken a variety of approaches in the study of love. John Lee is perhaps the most quoted researcher on love with his six love types. Lee assumed that we all shared 6 core components of love and that our current loving relationship can be assessed and measured. Lee also claimed that there are qualities of love types-some more long-lasting and supportive of relationships and some pathological and defective which inhibit relationships (see Lee, John, A (1988) ALove Styles@ in The Psychology of Love; Sternberg, R. & Barnes, M eds. New Haven CT: Yale U. Press). Lee's love types are widely used to help people understand their love styles. Lee claimed that six types of love comprised our loving experiences. Eros is the love of sensuality, sex, taste, touch, sight, hearing, and smell. Eros love is often what we feel when turned on. Eros love is neither good nor bad. It is simply part of the overall love composite we experience with another person.
Storgé love is the love of your best friend in a normal casual context of life. Storgé is calm and peaceful, surprising to some who might have simply hung out together at one point but suddenly discovered that their friendship deepened and became more important than other friendships. “We started needing to be together, talking on the phone for hours, and missing each other when apart,” are common descriptions of Storgé love.
Many believe that most young couples marry with Storgé relationship in the US today.
Pragma love is the love of details and qualities in the other person. Pragma lovers are satisfied and attracted by the other because of their characteristics (e.g., athleticism, intelligence, wealth, etc.). Pragma lovers feel love at a rational level-thinking to a certain degree about the good deal they are getting in the relationship.
Agapé love is the love that is selfless, other-focused, and seeks to serve others rather than receive from others. Lee referred to a Christian love when originally wrote the chapter cited above. Since then this type of love can be identified across cultures and religions.
Lee identified to defective love types that come from a damaged sense of self: Ludis and Mania.
Ludis is an immature love that is more of a tease than a legitimate loving relationship.
Ludic lovers trick their mates into believing that they are sincerely in love, while all the while grooming 1, 2, or even 3 other lovers at the same time. Ludic lovers artificially stroke their sense of self-worth by laying a cruel game on their lovers who end up feeling used and betrayed. Mania is an insecure love that is a mixture of conflict and artificially romantic Eros expressions. Manic lovers are horrified of being abandoned and simultaneously terrified by the vulnerabilities they feel when intimate with their lover.
Thus their daily routines are typically make out…argue…sweet talk…slap fight…make out…verbal yell fest…make love…stop talking…sweet talk…break up…make out…
Another psychologists named Abraham Maslow addressed love in terms of how our needs are met by the other person. His basic premise is that we pair of with those whose love style fills an unmet childhood need. In other words, Maslow said that if our childhood needs were not met in the basics of survival, safety, food, shelter, love, belonging, and even self-esteem then we look for an adult companion that can fill those needs for us. It's like an empty cup from our childhood that our adult partner fills for us.
Maslow also said that when all those basic needs are met in childhood then we are attracted to an adult partner who compliments our full development into our psychological potential (Google Maslow's pyramid of Hierarchy of Needs, Being and Deficiency love). If in your childhood your survival, safety, food, shelter, love, belonging, and even self-esteem needs were unmet then you will be attracted to a Deficiency Lover. A Deficiency Lover is a lover who provides the basic level of needs for their partner while having their needs reciprocally met in a similar way. A Being Lover meets you aesthetic, intellectual and full actualization or human capacity needs while you reciprocally meet their in a similar way.
Robert Sternberg was the Geometry of Love psychologists who triangulated love using intimacy, passion, and commitment on the 3 corners of the triangle and by measuring the intensity of each and how intense it was for the couple. To Sternberg it was important to consider how each partner's triangle matched the other partner's. He said that a couple with all three types of love, balanced and in sufficient magnitude would have a rare yet rewarding type of love that encompassed much of what couple seek for in a loving relationship (Google Robert Sternberg, Triangular Theory of Love, Consummate Love).
Sternberg's Consummate Love was a love type that had equal measures of passion, intimacy, and commitment that is satisfactory to both lovers.
A popular psychologist named Gary Chapman spoke of the culture of our love and addressed love the same way you or I met address how you'd prepare travel to or live in another country. You wouldn't just up and go to Mexico without first familiarizing yourself with the language customs and traditions. In the same line of reasoning, you would be wise when you fall in love to study the other person's culture of expressing love and then study your own. Chapman spoke of how we express verbal love, love in physical touch, love through service, love by spending quality time together, love by receiving gifts given to us by those who love us (See Gary Chapman The Five Love Languages, How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate).
In a less-modern and scientific approach to love, philosophers and writers have addressed love and its origins over the millennia of years. The ancient Greeks spoke of a few types of love that we define similarly in our society today. Eros is the love of the body, touch, senses, and sexual pleasuring. Eros proves in our culture to be a significant part of a long-term relationship. Eros in combination with other love types can be very satisfying to those in intimate relationships. Agape love is a pure love felt at the soul level where one person loves another at a profound level. Agape love may be what we feel for others when we hear about their tragedies, when we hear about their accomplishments, or when we hear about positive normal life events. John Lee drew upon these love types for his work in the US 1970s.
Philia is often referred to as brotherly love (e.g., Philadelphia=city of brotherly love) or love without passion. It addresses the component of love between family members where
needs are mutually met by members of the family. Plato's definition of love (often called Platonic Love) included a nonsexual relationship, that could include deep levels of trust and intimacy and could be found among many types of relationships (couples, families, friends, even strangers, for more information, Google Greek love types, Platonic Love, and/or philosophy of love). Plato gave a test for true love when he claimed that true love will endure over space and time, or when two people are not together for a while.
In modern day applications of love, various components have been found as the ingredients of love: commitment, passion, friendship, trust, loyalty, affections, intimacy, acceptance, caring, concern, care, selflessness, infatuation, and romance. There is a love type identified that many people are aware of called Unconditional Love. Unconditional love is the sincere love that does not vary regardless of the actions of the person who is loved. Unconditional love is so deep and profound that it lets us forgive and still love.
Some of this love type is found in almost all relationships. You often hear it expressed in greater measure among parents of children whose misbehaviors embarrass or make them ashamed. The love types and patterns discussed below are taken form many sources, but fit neatly into the Lee, Maslow, Sternberg, or Chapman paradigms. I urge you to study their original works if you are interested in understanding how love is measured and studies.
Romantic love is based on continual courtship and physical intimacy. Romantic lovers continue to date long after they marry or move in together. They often express the strong sexual attraction to the other that was there from the beginning. Romantic lovers are idealistic about their relationship and often feel that it was destined to be. They often define mundane activities such as grocery shopping or commuting into work as escapades of two lovers.
What happens when very young people feel love for the first time? What is puppy love or infatuation? Infatuation is a temporary state of love where the other person is overly idealized and seen in narrow and extremely positive terms. An infatuated person my think obsessively about the other, may feel a strong emotional response when they are together, may see their entire world as revolving around the other, may see them being together for the rest of their lives, may find one or two qualities of the other as being near perfect, or may be seen by others as having a crush on the other person. Regardless of the details infatuations rarely last very long. This love develops quickly much like a firework launches quickly into the night sky, puts on an emotional light show, then burns out quickly. Many define puppy love or infatuation as an immature love experienced by those who are younger and perhaps a bit gullible.
Committed love is a love that is loyal and devoted. Two lovers may share committed love with or without physical affection, romance, friendship, trust, loyalty, acceptance, caring, concern, care, selflessness, and or infatuation. Committed lovers have a long-term history with one another and typically combine caregiving, concern for one another's well-being, and spending much time thinking of the other. Committed lovers are there when needed by the other person.
Altruism is a selfless type of love that serves others while not serving the one who is altruistic. True altruism is hard to find according to some. Many find similarities in the Greek Agapé and altruism. The world's major religions each have a version of altruism
One elderly woman told me that when she was younger you never could have convinced her that the flu could help build her loving relationship to her husband. She said when she was in her 50s she caught a really bad version of the flu and was nearly hospitalized during the worst part of it. She said one night her husband spent the entire night taking care of her needs. “He stood in front of me while I was on the toilette and held me up, even though I was vomiting. He did this so that I could hold on to what little dignity I had left. After each episode he carefully bathed me and helped me get some sleep.
When I finally recovered I realized that my love for him grew dramatically during this illness, because he took care of me and never asked for so much as a thank you for having done it.” Her husband expressed that his love grew even more than hers during this illness.
Sexual or Passionate lovers are focused on the intensely sensual pleasures that are found with the senses of taste, smell, touch, feel, hear, and sight. Sexual lovers lust one another and feel closest when together and being physical. Sexual lovers can be together for 5
minutes, 5 days, five weeks or five years, but sexual love, by itself typically is short-lived. There is closeness during sex and activities leading up to sex, but not much thereafter. Sexual love when combined with other love types can be very beneficial to the couple. Sexual love is almost always the love type experienced by those having an extra-marital affair.
Friendship love includes intimacy and trust among close friends. In our day, most long-burning or enduring love types form among people who were first close friends.
Friendship lovers tend to enjoy each other's company, conversation, and daily interactions. They consider one another to be “go to” friends when advice is needed or when problems need to be talked about together. Not all friendship lovers become a couple. Many are just close or best friends. Yet, many who spend the rest of their lives together will start out their relationship as friends.
Criteria or realistic love is the love feelings you have when your list of a potential mate's personal traits is met in the other person. Women often desire their man to be taller. Men and women often desire to find a partner with homogamous traits (e.g., same religion, political leanings, hobbies, etc.). I personally had a friend who always said he would marry a red head. He did. I have another friend who said he'd never marry a thin woman and he didn't. Each of us has an ideal for a partner and we tend to get some of those characteristics with people we become intimate with and eventually marry.
Obsessive love is an unhealthy love type where conflict and dramatic extremes in the relationship are both the goal and the theme of the couple's love. Obsessive lovers live for storms and find peace while they rage. They are often violent or overly aggressive at
different levels. A few couples bring complimentary traits to the relationship which light the other's fire of madness if you will. In other words, she may be angry and violent with him, but not with some other guys. He may feel simultaneously drawn to her and repulsed, but not with other gals. Their personality chemistry contributes to the insanity and lack of peace. Please note, these couples most likely need professional counseling and would probably be better off if they broke up immediately and never saw one another again. At the same time, why would they seek help or leave the person whose entanglements bring them such an occupation with drama and conflict that they are freed from their boredom and entertained at the same time.
Finally there is deceptive love. Deceptive love is formed when one or both partners either consciously or unconsciously mislead the other in an effort to dishonestly establish trust and intimacy. This love type follows a “catch and release” or a “black widow/widower” mode. In the catch and release mode one partner lures the other in by pretending to experience all the romance and trappings of falling in love when in reality he or she is tricking the other person. The trickery is done in a never-ending pursuit of many relationships all of which are initially established and most of which are ultimately never maintained. In other words, he is more interested in falling in love and catching more fish (lovers) than in staying in love and maintaining a long-term relationship. The catch and release love may not be aware of the unhealthy nature of his or her antics.
In the black widow/widower mode there is calculated and precise deception designed to lure the other into a relationship for ulterior motives. The deceiver tricks the other in order to gain access to wealth, property, or even power. The victim in this relationship often discovers too late that he or she was taken advantage of and that he or she has been deceived. The catch and release lover sometimes deceives him or herself, whereas the black widow/widower lover is fully aware of their deception and their ultimate goals.
Among all these love types lies an underlying truth mentioned before-loving is a risky business where hurt feelings and pain are far too common and wounds and scars from past relationships haunt some long after they form a permanent relationship. Part of that haunting past for lovers is unrequited love. Unrequited love is the result of one person deeply wanting and intimate relationship with another who simply is not interested and does not reciprocate. Unrequited love is common among younger lovers who misread verbal and nonverbal cues and who often have yet to learn about their own love needs and wants.
Understanding love is crucial in the United States because the majority of our population needs to fall in love before they marry. In other words, love precedes marriage. Outside of the US, in India, China, Africa and other regions of the world, love is hoped for after a couple marries, but not considered as a prerequisite to marriage. In the US we fall in love then marry and conversely fall out of love then divorce. I would argue that falling into love is truly about falling into the Zone of Vulnerability and a safe sense of self in that intimacy. Falling out of love is truly about lost trust, lost safety, and lost self once the relationship has reached a point of trouble.
For very young couples falling into love and finding that safe place for both selves is easy and is often based on fantasy rather than reason and logic. Teens often have mutually self-serving motivations that make their love feel so real and powerful at the time. Look at Figure 2 below. For many teens who form intimate relationships, the girls are seeking social status and maturity by having a complex relationship with a boy and by demonstrating to her girlfriends her social capabilities. Typically, teen girls seek after love, closeness, intimacy, and the status of being a girlfriend, steady, or even engaged.
That works conveniently for boys who are seeking physical affection and social status.
Take a hypothetical example of Dave who is on the basketball team in high school. He notices that Shiree has been hanging out with his buddies and has asked them details about his availability. His buddies reveal Shiree's interest in him and they eventually sit next to one another at lunch. Eventually Dave and Shiree are “a thing” and they date exclusively. Dave pressures Shiree for more sexual expression together. Shiree is not very interested because she really wants the love and all the relationship benefits that come with it.
Dave becomes more and more interested in sex and soon learns that if he makes gestures toward Shiree and their devotion to one another, then Shiree allows physical things to go further and further. After the prom, flowers, Dave letting Shiree wear his varsity jacket, and a promise ring and guarantee, Shiree and Dave become sexually active. Shiree shows up at Dave's house unannounced and tells Dave's father that she is going to be his daughter-in-law. Dave's father invites her in and brings Dave downstairs for a visit.
Shiree reveals to them that she is pregnant and that Dave and promised/guaranteed her if they got pregnant then they would get married. Dave, upon hearing the news of the pregnancy blurts out, “you are putting that baby up for adoption, I'm too young to be a father!”
Dave was wrong on both claims. Shiree kept the baby, he was the father, and she dumped Dave on the spot. It's been 17 years now that Dave has made monthly child support payments. Shiree married and started a family with another man. Of course this is a true story with names changed to protect identities. But, it is also a very typical story where the girl saw all the trappings of what she thought love was. The guy saw opportunities for pleasure and social status and each experiences a predictable teen love relationship. This pattern helps to explain in part why teens engage in sex at an early age and why teen pregnancy sometimes occurs from that sex. This pattern in Figure 2 has not been found to apply to adults and has not been found to apply to all teen romances.
Adults tend to report more sexual and relational satisfaction when intimacy and friendship are part of the overall relationship.
Love is also a function of our choices and the decisions we make while measuring the “rewards-costs” formula in our lives. Regardless of the love type you experience, you will find some types of the relationship to be rewarding while others appear to be expensive. Understanding how needs and love interact is essential to the study of love.
In any relationship we keep a mental balance sheet where the rewards and costs are measured in an overall evaluation of the worth of that relationship to us. Being in love means that each partner receives safe nurturing acceptance of their sense of self, even if the relationship hits a few bumps in the road.
In the overall evaluation of the relationship, the loss of that safe and nurturing relationship where the self is threatened signals a very high cost to the individual who must weigh that cost against the rewards and potential outcomes. Again, when people fall out of love they are essentially falling out of the Zone of Vulnerability and the safety for self that was once enjoyed there by both partners. This is why many short-term relationships end abruptly and why many long-term ones continue on even when things look and feel really bad between lovers. Figure 3 shows the characteristics of short and long-term relationships.
Short-term relationships tend to have a relatively brief period of time between acquaintance and the onset of sexual relations. Many short-term relationships have fantasy elements in that one or both partners views the nature of the relationship in unrealistic terms and inflates its good qualities to better match the fantasy. Short-term relationships tend to have more drama, conflict, and infidelity or absence of loyalty, especially when apart. Short-term relationships have not developed to the degree that exclusiveness is expected or offered. The intensity of the relationship comes with obsession over how the couple appears to others and often a compulsion to keep up appearances even though you know the relationship is not going to lead to anything over time.
There is also an overemphasis on physical and sexual expressions which often sooth anxious hearts rather than work out problems that need to be addressed. It could be argued that newly formed relationships suffer from sexual “medication” where relational problem solving would be better suited. Finally, there is a deep need for the other partner to measure up to something he or she is not.
Long-term relationships may have begun with some of the exact same traits that short-term ones have. But, somewhere along the way both are able to transition out of the newness and superficialities of the relationship into the long-term maintenance of the rapport. Friendships are proven over time, trial, and everyday mundane exposure to one another. Sexual relationship was an adjunct to the overall relationship, not the focus and occupation of it. Intimacy has deepened because it has been tested and sustained by loyalty, devotion, and exclusive fidelity to one another. Forgiveness is possible and often provided because each knows that both are human and prone to make mistakes-how might one partner demand perfection of the other when he or she cannot offer perfection in return?
In both the early and continuing eras of the relationship each excludes potential rivals and chooses to remain faithful to the other. Both need each other on a daily basis (interdependence) and both provide the other their space, time alone, and individuality (mutual independence). There is also an element of altruism and nurturance of the other (even when it's not reciprocated all the time). Couples can also procure help in medical, emotional, relational, and familial areas of need. Since sexual intercourse is common and part of everyday life it requires negotiation and mutual agreement in the relationship.
On this website there are a few love assessments for you to take if you want to learn more about how you love. These are not diagnostic tools, simply tools for personal insight and self-awareness. Take the “Speaking and Hearing Your Love Types” assessment and once you are finished have your partner take it using the partner version. Make sure and not discuss your findings until BOTH OF YOU HAVE FINISHED THE ASSESSMENT.
Then, if you wish, take the “Ideal versus practical Love Styles” assessment to see how you are grounded in your love. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.05%3A_Love_and_Intimacy.txt |
Chapter 6: Communication and Connections
“You did.”
“No, I didn't.”
“Yes, you did.”
“No, if you remember it was you.”
“Hmmmm..., you may be right.”
“I told you so!”
“No, you didn't.”
“Yes, I did…”
So often arguments focus on who was right, which facts were involved, and ultimately who is to blame. These types of arguments are annoying both to have and to overhear if someone else is arguing and you are close by. Perhaps, one of the best (or worst) examples of this type of argument is found on www.Youtube.com search “Argument Clinic” and watch the Monty Python skit to see for yourself. I call these non-directional arguments, because the underlying issue is not being dealt with in the argument itself.
Non-directional arguments happen for many reasons, but rarely help the couple in a supportive manner. Arguing is a quandary for many people, because they believe that arguing is a weakness, sign of trouble, or even a sin (yes, some do believe this).
Marriage and family researchers have established for years that it is not the argument that is the problem. It is how the argument transpires that matters.
Directional arguments have a goal or a purpose and usually approach the issue that led to the argument in the first place. It isn't always obvious how to argue in such a way that it accomplishes something useful for the couple. Markman et al (2001) have established a training program for how to help couples “fight for their marriages” (see Fighting for Your Marriage: Positive Steps for Preventing Divorce and Preserving a Lasting Love: ISBN0-7879-5744-5). Likewise, John Gottmann (2002) published a relationship book that focuses on strategies for healthy arguments (among other strategies) (see The Relationship Cure: A 5 Step Guide to Strengthening Your Marriage, Family, and Friendships: ISBN: 0-609-80953-9).
The core of a healthy argument is to get to the root of the problem in such a way that both parties can be content with the outcomes. Easier said than done? Learning to argue is not rocket science. The principles that work for most people will likely work for you too.
Look at Figure 1 below. Ever heard the phrase, “beat around the bush?” In this diagram, the bush is the argument. The real source of the argument comes from the root core of the problem. So often when we argue about who was right, facts, or who is to blame we waist time beating around the bush rather than getting to the real issue.
The root cause is often less obvious because we don't always know exactly what is bugging us. We simply get frustrated or concerned and start talking. If emotions and pride set in, the argument becomes non-directional and burdensome. There is a real simple paradigm on how to argue that I have developed over the years. It derives from literature on communication and problem solving. Look at Figure 2 below.
The diagram in Figure 2 shows the same principle found in Figure 1, except the roots are where the core of the issues are found. In a sense the model in Figure 2 is like the Model in Figure 1 turned onto its right side. In Figure 2 the core of the problem lies on the left side of the “Root of Most Disagreements” and these core issues are common for most people. Our values are what we define as important, desirable, and of merit. Our beliefs are what we define as real and accept as truths in our lives. Our values, beliefs, needs, and wants are typically where most core issues originate and where most are resolved.
This is a case study from a young couple I knew. I'll use it to walk you through each step of the model. A young couple married and were saving to eventually make a down payment on a home. She worked in the loan department of a bank and he worked construction. One Friday afternoon she came home from work. The bank had just passed their audits and she was especially tired and stressed. She opened the back door to their apartment, carrying a box of paperwork in her arms. Not knowing her husband had taken off his muddy work boots, she nearly tripped and fell to the floor. She sat her box down on the washing machine and looked down only to find that her best work shoes had mud on them and were now scratched.
She slipped them off thinking she would have to come back later and clean them up. On the way to the bedroom she tipped over a half-eaten bowl of sweet cereal that dampened her sock and messed up the carpet. She made it to the bedroom and dropped the box on the floor. She took off her socks and put them on the bathroom sink. She then noticed her husband's muddy pants draped over the toilette. She suddenly realized that within less than one minute, she now has to clean his muddy boots, her muddy shoes, her sticky socks, the wet carpet, and the toilette. Just then her husband returned in the front door from their mailbox. “Honey, I'm home.”
Her husband had arrived 30 minutes earlier excited about a pay raise he'd received that day. He had showered, started eating a bowl of cereal, and darted out to get the mail.
When he walked in the front door she slammed the bedroom door and locked it.
“Honey, are you in there?” he asked, knocking on the door.
“Leave me alone!” she yelled through the door while crying.
“Honey, what's the matter? Are you okay?”
“I'm fine!”
“Did I do something wrong?”
“No, I did when I married a pig!”
“A pig?”
“Yes, you live like a pig!”
“Well, well whose mother is always meddling in our marriage?”
“What?” She gasped. “Then whose uncle is in prison for life!”
“That's it.” He stomps out of the apartment and drives of.
This was a non-directional, beating around the bush, and hurtful argument. You can see what happened to them using the diagram in Figure 2. Somewhere between the muddy boots and the toilette, she felt a perceived injustice. She felt like her husband did not respect her need to keep a clean apartment. Her emotional response was anger. It happens to us all, but in this case it wasn't controlled very well and she took the low-road
in this diagram which is the combat response.
When she slammed the door and called him a pig, she was attacking him, emotionally, psychologically, and/or intellectually. By doing this she inadvertently gave him a perceived injustice. He also has values and most likely felt that his need to be respected by his wife was not met. He perceived an injustice of maltreatment, felt hurt, then also took the low road and retaliated with an attack on her mother. Had this argument continued, the vicious cycle of beating around the bush or perpetually providing each partner with a perceived injustice emotional response and combat opportunity may have continued for much longer. Notice that the core issues were never dealt with in their communication. Never in this exchange did either of them get to the needs and wants, values and beliefs involved here.
Let me give you some background information. She came from a home where her mother was an immaculate homemaker, stay-at-home mother, and artist. She and her mother prided themselves on the cleanliness and order of their homes. She married a young man whose mother cleaned up after him. He could count on one hand the number of times he cleaned his room while growing up. They chose each other! On top of that she was stressed and tired and he was jubilant from the good week at work and pay raise.
Let me just say, neither of these spouses is to blame. Arguments happen to everyone and unhealthy ones will be the pattern unless they do something about it. They both had to modify their behaviors so that they could get to the core issues and support one another.
To do that, they'd have to take the high road.
The high road in this model offers Problem Resolution Strategies which have been around the counseling and communications literature for many years. They've been researched and discussed in numerous self-help and consulting books over the last two decades. But, they do work well and offer techniques which facilitate a healthy argument and outcome. The first strategy is to negotiate a win-win solution. Every couple can find a way to work out an argument or disagreement so that the other person feels like they came out with their needs addressed and met as well. Think about it, if you always win then your partner always looses. That would make her or him a loser and who wants to be married to a loser. Figure 3 shows the diagram of how a couple forms an entity I call the “We.”
A couple is simply a pair of people who identify themselves in terms of belonging together, trusting one another, and having a unique relationship, separate from all others.
A “We” is close to the same thing, yet it focuses on the relationship as an entity in itself.
A “We” as shown in this diagram is a married couple but can include cohabiters, or other intimate non-married couple arrangements. This is a relationship that is not intimately connected to any other relationships at the level as profoundly as they are connected to one another. A “We” is much like a vehicle (relationship) that two people purchased together. Both have to put in maintenance. Both have to care for it and treat it in such a way that it runs for a long time. Sometimes, spouses or partners attack the other in such a way that the other is harmed or damaged in their trust. A “We” is the social and emotional boundary a couple establishes when they decide to become a couple. This boundary includes only the husband and wife. It purposefully excludes the children, extended family, co-workers, and friends.
When a spouse is made to feel like the loser, then it's like getting upset and pulling hoses lose on the engine or stabbing a tire with a screwdriver. How long can a car (relationship) last if one inflicts damage in this way? The key is to remember that together you have formed a social bond that can only be as strong as its weakest part.
Many non-directional arguments weaken one or both partners and can lead to an eventual abandonment of the relationship. One simply can't continue to make his or her partner the loser in arguments. At every level of trust and closeness this undermines the emotional connection and bond.
Knowing a strategy to create a win-win makes it much more likely to happen. Think about what you might need if you were the couple in the story above. What might she desire? Perhaps she'd like for him not to make messes for her. What might he desire?
Perhaps he'd like for her to refrain from calling him farm animal names. So, later, after both have cooled down they may decide to talk about what happened and forgive one another. Then, they might try to answer this key question, each taking a turn to listen to the other, “What was really at the core of your concern?”
“Well, I've talked to you for nearly two years about how hard it is for me to feel love for you when I pick up after you and clean up your messes,” She might say.
“Well, I've heard you and your family members call people names when they are not present, and I need for you to refrain from calling me names like that,” He might say.
Then they can answer this healthy, pro-couple, and mutually nurturing question, “What can we agree upon to help us meet each other's needs better so we can avoid arguments like this in the future?” What might be your suggestion to them in answer to that question? Before you answer let me teach you a principle of human behavior change and modification. That is, it is very difficult for humans to change their natures. It is much easier for humans to change one very specific unwanted behavior.
Knowing that, you could urge them to consider working together as a team with a reward at the end of a designated period of time. They might agree that she will not call him any farm animal names for 90 days. He in turn will make sure that his muddy boots are not in her path for 90 days. If they both live up to their end of the bargain, they might reward themselves with a weekend away together. This would not only be a win-win, but it would be realistically attainable for a young couple. It also avoids damaging the “We” while supporting it in the long run because it deals with their root core issues.
Now, some of you may feel frustrated that she didn't negotiate a completely mess-free home. I'd argue that it's much easier to change when the individual himself is motivated to make the change, not his spouse. It's also a fact that we choose who we marry or pair off with and they are who they are. In most relationships it's unfair to say to a spouse or partner that “I love you just the way you are, so let's get married.” Then later turn around and say. “I loved you the way I thought you were, but could you please change that to what I now think I want you to be?” Here are two relevant jokes:
1. How many therapists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the bulb has to really, really want to be changed.
2. What do we have in common with concrete? The older we get the more mixed up and set in our ways we become.
Truth be told, if we don't want to change we won't. It also gets more difficult to change the older we get. Most of us don't want to change ourselves, especially in dramatic ways.
If for whatever reason you decide to change a behavior, keep in mind these three levels of recognizing where you may be on the path to change. Let's say you wanted to stop getting angry while driving your car on the freeway. So, you set a goal to go one month without using profanities while driving. Sure enough after a long day and busy afternoon rush hour you slip up and let the words fly. This is the first level of personal behavior change, when you catch yourself after the fact. In other words, you did it again and realized it too late.
But, you don't give up on your goal. Next week after a long day and in the middle of a jam up of stopped traffic you start with the profanities but catch yourself mid-sentence and control your language. The second level of change is catching yourself in the middle of the act of the behavior you are trying to change. The third level is when you finally recognize which triggers set off this pattern of profanity for you. You realize that you curse more after stressful days at work and during traffic jams that slow your speed while traveling to the day care to pick up your child.
At the third level you can prepare how you will manage the stressors and thus prevent another slip up. Perhaps you might put the radio on to easy listening, decide that being late back home is acceptable even if it costs a few more dollars for day care, and/or put in a self-help tape to listen to during the delay. Either way, we can change our own behaviors if we are persistent and patient. But, rarely can we change the behaviors of others.
The second option under Figure 2, Problem Resolution Strategies number 2 is to Agree as a Gift. This is to be done only on very unique circumstances. Agreeing as a gift is risky because to do this means that you are willing to give in on something of importance at your root level. I saw this once in a couple who were building their own home. They were exhausted and burned out. One day during a normal morning start to the day. He mentioned that in the day's schedule he wanted to go down to the brick yard and pick out the brick. He'd assumed that brick would be the best way to go. She brought up the point that she had already mentioned using stone instead of brick to him months before and had already picked out three types she really liked. To shorten this long story, they ended up in a heated argument, he moved into a hotel for two weeks, and all construction stopped.
After two weeks had passed, he called and asked her out to lunch. During lunch he expressed his sorrow for assuming that she would just go with him on the brick idea. He then offered her this olive leaf, “Let's go down together and I'll support whatever stone you think is best for the outside of our new home.” She was surprised and asked him why he'd give in like that. “You spend more time at home with the children. You grew up in a home faced with stone, and to me, I just was trying to be efficient about getting this home built and it really didn't matter for me as much as it does for you.”
They both then talked about how tired and worn out they had become and how dangerous building a home can be to a marital relationship. In this case, he offered to agree as a gift. It wasn't a negotiation for future authority to decide on a home trait. It was an unattached gift. I urge my students to do this rarely so that one avoids becoming the martyr in the relationship. Martyrs always give in and find themselves unhappy with the direction of the relationship. The “We” is strong because of many negotiations which ensure that both parties can have their core issues addressed while meeting the needs of the other.
Problem Resolution Strategy 3 is to simply learn to live with differences in a relationship.
Most couples do have irreconcilable differences in their marriage or relationship. Most couples realize that each is an individual and each has uniqueness that they bring to the “We” which make it what it is in terms of richness and viability. I often have students who express concern to me about this strategy. They hold the belief that their partner should change because their happiness may depend upon it. Many studies suggest that individuals are as happy as they chose to be, regardless of the changing that does or does not transpire in their relationship. Happiness is a conscious choice and exists when the individual persists in feeling happy even in difficult circumstances (See Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor E. Frankl various editions).
Finally, Problem Resolution Strategy 4 is to simply change yourself. If you came from a home where a clean home reflected upon your self-worth, where a clean home meant a happy home, and where a clean home meant that you and your mother were close, and then you married a guy who never did housework, why should he have to change? He might over the years learn to share the housework responsibilities. But, in the reality of things it might be easier to redefine the meaning of a clean home to yourself than to ask another individual to be something else in an attempt to accommodate your current tastes.
This model in Figure 2 is a useful way of understanding where arguments come from and how they might be best managed in such a way that the “We” is ultimately nurtured
because the root issues are addressed by one another. One last suggestion in having a healthy argument, remember that no all issues are created equally. I use a blood metaphor to illustrate this to my students (I know it's kind of gross, but bare with me).
Some arguments originate from a disease level in one of the partner's personalities. I call these the Leukemia's of arguments. They stem from an underlying medical condition that requires professional intervention. Any of the following personality disorders might lead a couple to professional counseling: borderline, narcissistic, histrionic, or 7 others are very difficult to live with and can undermine the “We” if not treated professionally (Search Personality disorders on the Internet for more information and criteria). Just like Leukemia, if professional help is not sought after, the relationship will suffer and might die.
Then there are the day-to-day arguments that are very common during the first 3 years. I call these the blood cell arguments because we make and lose millions of blood cells over the course of a year. How to squeeze the tooth paste tube, how to cook an omelet, and how to drive to a destination are common issues of these arguments, especially among newlyweds. These arguments can be useful in the sense that they give the couple practice in having healthy arguments.
Practice is important especially if the couple has massive bleeding arguments. These can threaten the very life of the relationship if unchecked. These occur when the very core values, beliefs, needs, and wants of a spouse are at stake. For example, the belief that marital sexuality should be exclusive to the couple is a deeply held belief that most couples respect. But when an extramarital affair does occur, the “We” has been damaged and it takes a tremendous amount of concerted effort to repair trust.
I have a few more thoughts about arguments to help bring things all together. First, have arguments when you need to do so. Focus on the issues at hand and how to create a win-win outcome. Second, don't let others into the boundaries of your “We.” An argument should be just between each partner, not the aunt, uncle, parents, children, friends, etc.
Third, let the professionals give you some training on how to argue in healthier ways.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel when thousands of studies have been published on relationships. Self-help books and seminars can be very useful. And fourth, treat your relationship the same way you'd treat a nice car. Care for it, perform preventative maintenance, and avoid the tendency to ignore it, neglect it, or damage it.
Family Scientists have borrowed from the physics literature a concept called entropy which is roughly defined as the principle that matter tends to decay and reduce toward its simplest parts. For example, a new car if parked in a field and ignored would eventually decay and rot. A planted garden if left unmaintained would be overrun with weeds, pests, and yield low if any crop. Marital Entropy is the principle that if a marriage does not receive preventative maintenance and upgrades it will move towards decay and break down.
Couples soon realize that marriage is not constant bliss and that it often requires much work, experience more stability and strength when they nurture their marriage. They treat their marriage like a nice car and become committed to preventing breakdowns rather than waiting to repair them. These couples read and study experts like: Gottman, Cherlin, Markman, Popenoe, and others who have focused their research on how to care
for the marriage, acknowledging the propensity relationships have to decay if unattended.
There are some basic principles that apply to communication with others which can be of use to you. It is very important to know what you feel and say what you mean to say. It sounds simple but people are not always connected to their inner issues. Our issues lie deep within us. Often we just see the tip of them, like we might only see the tip of an ice berg. Some of us are strangers to them while others are very aware of what the issue is.
When an argument arises, you might ask yourself these self-awareness questions: how it happened, what lead up to it, and what was at stake for you? This helps many to get to their underlying issue.
Not only is it difficult for some of us to know what our issues are, but many of us have had relationships end painfully or with hurt feelings on both sides. These past hurts may inhibit open communication in current relationships. Figure 4 shows some of the painful arrows that threaten to cause harm to trust in our current relationships. Some of us grow up feeling shamed and worthless. This sometimes makes us feel extremely sensitive to how others evaluate us and can make it very difficult for us to want to open up and show others what we believe are flaws.
All of us have vulnerabilities in our lives. We tend to cover them up and hide them for fear of them being exposed. Interestingly, when we find that when we get to know someone we really care about and they accept our vulnerabilities, it is a sign of love that often supports a decision to pair off together. There are some of us who don't ever want to experience conflict. Conflict avoidant people tend to work extra hard to avoid conflict with others and often sacrifice the needed attention to issues that is required for a relationship to last. I met a 72 year old man who had been married to a conflict avoidant wife for 25 years. “She never complained. She always did whatever I wanted. I couldn't get her opinion on a matter much less an argument over something.” She eventually left him, stating she was unhappy.
Each of us have painful experiences that are difficult to deal with. Sometimes we suppress them and bury them in the back of our mind. Sometimes we deny they even transpired. Sometimes we take these issues from our past and lay them onto our current relationships or project them onto our current partner. In all three of these cases, the root core issue is difficult to access, yet still plays an important part of our daily interactions.
Fear is very destructive to relationships. Fear is like a loud speaker of an emotion that can drown out reason and other emotions that pertain to our relationships. It is easy to respond to and often hard to understand.
An older friend of mine once said, “Don't take counsel from your fears.” He was correct.
Fear is like a super hot pepper. Our other emotions are like thoughts and are more subtle like a grape. It is very difficult to taste a grape while simultaneously chewing on a hot pepper. Fears come from past hurts and pains. Rarely do they guide us in rationally effective ways. It's estimated that 90 percent of what we fear never happens. If the 10 percent does occur most of us can turn to others for support and get through it. Fear can shut open communication completely off. Manage your fears or they will manage you.
We all know that there is someone better than us out there in most aspects of what we offer our partners. Feeling inadequate is normal. It is often the case that spouses can unite together to help one or both deal with their inadequacies. In this way a weakness can become a communication strength that allows the couple to untie against the frailties they each bring to the relationship.
There are gender differences in how we communicate. Sometimes these filter our current communication efforts to the point that healthy communication is avoided in the name of doing what most women or men would do in the situation. I'm a huge fan of self-help books. But, I warn students to be very careful about those claiming to know what “all men” or “all women” are like. Figure 5 shows a comparison of a sociologist's and a psychologist's take on gender differences in communications.
When I go over this figure with my students in class they typically say that they know someone like that or they themselves communicate like that. I quickly point out to them that they may have a trait that fits them the way Gray or Tannen says it would regardless of their being male or female. Gray puts our genetic biological traits which stem from XX or XY at the core of why we talk and converse the way we do. He claims that we are built from the molecule up to be a predictable type of communicator. Many in his field criticize his conclusions and especially his claim that men and women may be a difference species from one another.
Tannen talks about how we are socialized or raised by those around us. To her it's about what we learn to expect from ourselves in the role of males or females that shapes how we communicate. The research she presents allows us to see how men are raised aware of their place in society. They are constantly aware that someone around them is bigger, stronger, faster, richer, etc. They know their place and work hard not to have someone of higher status put them down. Tannen claims that this approach to relationships-avoiding being put down and being very aware of status issues-is why many men refrain from opening up in conversation. Opening up puts them at risk of being put down.
To Tannen women are raised in the context of relationships. They spend much of their lives reinforcing and strengthening relationships with friends and family. They are aware that informal rules guide their relationships and they put a great deal of effort into how to maintain good relationships so that they don't find themselves socially isolated from others. This is why women tend to maintain more relationships than men and why men and women struggle to connect. Women approach the conversation with an effort to connect and maintain the relationship while men approach it trying to gain status or not be put at risks.
Notice the Author's note (that's me) at the bottom of Figure 5. To me, the real value of any gender self-help communication book is not that it identifies what all women or all men will say-that never happens because there is no generalized pattern of communication that all men or women fit into. So, I urge everyone to read and enrich their understanding of how relationships work and how to communicate better. But, I also offer this advice: The Author's ultimate value of self-help gender communications books expand your understanding enough to see that your spouse or friend may simply be
different from you and not wrong, mean, or uncooperative. They can't give you all the answers to all your troubles or cures.
When two people communicate they share a certain degree of power during the conversation. The Conflict Theory tells us that power is more often than not distributed unevenly. When we carry on conversations we sometimes find ourselves having more or less power in the conversation. The Principle of Least Interest simply states that the partner who is least interested has the most power. In other words if you really want the relationship to work more than the other person, you have less power. If the other person wants the relationship to work more than you do, then you have more power. When relationships form, power changes hands from time to time depending on the nuances of the day-to-day interactions of the couple. Typically, women assume more responsibility for relationship maintenance in heterosexual couple's interactions.
Another crucial part of communication is the ability to communicate at the non-verbal level. Non-verbal and verbal communication are essential for truly understanding one another. Non-verbal communication includes touch, gestures, facial expression, eye contact, distance, and overall body positioning. Touch is an essential part of the human experience. For the most part, women are very clear on which types of touch they give and receive. Women have cultural permission to be more affectionate with one another in the US. Men typically refrain from touching other men in heterosexual contexts (except in sports). Men touch women more than other men. Interestingly, comparing male to female newborns, most males enjoy their mothers' physical closeness while the females enjoy the social interactions. Men have difficulties in distinguishing the varieties of touch and its intended purpose.
Gestures vary between cultures. You've heard the phrase “talking with your hands.”
This is common in various parts of the US among hearing individuals. Hands are moved in conjunction with words to emphasize and illustrate the point being shared. Deaf persons also communicate with a common form of non-verbal language called American Sign Language. Many parents teach ASL to their smaller children because toddlers can learn signs long before they can verbally articulate words. Gestures reinforce verbal messages and can be very useful in understanding a person's intended message.
Eye contact is an extremely important aspect of communication. Making eye contact is difficult for some because the eyes truly do tell on the state of one's emotions. I teach my students a trick to test another person to see if he or she is really making eye contact. It goes like this, while talking to them change your facial expression dramatically mid-sentence then change it back again. If the other person's expression changes or they talk about it to you, then they were probably sharing interactive eye contact. If not then they may be faking eye contact. The most common form of faking eye contact is the eye brow or forehead stare. Men are especially guilty of this because they are trying to communicate and as Tannen pointed out also trying not to be vulnerable. Eye contact can be learned and with the right person it may even be easier for men and women who often avoid making eye contact.
Intimates close the gap to the point where they are very close side-by-side, touching at the hip, legs, etc. When people argue they often increase the distance. When people are being formally introduced to another they often maintain it. We not only want about 3 feet distance between us and others, we also want people to stay about that far away from our desk, doors, and even vehicles. This is in part why elevators are so uncomfortable, they don't give us our 3 feet of space. Closing that distance with a stranger can be viewed as an act of aggression.
Finally, body positioning can be very insightful to a person's disposition. You've probably already heard about the body positions that close other people out, there is the folding of the arms across the chest, the crossing of one's legs, and the turning oneself around offering the back rather than the front to another person. I often show photographs to my students to see how well they can pick up on non-verbals. Look at Figure 6 to see a photo montage of pictures taken over the last 10 years. Look at these aspects of non-verbal communication as you consider what is happening in each photo, touch, gestures, facial expression, eye contact, distance, and overall body positioning.
In Photo 1, you can see 4 persons. Any guesses as to what's going on? You can certainly observe their friendship with their body spacing (very close), touch, facial expressions, and body positioning. These are 4 students that presented a paper in Ypsilanti, Michigan at the annual conference of the Association for Applied and Clinical Sociologists. This was taken right after their presentation ended. You can see their closeness, relief, and friendship developed here. Photo 2 is a married couple in Nepal. They were traveling to a small village to bring medical nursing care to some locals. She's the nurse and he's her husband. Their distance in the photo indicates cultural differences between Nepal and the US.
Photo 3 is Kat, another student of mine who went to a conference in Florida to present a paper. Her husband surprised her with a birthday present of an hour in a tank with live dolphins. No need to guess how she feels toward this one. Photo 4 is a picture of a professor and his two students during our semi-annual poster symposium at UVU.
Notice the facial expressions and body positioning-appropriate between a professor and his students.
Photo 5 was taken by a student of mine who leads tri-annual expeditions of our UVU students down to an orphanage in Mexico. He takes them on a 3 day blitz of travel and service. In this picture the orphans gather closely around him and climb on him for fatherly affection and interaction. Even though he visits only 3 times a year they've come to see him as a parental figure. Photo 6 was taken in a studio. How does he feel toward her? He's looking at her, she's not looking back. Any guess who might have the most power in this relationship?
Photo 7 was taken during a volunteering experience my students and I took to help serve 400 meals in 90 minutes in the local soup kitchen. Almost all of the volunteers there were strangers who took their lunch break to do something good for someone else. Can you guess the general mood of the volunteers from this photo? Something about doing for others brings a sense of peace and happiness. Finally, Photo 8 contains a picture of three of our six children. The oldest is in the blue shirt and saying goodbye to his sister and brother who were leaving for an extended service mission February, 2009. In all of these photos, non-verbal analysis would give you an idea, but not the entirety of the context of what is going on. Learning to use and understand non-verbal messages and communication enhances most relationships.
In fact therapists use verbals and non-verbals to assess both mood and affect. Mood is one's state of emotional being and is typically detected by the words and patterns of speaking a person uses. Affect is one's emotion or current feeling and is judged by a person's non-verbal messages. Moods and affects don't always coincide such as the case when one of my students came in and informed me that she had been sexually assaulted. I asked her to sit down for a few minutes and focused her attention on how she was doing at the moment. I walked with her over to the campus counseling center and she visited with a crisis therapist.
For weeks she came by for a few updates and eventually I noticed that her facial expression had changed. There was something incongruent about her mood and affect when she visited with me. You see, without knowing it she smiled every time she visited me, even though running mascara down an extremely distraught facial expression she smiled when she told me of the assault. She smiled as she updated me about her recovery. Her smiling while she revealed this terrible assault to me was incongruent between mood and affect.
I asked her to sit with me for a few minutes one day then said, “You may not have known it but every time you told me these tragic things that had happened, you smiled. You're not smiling today. What changed?” She told me that her therapist eventually brought up the smiling issue. She had learned something about herself. From the beginning, she had wanted to tell me about what had happened, but simultaneously wanted me not to worry about her. Her forced smile was an effort to manage my emotions and still let me in on her tragic experience. That revelation about her answered my question of why she struggled so diligently to smile in the face of horrific circumstances. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.06%3A_Communication.txt |
Chapter 7: Sexual Scripts
Just a note to begin this chapter, perhaps more than any other topic, sexuality is controversial. Even though it underlies many advertisement themes, is shown independent of any emotional or physical consequences in many TV and big screen productions, and is commonly participated in outside of marriage, we are raised not to talk about it much. Many of us are even taught that religions are very strict on how sex is exclusively for married people, yet very few of us had the luxury of having our own parents teach us about it.
For some religious believers, it brings family shame to have sex outside of marriage. For others, the fear of God's retribution shapes their very thinking about what sex is and how we should participate in it. I am strikingly aware of this and deeply committed to being as objective as I can. Rest assured, my goal is not to get you or anyone you know into a risky situation at any level. I am admittedly conservative and biased, but this chapter is not about me. It is about you!
My goal in teaching you in this chapter is two-fold: first, I want you to understand your own sexuality, body, and experiences; second, I want you to do what most US parents don't do-I want you to teach your own children about sex and to do so with an understanding of the critical information they need to know so that they can learn about their own sexuality, body, and experiences. It would be arrogant and ill-advised for a professor to tell students their sexual values, so I won't. It would be ill-advised for a parent to avoid telling his or her children about sexuality. So, please do so if and when you have children in their formative years at home.
A script is what actors read or study and what guides their behavior in a certain role. A script is a blueprint for what we “should do” in our roles. Sexual Scripts are blueprints and guidelines for what we define as our role in sexual expression, sexual orientation, sexual behaviors, sexual desires, and the sexual component of our self-definition. All of us are sexual beings, yet none of us is exactly identical to another in our sexual definitions and script expectations. Having said that, keep in mind that we are not just born with sexual scripts in place. They are learned. Sexual socialization is the process by which we learn how, when, where, with whom, why, and with which motivations we are sexual beings.
We are all born with drives which are biological needs that demand our attention and behavioral responses to them. The most powerful drives are circulation, breathing, voiding our urine and other waste, eating, drinking, sleeping, and sexual involvement. Sexual drives are biological urges to participate in sexual activity in certain sexual roles.
Sexual scripts, once learned, will shape how that drive is answered. Sexuality is learned via culture and socialization. There are as many unique sexual scripts as there are people, yet some of these scripts have common themes and can be viewed as a collective pattern or trend in the larger social level.
Many of us learn our sexual scripts in a passive way. In other words, we don't learn from experience, but from a synthesis of concepts, images, ideals, and sometimes misconceptions. For example, the commonly held belief that men and women are two different creatures, perhaps from different planets was a very successful fad in recent years that led an entire generation to believe that men might be from “Mars” while women might be from “Venus” (John Grey, various self help books).
Today more and more in the US have less religious values and more diverse experiences with sexuality. So much of the younger generation's focus on sex is about the orgasm. An Orgasm is the sexual climax that accompanies sexual intercourse and includes muscle tightening in the genital area, electrical sensations radiating from the genitals, and a surge of a variety of pleasure-producing hormones throughout the body. Many cultures have records of sexual expression and some even have records of sexual pleasure maximization (see Karma Sutra).
Some traditional sexual scripts that have been studied and have found to include a number of problematic assumptions including: the man must be in charge, the woman must not enjoy (or let on that she enjoys) the sexual experience, the man is a performer whose skills are proven effective upon arrival of his partner's orgasm, men are sexual while women are not, women can't talk about it and turn to men for sexual interests and direction, and finally sex always leads to intercourse and a female orgasm (her orgasm being proof of his sexual capacity). Numerous studies have shown that most of these traditional scripts are not: realistic, healthy, conducive to open communication, nor negotiation of sexual needs and desires for couples. In sum, these traditional notions can be an undermining influence in a couple's intimacy. More contemporary scripts include these simple ideas that:
1. both partners need to learn to take ownership of the couple's sexual experiences
2. both partners need to learn to communicate openly and honestly about their feelings
3. both partners need to learn to meet one another's: desires, needs, and wishes while making sure that their own needs are being met
Many people think of male versus female reproductive and sexual body parts in terms of opposites. In sexual matters, men and women are very much alike from a physiological and biological point of view. We are even alike in our fetal development with our genitals developing from identical tissues, regardless of being male or female. Have you ever wondered why a pregnant woman can't get an accurate ultrasound until the second month to determine the fetus's sex being male or female? In part, technicians want to give the fetus enough time to develop genitals that coincide with the particular sex of the baby.
More importantly, the fetus has identical genitals until about the 5-6th week. That means it would require a DNA test to distinguish which sex the fetus is up until that point.
Sexually, males and females start with identical genital buds that eventually form the male or female reproductive organs. Figure 1 briefly discusses the development of male and female sexual parts from very similar genital pelvic tissues. Please note that sexual development is a natural yet extremely complex process that yields a mostly predictable outcome among newborns. That means most females are born with nearly identical sexual parts. Likewise most males are born with nearly identical parts.
Not all fetal sexual development occurs uniformly. Though not discussed here in great detail, there are 5 common sexual development variations that occur: Turner's Syndrome, Klinefelter's Syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Fetally Androgenized Females, and DHT-deficient males.
Figure 2 shows an artist's depiction of the tissues that biologists would use to identify the developing genitals of males and females. I have to express thanks to my Senior Research Student, Sam Jones who volunteered to draw these for this free online book.
With an XY male genetic configuration, the glans area will develop into the penis. The urethral fold will form the urethral meatus or opening in the penis. The urethral groove and lateral buttress will fold onto itself and fuse into the shaft of the penis with the urethra connecting the bladder to the urethral meatus or opening of the penis. The anal tubercle will form into the anus and external sphincter. The male glands: prostate, cowper's, and seminal vesicles develop in another process as do the testicles which develop inside the abdomen then drop into the scrotum.
For the XX female genetic configuration, the glans becomes the clitoral glans, the urethral fold becomes the urethral meatus, the urethral groove and lateral buttress become the labia minora and majora (labia means lips), and the anal tubercle becomes the anus and external sphincter. The vagina, cervix, ovaries, and uterus form from other tissues. Interestingly, ovaries develop inside the abdomen. These basic fetal tissues differentiate because of the X or Y. In adult sexual partners these sexual parts function in very similar ways even though their placement and structure differ.
There are some variations when the actual physical sexual development does not follow expected patterns. Hermaphrodism is found among those variations and is reported in two forms: first, True Hermaphrodism is an extremely rare condition wherein both reproductive organs of both males and females are in one person's body and functioning to some degree or another (this includes, penis, testicles, prostate gland, vagina, uterus, and ovaries), second, Psuedohermaphrosim (false or near hermaphrodism) is a rare condition wherein some of both reproductive organs for males or females are present in one person's body, but neither male nor female organs are completely present and/or fully functioning.
As is mentioned in Figure 2, not all fetal sexual development occurs uniformly. Though not discussed here in great detail there are 5 common sexual development variations reported among newborns: Turner 's syndrome, Klinefelter's Syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Fetally Androgenized Females, and DHT-deficient Males.
Simply search the Internet for these images and explanations. In most cases of fetal development, sexual development is predictable and follows the above mentioned pattern of originating from nearly identical tissues
Sexuality is important to us because it represents an activity that is a rite of passage into adulthood, because it is very pleasurable, and because it reinforces our roles and aspirations as males and females. Yet, sexuality is truly a passive part of our daily lives.
Sex is a minor (yet important) part of our daily time allocation. People with a sexual partner available have sex about 3 times per week, taking about 25 minutes per experience (I am fully aware that some people have more sex than others and that circumstances impact more or less frequency and or duration. Yet, we can make estimates that illustrate the point). That means about 75 minutes per week or 3,900 minutes per year. Divide 3,900/ 60 minutes and it equals about 65 hours per year having sex. At first glance that sounds like a great deal of time allocation.
But, keep in mind that in comparison, most of us spend most of our lives doing nonsexual things. Consider these estimates: if the average person sleeps about 8 hours in a 24 hour period, works 8.5 hours, eats 1.5 hours, commutes .5 hours, watches TV for 3 hours, and about 3.5 for miscellaneous activities, then compared to routine non-sexual activities, sexual intercourse comprises a relatively small portion of our time. Table 1 shows some estimated daily and yearly hours spent in various activities. Sexual intercourse doesn't happen 4 days out of the 7-day week and only happens for a brief interaction during the other 3 days of the week.
Table 1: Daily and Yearly Hours Spent in Various Activities for An Average Person
Activities Daily Hours = 25 Yearly Hours = 8,760
Sleep 8.0 2,920.0
Work 8.5 3,102.5
Television viewing 3.0 1,095.0
Eating 1.5 547.5
Commuting 0.5 182.5
Miscellaneous 2.32 846.8
Sexual Intercourse 0.18 hours (About 11 minutes per day average) 65.0
Relatively speaking sexual intercourse is a passive part of the average person's life accounting for only 65 yearly hours of involvement per year. Many people refrain from regular sexual intercourse until their twenties and are less likely to participate in it if they are not married than are married people. These estimations don't take into account those with no sexual partner and those who abstain from sexual intercourse. The average would be much lower if those categories of people were averaged into the equation.
To understand our own bodies and also understand enough about sexuality to teach our children, we must understand the basics of female and male anatomy. Figure 3 shows an artist's depiction of a cross section of female reproductive and sexual anatomy. The clitoris is extremely sensitive and is protected by the clitoral hood (not shown here). It sits above the vagina. In females, urine exits the body at the external urethral orifice (also called meatus). The vaginal orifice simply means the opening to the vagina itself. The labia are in two places, closer to the vaginal orifice (labia minora) and further away from the vaginal orifice (labia majora).
The urinary bladder sits behind the pubic bone and during urination travels an inch or two out of the body via the external urethral orifice. In the back and top of the vagina sits the cervix. The cervix is simply the window into the uterus. It is round, muscular and thick and has a small opening in it. The cervix is the bottom portion of the uterus (the uterus is where a fetus or baby would grow and develop during pregnancy).
Figure 3: The main organs of the female reproductive system lie within the abdominal cavity. Pay attention to ovaries, uterine tube, uterus, cervix, and vagina. (Blausen.com staff (2014). "Medical gallery of Blausen Medical 2014". WikiJournal of Medicine 1 (2). DOI:10.15347/wjm/2014.010. ISSN 2002-4436. licensed CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)
The uterus leans forward toward the pubic bone. Inside the uterus on the left and the right sides are 2 small openings where the fallopian tube connects the ovaries to the uterus. There are two ovaries that have thousands of eggs in them at birth. A woman may release as many as 450 eggs during her reproductive years. After an egg is released from the ovary (ovulation), the fallopian tube carries the egg from the ovary down to the uterus. When pregnancy occurs it is often because sperm met the egg in the fallopian tube and fertilized it. Later, if the fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube and implants into the uterus, then conception has taken place.
The vagina is approximately 3 inches long and is made of tissues that are epithelial and mucosal. This means that when blood flow increases to the pelvis the vagina produces a lubricant in the form of moisture. The vagina is not hollow in the sense that a tube is round and hollow. The vagina is relatively flat and has potential space not constantly open space. The vagina has a band of pelvic floor muscles that surround it. One set of muscles is called the puboccocceygeus muscle (PC muscle) which is located approximately 1 inch inside the vagina and which also plays a role in sexual pleasure for both partners.
To truly understand how these parts function during sexual intercourse, we need to consider a research-based paradigm developed by Masters and Johnson years ago which they called the sexual response cycle (see Master, W. & Johnson, V. 1966, Human Sexual Response; Boston: Little Brown). The Sexual Response Cycle is a model that explains how most people experience three phases when they engage in sexual intercourse: excitement, plateau, and then orgasm.
Masters and Johnson are quick to point out that each individual has a unique and varied sexual response so much so that no two sexual encounters would be expected to be perfectly identical between the same people. Nevertheless, these three phases are very common among most people. You may want to search the Internet for Kaplan's model and Master's and Johnson's four-phase model.
As sexual intercourse begins here is what happens to both males and females as they pass through these three phases: Excitement Phase is when blood flow to pelvis bringing more lymphatic fluid and plasma to the region. Because of hormonal and psychological stimuli there is generally swelling in the sexual parts. While this is happening, the Plateau Stage begins which is when more hormones are released, moisture increases, heart rate increases, intensity of sensory perception increases (touch, smell, sight, hearing, and taste). In the Orgasm Phase an electrical build up of energy is released that is associated with a rhythmic contraction of: the pelvic floor muscles, the urinary and anal sphincters, and of various glands for males. This is called an orgasm. After the orgasm finishes, resolution eventually allows the sexual parts to return to pre-excitement conditions. These are almost identical in every way between males and females, except that there are differing sexual parts for each.
Thus, a sexual response in a typical female would typically follow a pattern similar to this one. In the excitement phase, blood and lymphatic fluids increase swelling inside the vagina. Hormones are secreted which lead to a mild uterine contractions which raise the uterus away from the pubic bone. The labia swell and the clitoris becomes hard. The vaginal tissues secrete moisture and the vagina itself lengthens and expands slightly inward.
Also, an electrical sensation surges from the clitoris radiating throughout the body and stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain and a release of the hormone called Oxytocin. When the orgasm ends the body eventually returns to its pre-excitement state. In general, females have more capacity to experience more contractions over a longer period of time than do males. Females have been found to have much more capacity for sexual intercourse than males. This means females can have more sexual intercourse, more often, and with more orgasms than can the average male.
There are two testicles inside a pouch called the scrotum. One testicle sits higher than the other. On the back of the testicle is a storage compartment where mature sperm end up before ejaculation. This is called the epididymis. There is a muscle called the dartos muscle (not shown) which elevates and lowers the testicle based on temperature and sexual pleasure. Sperm grow best at about 91 degrees Fahrenheit and most males are at about 98 degrees, so the dartos will raise and lower the testicles if in colder or warmer temperatures.
For males, in the excitement phase, blood and lymphatic fluids increase swelling inside the prostate, seminal vesicle, testicle, scrotum, and the penis. Hormones are secreted which lead to a higher volume of blood flowing into the spongy tissue columns of the penis than flow out. The penis erects this way (sometimes the penis will leak fluid and/or sperm before the orgasm). The scrotum and dartos muscle draw both testicles up toward the pubic bone pressing the epididymis upward. As stimulation continues the swelling and fluid production continues to increase.
Male reproductive system: The reproductive structures of the human male are shown. Sperm are produced in the seminiferous tubules, mature in the epididymis, and then are forced out into the vas deferens and out of the body through the urethra during ejaculation.
The plateau continues until just before the orgasm. When orgasm begins for males the penis is most erect. Males reach a point of no return in their orgasms (females do not). The ejaculation of sperm and fluids will continue in males, regardless of continued or interrupted stimulation. Females would experience an interruption of the orgasm when stimulation is interrupted. For males, the orgasm also includes a series of contractions which occur every 8/10ths of second and can number anywhere from 1-10. Most males will have 5-6.
The contraction includes anal and urinary sphincter contractions, prostate and seminal vesicle contractions, dartos and scrotum contractions, pelvic floor muscle contractions, penile contractions, and a rhythmic sequence of these in such a way that the ejaculate is expelled from the body out through the penis. The sperm are released from the epididymis and travel through the vas deferens up and around the bladder then through the ejaculatory duct (where it picks up prostate and seminal fluids) and finally out of the penis. An electrical sensation surges from the prostate gland throughout the body and stimulates the pleasure centers of the brain and a release of the hormone called Oxytocin.
For males and females Oxytocin brings a feeling of emotional connection.
After an orgasm, males may continue to experience an erection, but will have to wait a while for the central nervous system to reset before they can ejaculate or orgasm again. Most males wait less time when younger and more time when older. For males an ejaculation during orgasm would be expected. But, sometimes ejaculations happen with or without orgasms and orgasms may happen without ejaculations.
Even though the physiological component of sexuality is common between males and females, the male and female sex drives are NOT identical. Studies consistently show that sexual desire for women is more sensitive to the context (meaningful or intimate connection) and the social and cultural environment (quality of relationships, stresses of the day, etc.). Generally speaking most men seek more sex than most women throughout most of the life span. Also, most men are more easily aroused by visual stimulation than are most women.
The Janus Report reported that 65 percent of men have an orgasm every time during love making while females reported a much lower 15 percent every time. About 46 percent of women report “often” having an orgasm during love making compared to only 28 percent of men (Page 86, Table 3.28). These sex drive differences also emerged in self-reported masturbation frequencies. About 55 percent of men and 38 percent of women masturbate on a daily-monthly basis (Page 77, Table 3.21). Another study indicates that solo masturbation is a practice commonly found among married people (see Laumann and Janus).
Numerous studies show that men and women enjoy sex most in a meaningful relationship, typically a long-term committed one. These studies indicate that the pleasure is more meaningful and enjoyable in long-term committed relationships. Figure 5 shows a pleasure and intimacy continuum for both sexes. Those who abstain from all sexual activity are in the lower left corner with no intimacy and no pleasure. Those who solo masturbate (by themselves) derive pleasure without intimacy. Those who purchase prostitution services derive pleasure, yet have very little intimacy. Finally, those who have one-time sexual encounters in a “one-night stand also derive pleasure with little intimacy over time.
For married or cohabiting couples, sexual intercourse includes both pleasure and intimacy. Newlyweds have their honeymoon night and sex becomes a rite of passage that marks the beginning of their full emersion into the marital relationship. In time husbands and wives have sex for many of the other reasons listed in Figure 5. Sometimes one spouse has sex to meet the needs or wants of their partners. At other times sex is a healthy and fun stress relief. Sometimes sex is a convenient way to be affectionate as a giver and a receiver. In relationships, sexual intercourse has many functions including reinforcing commitment and loyalty with one another. To give and receive is pleasurable and bonding during sexual intercourse.
Some couples seeking parenthood will have sex to pleasure themselves while getting pregnant. Many report enhancements of intimacy with less focus on pleasure at moments such as these. Others get distracted because sex becomes goal-oriented rather than simply expressive while trying to make a baby. For long-term relationships that have endured challenges such as hardship, betrayals, offenses, anger, arguments and ultimately forgiveness, sexual intercourse takes on a profoundness of its own. Those who have short-term relationships miss out on the intimacy payoff that sex provides to those in long-term relationships. Sex becomes a unique way of enhancing trust and closeness while sometimes providing sexual healing to wounded egos and feelings.
Extramarital affairs are intimate relationships with a person other than one's spouse that may be sexual or nonsexual. Most US extramarital affairs are sexual and non-consented to by one's spouse. In spite of a variety of estimates on how many married people were ever unfaithful to their spouse, all scientific studies have found that men were more likely than women to have an extramarital affair and that most men and women do NOT ever have an affair.
Marital infidelity has been and continues to be disapproved of by the general public. Many in the US who disapprove of affairs, simultaneously understand the frailties of the human experience and sympathize to some degree with those who make this “mistake.” Such was found to be true with politicians, movie and TV stars, and sports celebrities (you can pick any one from the online list available on the Internet when you search “celebrity affairs”). Affairs don't always lead to marital or relational dissolution. But, in most cases it is better if the offending spouse or partner confesses the infidelity rather than simply gets caught.
Human beings are socialized into their adult roles and learn their sexual identities along with their gender roles, work roles, and family roles. Sexual Orientation is the sexual preference one has for their partner: male, female, both, or neither. There are a few common sexual orientations that can be seen at the societal and personal level. Heterosexuality is the sexual attraction between a male and a female. Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between a male to another male or a female to another female. Bisexuality is a sexual attraction to both male and female sexual partners.
There is a difference in these three dimensions of sexuality: sexual orientation, sexual desire, and sexual behaviors. Sexual desire is the attractions we have for sexual partners and experience that exist independent of our behaviors. Sexual behaviors are our actual sexual actions and interactions. It is important to note that orientations, desires, and behaviors are not always the same thing. They do overlap at times. For example, a heterosexual male may have had a homosexual experience in the past, or not. He may at times desire males and females regardless of his actual sexual activities. A lesbian female may have had a short-term heterosexual relationship, yet define herself as a lesbian.
When considering the congruence of these three concepts it is helpful to use visual aids. Figure 6 below shows how sexual orientation, desires, and behaviors are at times: congruent, meaning they correspond directly with each other, or incongruent, meaning they do NOT correspond together with each other. These three dimensions of our sexuality are surprisingly incongruent among adults in the US society.
When orientation, desires, and behaviors are congruent that implies dimensional continuity, meaning there is congruency between the three sexual dimensions of: orientation, desire, and behaviors. This is very common and much of the US population has dimensional continuity. Yet, when desires and orientation are not congruent with behaviors it implies dimensional discontinuity.
The proportion of the US society that is homosexual varies because of the difficulty in defining how to measure it. If researchers ask people their sexual behaviors then the proportion of the population having sex with a same-sex partner is lower than the proportion having ever had sex with a same-sex partner. One researcher, Tom Smith, 2003 reported that:
Edward O. Laumann et al wrote the largest sociological study of US sexuality ever published. (1994, The Social Organization of Sexuality U. of Chicago Press ISBN 0226-46957-3). In this book he wrote about the prevalence of self-identified sexual orientations. Laumann and the other researchers surveyed about 3,400 respondents. By far, most members of US society are heterosexual. Laumann avoided the use of the words, “heterosexual or homosexual.” Their data was collected by asking about behaviors or how many male or female partners a respondent had sex with in the past (page 292:note 9). They found that 7.1 percent of males and 3.8 percent of females had ever had sex with a partner of the same sex (page 294).
Laumann also reported that over 96 percent of males and 98 percent of females identified themselves as heterosexual. Only 2 percent of males and 0.9 percent of females identified themselves as homosexual, while 0.8 percent of males and 0.5 percent of females reported bisexuality (page 311 Table 8.3B). The Janus Report also reported their findings on sexual behaviors and sexual orientation. Their sample reported 22 percent of men and 17 percent of women said yes to the question, “Have you had a homosexual experience (page 69 Table 3.14).”
Janus also reported that 91 percent of men and 95 percent of women claimed to be heterosexual, 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women claimed to be homosexual, and 5 percent of men and 3 percent of women claimed to be bisexual (Page 70, Table 3.16). Heterosexuality is by far the most common identification in studies where respondents are asked to identify their sexual orientation.
Yet, heterosexuals may have had a variety of sexual experiences in a variety of context and still consider themselves to be heterosexual in spite of dimensional discontinuity or continuity. Generally speaking Janus and Laumann found that the US is a very sexual nation. They reported that very few men and women reported never having had vaginal sexual intercourse (less than 5 percent). They reported that men typically have sex sooner than women and that most had sex by age 20. Janus specifically reported that only 9 percent of men and 17 percent of women had NO sexual experience before marriage (page 87, Table 3.29).
Sexual orientation, desires, and behaviors have become extremely politicized. The largest sexual political action committee is the Human Rights Campaign which emerged in the 1980s as a “Gay Community” rights organization. LGBT and LGBTQ have replaced Gay Community as the collective acronym. LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered and occasionally Queer is added by some interests groups.
The Human Rights Campaign http://www.hrc.org/ has become the central political action organization for LGBTQ interest groups. On this Website, under “Issues” it lists: Aging, Coming Out, Hate Crimes, Health, Immigration, Marriage & Relationship Recognition, Military, Parenting, People of Color, Religion & Faith, Transgender, Workplace, and Youth & Campus Activism.
The “marriage and relationship recognition” became an emotionally charged political issue during the California Proposition 8 referendum and constitutional amendment that Passed November 2008. Because it passed the California Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights to the State Constitution now reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This set a strong national precedence against rights to same sex couples to have legally recognized marriage en par with heterosexual married couples. Estimates are that over \$80 million was spent on this proposition alone on both the for and against efforts (see Wiki http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_8 ).
The Prop 8 initiative originated from another political action committee called ProtectMarriage.com (http://www.protectmarriage.com/ ). Under the “About Us” link it self-describes as a “…broad-based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals…to restore the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.”
Interestingly most in the US would never oppose an individual's choice or orientation when it comes to sexuality. This and other conservative interest groups like it have formed to advocate for conservative legislation and policies in the US and Abroad.
None, on either side of sexual rights, assumes that this oppositional battle for rights, laws, and policies has ended. Many see the stakes as being higher than ever in the current sexual politics scene.
There are a few informative Websites that can provide more answers to your sexuality questions:
Introduction to Sociology Chapter 20 Rape and Sexual Assault and/or go to www.rainn.org | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.07%3A_Sexual_Scripts.txt |
Sixty years ago if you were of marrying age, you'd most likely select someone based on how your parents felt about it, how healthy the person appeared to be, how good/moral their character appeared to be, and how stable their economic resources appeared to be. Today we search for soul mates. Look around you in the classroom. How many potential mates are sitting there? In other words, how many single females or males are there in the same classroom? Now of those, how many would you be attracted to as a date and how many can you tell just by watching them that you'd probably never date? These are the types of questions and answers we consider when we study dating and mate selection.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/09s0010.pdf). Those numbers should be very similar in 2010 when the Census is collected. Does that mean that you could have 15 million potential mates out there somewhere? Yes, potential yet no in realistic terms. You see, it would take more time than any mortal has in their life to ever interact with that many people. Besides dating and mate selection is not about volume it's about quality and intimacy in the relationship. To help you better understand this let's learn a few key principles that apply to the realistic processes we use to date and mate select.
When we see people we filter them as either being in or out of our pool of eligibles. Filtering is the process of identifying those we interact with as either being in or out of our pool of people we might consider to be a date or mate. There are many filters we use. One is physical appearance. We might include some because of tattoos and piercing or exclude some for the exact same physical traits. We might include some because they know someone we know or exclude the same people because they are total strangers. Figure 1 shows the basic date and mate selection principles that play into our filtering processes (This inverted pyramid metaphorically represents a filter that a liquid might be poured through to refine it; e.g., coffee filter).
That couple in the bottom right-hand corner is my wife and I on a field trip to the Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology in Ypsilanti, Michigan. She and I travel without our children at least twice per year and we have been attending professional conferences together for more than a decade. We met in college in 1985. I was the maintenance man for all of the Women's dorms and she lived in the dorms (I met many female friends through my work). We dated, became engaged and married in the same year. We worked together for 7 years to put me through my Associates, Bachelor's, Masters, Doctorate, then Post-doctoral fellowship. My wife now has her Bachelor's degree and is shopping for her Masters. Higher education is a theme that emerged within our life experiences and has spilled over into our children's' lives now with 3 in college at this time. All of the principles discussed in this chapter applied to how my wife and I met, became friends, and chose to marry. They will likely apply to you and yours.
Propinquity is the geographic closeness experienced by potential dates and mates. It's the proximity you might experience by living in the same dorms or apartment buildings, going to the same university or college, working in the same place of employment, or belonging to the same religious group. Proximity means that you both breathe the same air in the same place at about the same time. Proximity is crucial because the more you see one another or interact directly or indirectly with one another, the more likely you see each other as mates. I often ask my students how they met and when they tell their stories I help them to identify the geography that was involved in the process.
Physical appearance is subjective and is defined differently for each individual. Truly, what one person finds as attractive is not what others find to be attractive. There are a few biological, psychological, and social-emotional aspects of appearance that tend to make an individual more attractive to more people. These include slightly above average desirable traits and symmetry in facial features.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (www.CDC.gov) the average man in the United States is 5 foot 10 inches tall and weighs about 177 pounds. The average woman is about 5 foot 4 inches tall and weighs about 144 pounds. Did you just compare yourself? Most of us tend to compare ourselves to averages or to others we know. That's how we come to define our personal level of attractiveness. This is important to understand that we subjectively judge ourselves as being more or less attractive, because we often limit our dating pool of eligibles to those we think are in our same category of beauty.
If you are 6 foot tall as a man or 5 foot 8 as a woman, then you are slightly above average in height. For men, if they have manly facial features (strong chin and jaw and somewhat prominent brow), slight upper body musculature, and a slim waist then they'd have more universally desirable traits. For women, larger eyes, softer facial features and chin, fuller lips, and an hour-glass figure facilitate more universally desirable traits.
So, here is the million dollar question, “what if I don't have these universally desirable traits? Am I excluded from the date and mate selection market? No. There is a principle that I have found to be the most powerful predictor of how we make our dating and mating selection choices--homogamy. Homogamy is the tendency for dates, mates, and spouses to pair off with someone of similar attraction, background, interests, and needs.
This is typically true for most couples. They find and pair off with persons of similarity more than difference. Have you ever heard the colloquial phrase, “opposites attract?” To some degree they do, but typically they don't form committed long-term relationships together.
One of my students challenged this notion in the case of her own relationship. She said,
“My husband and I are so different. He like Mexican food, I like Italian. He likes rap and I like classical music. He likes water skiing and I like camping and hiking…” I interrupted her and said, “So you both like ethnic food, music, and outdoors. Do you vote on similar issues? Do you have similar family backgrounds? Do you both come from a similar economic class?” She answered yes to all three questions.
Now, don't misunderstand me. Couples are not identical, just similar. And we tend to find patterns that indicate that homogamy in a relationship can be indirectly supportive of a long-term relationship quality because it facilitates less disagreements and disconnections of routines in the daily life of a couple. I believe that we filter homogamously and even to the point that we do tend to marry someone like our parents.
Here's why, people from similar economic class, ethnicity, religion, political persuasion, and lifestyles tend to hang out with others like themselves. Our mates resemble our parents more because we resemble our parents and we tend to look for others like ourselves.
Heterogamy is the dating or pairing of individuals with differences in traits. All of us pair off with heterogamous and homogamous individuals with emphasis more on the latter than the former. Over time, after commitments are made, couples often develop more homogamy. Some develop similar mannerisms, finish each other's sentences, dress alike, develop mutually common hobbies and interests, and parent together.
One of the most influential psychologists in the 1950-1960s was Abraham Maslow and his famous Pyramid of the Hierarchy of Needs (Google “A Theory of Human Motivation”, 1943, Psychological Review 50(4) (1943):370-96). Maslow's pyramid has been taught in high schools and colleges for decades. Most of my students tell me they've seen the pyramid or studied Maslow in more than once in previous class. Maslow sheds light on how and why we pick the person we pick when choosing a date or mate by focusing on how they meet our needs as a date, mate, or spouse. Persons from dysfunctional homes where children were not nurtured nor supported through childhood would likely be attracted to someone who provides that unfulfilled nurturing need they still have. Persons from homes where they were nurtured, supported, and sustained in their individual growth and development would likely be attracted to someone who promises growth and support in intellectual, aesthetic, or self-actualization (becoming fully who our individual potential allows us to become) areas of life.
It may sound selfish at first glance but we really do date and mate on the basis of what we get out of it (or how our needs are met).
The Social Exchange Theory and its rational choice formula clarify the selection process even further.
Maximize Rewards-Minimize Costs=Date or Mate Choice.
When we interact with potential dates and mates we run a mental balance sheet in our heads. She might think, “he's tall, confident, funny, and friends with my friends.” As she talks a bit more she might say, “But, he chews smokeless tobacco, only wants to party, and just flirted with another young women while we were still talking.” The entire time we interact with potential dates and mates we evaluate them on their appearance, disposition, goals and aspirations, and other traits. This while simultaneously remembering how we rate and evaluate ourselves. Rarely do we seek out the best looking person at the party unless we define ourselves as an even match for him or her.
More often we rank and rate ourselves compared to others and as we size up and evaluate potentials we define the overall exchange rationally or in an economic context where we try to maximize our rewards while minimizing our losses.
The overall evaluation of the deal also depends to a great extent on how well we feel matched on racial and ethnic traits, religious background, social economic class, and age similarities. Truly the complexity of the date and mate selection process includes many obvious and some more subtle processes that you can understand for yourself. If you are single you can apply them to the date and mate selection processes you currently pursue.
pages). To Murstein the exchange is mutual and dependent upon the subjective attractions and the subjective assets and liabilities each individual brings to the relationship. The Stimulus is the trait (usually physical) that draws your attention to the person. After time is spent together dating or hanging out, Values are compared for compatibility and evaluation of maximization of rewards while minimization of costs is calculated. If after time and relational compatibility supports it, the pair may choose to take Roles which typically include exclusive dating, cohabitation, engagement, or marriage. Figure 2 shows how the Stimulus-Values-Role theory might overlap with a couple's development of intimacy over increased time and increased interaction.
How do strangers transition from not even knowing one another to eventually cohabiting or marrying together? From the very first encounter, two strangers begin a process that either excludes one another as potential dates or mates or includes them and begins the process of establishing intimacy. Intimacy is the mutual feeling of acceptance, trust, and connection to another person, even with the understanding of personal faults of the individual. In other words, intimacy is the ability to become close to one another, to accept one another as is, and eventually to feel accepted by the other. Intimacy is not sexual intercourse, although sexual intercourse may be one of many expressions of intimacy. When two strangers meet they have a stimulus that alerts one or both to take notice of the other.
I read a book by Judith Wallerstein (see: 1995 The Good Marriage) where one woman was on a date with a guy and overheard another man laughing like Santa Clause might laugh. She asked her date to introduce her and that began the relationship which would become her decades-long marriage to the Santa Clause laughing guy. I've had people tell me personally that in their relationship, there was a subtle connection that just felt safe, like a reunion with a long lost friend when they first met one another. I've had many indicate that they thought the other was so very hot and good looking, “and I couldn't wait to get burned” one female student said.
In the stimulus stage some motivation at the physical, social, emotional, intellectual or spiritual level sparks interests and the interaction begins. Over time and with increased interaction, two people may make that journey of values comparisons and contrasts which inevitably includes or excludes the other. The more time and interaction that is accompanied by increased trust and acceptance of one's self and the other, the more the intimacy and probability of a long-term relationship.
Even though Figure 2 shows that a smooth line of increasing intimacy can occur, it does not always occur so smoothly nor so predictably. As the couple reaches a place where a bond has developed they establish patterns of commitment and loyalty which initiates the roles listed in Figure 2. The list of roles is listed in increasing order of level of commitment yet does not indicate any kind of predictable stages the couple would be expected to pursue. In other words, some couples may take the relationship only as far as exclusive dating, which is the mutual agreement to exclude others from dating either individual in the relationship. Another couple may eventually cohabit or marry.
It should be mentioned that what you'd look for in a date is often different from what you might look for in a spouse. Dates are temporary adventures where good looks, fun personality, entertainment capacity, and even your social status by being seen in public with him or her are considered important. Dates are short-term and can be singular events or a few events. Many college students who have dated more than once develop
“A Thing” or a relationship noticed by the individuals and their friends as either beginning or having at least started, but not quite having a defined destination. These couples eventually hold a DTR. A DTR is a moment where the two individuals Define The Relationship openly to determine if both want to include each other in a specific goal-directed destination (e.g., exclusive dating) or if it's better for everyone if the relationship ends.
Ever had one of these? Many describe them as awkward. I think awkward is an understatement. A DTR is extremely risky in terms of how much of one 's self has to be involved and in terms of how vulnerable it makes each other feel. In the TV series The Office, Jim and Pam experience a number of DTRs that early on in the relationship ended with either or both of them wanting more closeness and commitment, but neither of them being capable of making it happen. The Office is fiction, but the relationships clearly reflect some of the human experience in an accurate way.
Notice that Jim and Pam were from the same part of the country, had very many social and cultural traits in common, and both met in a setting where they could see each other on a regular basis and have the opportunity to go through the SVR process. Homogamy, propinquity, need matching, compatibility, and eventually commitment all applied in their story together. The cultural similarities of a couple cannot be emphasized enough in this discussion.
Many of those living in the United States share common mainstream cultural traits, regardless of ancestral heritage or ethnic background, date and mate selection occurs for nearly all members of society. Figure 3 shows a list of cultural and ethnic background traits that influence how the inclusion and exclusion decisions are made, depending on how similar or different each individual defines themselves to be in relation to the other.
Many who teach relationship skills in cross-cultural or trans-racial relationships focus on the similarity principle.
Table 1: Cultural and Ethnic Background Traits
• Language
• Religion
• Traditions and Holidays
• Lifestyles and self-identification
• Workplace skills
• Educational aspirations and achievements
• Age similarity
• Physical appearance (skin color, facial features, body shape and size)
• Food preferences
• Political leanings
• Economic similarities
• Common shared experiences (e.g., military backgrounds)
• Family cultural similarities and compatibilities
• Physical attractiveness similarities
• Hobbies and interest similarities
• Life goals similarities
• Others...
The Similarity Principle states that the more similar two people perceive themselves to be, the more likely their relationship will continue and succeed. Notice the word “perceive,” because actual similarities are not as critical as an individual's belief that there are common characteristics. Also, certain individuals value one background trait over others. They may be more willing to overlook or ignore differences in traits which are not as similar.
In the Movie, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (my wife and I saw this one three times together in theaters) the Greek-American woman who was the main character meets a strikingly handsome professional man from a different ethnic background. Much of the difficulty she had in including him as a mate was her perception that her cultural and family background was unattractive and could not be desirable to potential mates. He was deeply attracted to her family because it filled his need for family connection, tradition, and support. He changed his religion, learned the Greek culture, and adopted her family as his surrogate family.
In real life, most don't make such profound concessions when choosing a mate. The relationship is less likely to develop if there are few or no common traits and more likely if there are more common traits, especially in the areas of commonality that the individuals define as being very important.
Dating often turns into exclusive or boyfriend-girlfriend type relationships. These relationships are crucial in the lives of young adults because they allow each other to gain experience in the daily routines of intimate relationships. They don't always develop into a long-term relationship, but practicing in healthy relationships is far more valuable than the grieving from breaking up. There are a few key guidelines if you need to break up.
These make sense but also have a tremendous amount of literature and science to back them up.
First, before you break up, do a maximize rewards and minimize cost-pros and cons evaluation so you can make sure that breaking up is the best choice you can make. Second, break up clearly so there is no ambiguity about where the relationship might be headed. Third, avoid hanging out together after the break up. I know you see this in TV shows and I know you have friends who probably still hang out after the break up. But don't. It's the drama that fills soap operas, 911 calls, and evening dramatic shows on TV. And remember that a woman is more likely to be physically attacked by her intimate partner than by any other person (even strangers).
There are some rules that can be summarized about how we include dates or mates in our pool of eligibles. Figure 4 shows that rule #1 is Exogamy. Exogamy is the tendency to pair off with or marry someone outside of your own familial groups.
Most people follow this rule with little or no formal instruction. Rule #2 is to find a compatible person who can have their needs be met by you and your needs be met by him or her. Rule #3 is to select someone who is a good find, great deal, or maximized reward, minimized costs formula. You are deserving of a date or mate who will reinforce your value as an individual and who will be pleasing to you.
Rule #4 is to maximize homogamy and look for commonalities that will smooth out the daily adjustments of the relationship. I doubt you'd ever find a perfect match on all of these traits, but make sure you find a good match of complimentary personality traits and background characteristics.
Rule #5 is very important. You must learn to discern trouble and danger in a date or mate. Intimate violence is the worst and most deadly violence especially for women.
Their dates, mates, spouses, and life partners are more likely to cause them violent harm than will any other category of relationship in their lives. Figure 5 provides some criteria to identify as red flags, warning signs, or danger signs.
The risky and dangerous traits you might see in a potential date or mate can be early warning signals to raise red flags. In fairness, the presence of any one of these may just indicate a bad day. Some potential dates and mates are predatorial. That means they search for types of people they can manipulate and control and try to pair off with them.
The presence of a few of these could raise your suspicions enough to become a savvy shopper, discriminating consumer, or even a detective of danger signs. Remember, that when dating and selecting a mate overcautious discernment is justified.
Most people never experience the extreme dangers of dating. For most it's more of an emotional risk than a safety risk. Many chose to marry and do so more often in the warmer months of the year than in the other months. When relationships form and engagements are made and agreed upon, an entire social experience is initiated where new social roles and networks begin to unfold. Engaged people announce their plans to family and friends and by so doing initiate a few processes within the social community of each fiancé.
Announcements of the engagement begin the process of exclusion of others. All other potential suitors and dates are excluded from the pool of eligibles while exclusive monogamy begins in almost every aspect of the couple's lives. She often wears a ring
that ranges from \$2-10,000 US dollars. That ring deters most because it symbolizes her agreement to marry her fiancé. The couple often formalizes their wedding plans in newspaper, mailed out invitations to the reception, and/or online announcements. In-laws are people you become related to by virtue of marrying into your fiancé's family network.
I often joke with my students that you get in-laws and out-laws when you marry. Not all in-laws will get along with the couple as well as might be wished.
The creation of extended kin ties is crucial to a successful engagement. To some degree in-laws are expected to at least be compatible with the new family member (fiancé) and if possible in another degree to establish close relational bonds. Engagement also signifies to the couple the ultimate direction of their courtship. Marriage and the merging of social networks, belongings, monies, physical intimacy, rights, children, and many other things becomes the focus. Unfortunately many couples focus heavily on the reception and that becomes a great source of stress which they must adapt to or be destroyed by if they're not careful to learn to face stressors in a united manner. Engagement provides the couple with opportunities to practice being married, in many different aspects of the relationship.
Most engagements end in marriage. But, some end in a breaking up event where the marriage is cancelled. Sometimes couples realize that they were not as compatible as they originally thought themselves to be. Sometimes, they are geographically separated by various circumstances and find that their commitment did not withstand the test of time and space. Other times in-laws and extended family incompatibilities work against the marriage. And finally sometimes, people just fall out of love or lose interest.
For those who are searching for a spouse the market is an uneven playing field. The United States has what social scientist call a “marriage Squeeze.” A Marriage Squeeze is a demographic imbalance in the number of males to females among those considered to be of marrying ages. There is also a phenomenon called the Marriage Gradient. The Marriage Gradient is the tendency for women to marry a man slightly older and slightly taller while men tend to marry a woman slightly more attractive.
China and India have tremendous problems with their marriage squeeze issues. Because of sex-selection abortion, cultural preferences for males, female infanticide, and cultural definitions as “females being a burden” rather than a source of joy and rejoicing they are missing tens of millions of females in these populations. For example in 2001 India had 35 million extra men nationwide (retrieved 5 November, 2009 from http://www.prb.org/ Articles/2001/2001CensusResultsMixedforIndiasWomenandGirls.aspx). In 2003 China was reported to also have about 35 million extra men (retrieved 5 November, 2009 from http://www.prb.org/Reports/2003/Shor...lsinChina.aspx ).
As you've read throughout this chapter you have learned a great deal bout how we (perhaps even You) include or exclude people into or away from your pool of eligibles.
In the latter part, I may have over emphasized the “Buyer beware” approach that I wanted you to have as you move through the data and mate selection market.
Fear not. Enjoy dating and mate selection. It is a wonderful time of your life that can be the best and simultaneously the worst of times. It may help for you to understand a bit more about yourself so that you can develop a strategy in being proactive and focused in your date and/or mate selection experiences. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.08%3A_Dating_and_Mate_Selection.txt |
Chapter 9: Marriage and Other Long-Term Relationships
As was mentioned in Chapter 6, a couple is simply a pair of people who identify themselves in terms of belonging together, trusting one another, and having a unique relationship, separate from all others. A “We” is close to the same thing, yet it focuses on the relationship as an entity in itself. A “We” as shown in Figure 1 is a married couple but can also include cohabiters, or other intimate non-married couple arrangements. This is a relationship that is not intimately connected to any other relationships at the same profound level as they are connected to one another.
Here is a metaphor, a “We” is much like a vehicle (relationship) that two people purchased together. Both have to put in maintenance. Both have to care for it and treat it in such a way that it runs for a long time. Sometimes, spouses or partners attack the other in such a way that the other is harmed or damaged in their trust. A “We” is the social and emotional boundary a couple establishes when they decide to become a couple. This boundary includes only the husband and wife. It purposefully excludes the children, extended family, co-workers, and friends. Most couples who establish a strong marital bond have successfully distinguished themselves as a “We” and partially disengaged from the existing relationships of child, grandchild, best friends, etc. That is not to say that you cut your parents, relatives, and other friends off. You just have to establish a new exclusive intimacy that only includes you and your spouse (See Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee (1995) The Good Marriage ISBN 0-446-67248-3; Warner Pub.) This also means making certain things into spouse-only issues which are the decisions, advice, and discussion that are held exclusively between partners and intentionally NOT between other family and friends. This might include types of birth control, how to run a budget, sexual techniques and practices, who might be at fault in an argument, etc. If a couple marries in their late 20's then they have a life-long history of intimate help-seeking and advice-giving relationships with others. These may continue as long as the help-seeking behavior doesn't violate the intimate agreements of confidentiality for each spouse or partner. I must emphasize how crucial it is to form the “We” so that married couples avoid the damaging intrusions of family and friends into their new marriage.
Marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman as recognized by most of the United States. Internationally and in certain US political regions, a man and another man or a woman and another woman can be legally recognized as a married couple. What are typical marriage structures? The US and world-wide culturally preferred marriage type today is monogamy. Monogamy is the marriage form permitting only one spouse at a time. Almost all in the US have married monogamously since the original colonies in the 1600s. Monogamy implies a 1:1 relationship and is typically desired both by married couples and by opposite and same-sex cohabiters.
Cohabitation is the heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual moving in together of two partners without going through the formalities of legal marriage. Although similar in form and function, cohabitating couples live differently in many significant day-to-day aspects when compared to married couples. Also, many cohabiting couples eventually choose to marry, but their risk of divorce is higher than among couples that never cohabited. Cohabitation will be discussed more below, but it has been increasingly popular over the last 30 years.
Multiple spouses at the same time has been preferred in the past by Muslims, Africans, and Mormons (they ceased polygamy in 1890. Any current Mormons who try to marry polygamously are excommunicated) and Mormon-splinter groups (many are still polygamous today). Polygamy is a marriage form permitting more than one spouse at the same time. Polygyny is marriage form permitting more than one wife at the same time and is the most common form of polygamy in the world's history. Polygyny is still common and legal in many African, Middle-Eastern, Muslim, and Indian nations. It was a deep part of China's history and prior to World War II it was common for a Chinese man to have multiple wives and many children.
I have a former student who is 34 and was raised in a group that broke away from the Mormon congregation in the 1890's and formed its own polygamy-based religion. She came to guest lecture to my class and described her 45 siblings, 32 daughters and sons-in-law, 180 grandchildren, 32 great grandchildren, and typical meals at home of 40-53 family members per meal three times per day. Figure 2 shows her rough-sketched family genogram (she asked me to conceal identifiable aspects of her family so that they may be spared any ridiculing comments or embarrassment).
Her father biologically fathered about 46 children. He married his 16 year-old first wife in 1948 and had 16 children with her. Eleven years later he married his 21 year-old second wife and had 13 children with her. Eight years later he married an 18 year-old third wife and fathered 10 children with her. He then was asked to marry a 36 year-old divorcee who had 6 children from another marriage and they had one child together. He then married a 26 year-old and her 45 year-old sister who were widowed from the same husband. They together brought in 3 children from other marriages. He had 6 more children with his sixth wife. About 9 children are unrelated but consider him to be a fatherly figure. Interestingly, only 3 of all these children chose to marry polygamously.
When I asked my student why, she simply replied, “It's just too much work these days and it's not worth it to them.”
Polyandry is a marriage form permitting more than one husband at the same time. This is historically and currently rare and if or when it was practiced, it often included the marriage of one wife to a set of brothers with all having sexual access to the wife.
Polyandry was found among some Pacific Island cultures and among the pre-Taliban Afghanis.
What if a person marries, divorces, marries, divorces, etc.? Serial Monogamy or Serial Polygamy is the process of establishing intimate marriage or cohabiting relationships that eventually dissolve and are followed by another intimate marriage or cohabiting relationship, that eventually dissolve, etc. in a series. So, polygamists have simultaneous multiple spouses while serial monogamists or serial polygamists have multiple spouses in a sequence of relationships. Millions of US adults will experience serial marriages and divorces. It often amazes me how much we love marriage in the United States. Many marry then divorce, yet still want to be married again. Many others who suffered through their parents' unhealthy marriages and divorces also want to marry, knowing firsthand how risky that might be.
Traditional roles of men and women influence how the power and marriage work out in society. Typically and throughout history families have been Patriarchal families where males have more power and authority than females and where rights and inheritances typically pass from fathers to sons. It should be mentioned that many family power structures still lean heavily toward male power.
Matriarchal families are where females have more power and authority than males and rights and inheritances pass from mothers to daughter and sons. In Matriarchal families, the mother is not only the social and emotional force of the family, but is also the economic force. More and more in the US families are leaning toward Egalitarian families which are families with power and authority more fairly distributed between husband and wife.
States have power when it comes to allowing marriage. The power held by states to legalize the economic, social, spiritual, emotional, or physical union or disunion of a man and a woman is not only traditional, but also enduring in US history. Centuries and millennia ago, fathers, clan or kinship leaders, religious leaders, and community members had the rights to marry which are now claimed by the state or nation. True, states don't get involved in the spiritual or physical union, they just license it or legalize it the same way they license drivers or certify the legal sale of property. Almost every year, there are about 2 legally sanctioned state marriages in the US for every 1 legally sanctioned state divorce decree.
In Figure 3 below you can see just how many legal marriages were granted per divorce for the years 1960-2005. These numbers are presented as a ratio (number of marriages/number of divorces per year). Between 1960 and 1970, there were almost 4 marriages per divorce, indicating nearly 4 marriages per 1 divorce nationwide (fewer divorces). As the rate of divorce increased in the 1970s-1980s we see that there were about 2 marriages per 1 divorce. Notice that since the late 1990s the ratio is increasing again because divorce continues to trickle downward.
For decades, newscasters and educators have warned that 1 in 2 marriages “end in divorce.” Sounds frightening, doesn't it? Is it true? Not really, since divorce never reached the actual 50 percent mark. Based on surveys of exactly how many people have ever been divorced in their lifetimes, most will tell you it is closer to 43 percent in the US's worst divorce rates ever (1980s). (see US Census for tables at http://www.census.gov/population/www...ed_tables.html).
*Taken from Statistical Abstracts of the United States on 27 March 2009 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...08edition.html; Table 77, Section 2.
The US Census Bureau conducts annual surveys of the US population and publishes them as the Current Population Surveys. Table 1 represents the US family Types as of October 1, 2008. You will notice that marrieds comprise the largest proportion of family types in 2008. Single never marrieds are the second largest type and include another 6.8 million cohabiters of opposite sex and an unknown number of same sex cohabiters. Next is divorced, widowed, then separated.
Table 1: US Family Types, 2008
Types Numbers Percentages
Married 123,671,000 52%
Widowed 14,314,000 6%
Divorced 23,346,000 10%
Separated 5,183,000 2%
Never Married - Single 71,479,000 30%
Total Families 15 and over 237,993,000 100%
Taken from the Internet on 30 March 2009 from Table A1. Marital Status of People 15 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Personal Earnings, Race, and Hispanic Origin/1, 2008 http://www.census.gov/population/www...m/cps2008.html and see Table UC1. Opposite Sex Unmarried Couples by Labor Force Status of Both Partners: 2008 retrieved 30 March 2009 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2008.html
Look at Figure 4 below to see the US graphical trend of actual numbers in millions of family types. It shows that the single largest type of family in the US has always been marrieds then never marrieds. The divorced category overtook the widowed category in the 1970s and has been higher ever since. Why are the trends upward? Simple, these are numbers and not rates nor percentages. The population has grown and therefore the population size has been steadily increasing.
Robert and Jeanette Lauer are a husband-wife team who have not only studied the family but have written a college textbook called Marriage and Family: The Quest for Intimacy (2009, Cengage). They studied commitment and endurance of married couples. They identified 29 factors among couples who had been together for 15 years or more. They found that both husbands and wives reported as their number 1 and 2 factors that “My spouse is my best friend and I like my spouse as a person” (see 'Til Death Do Us Part: How Couples Stay Together 1986 by Robert Lauer and also Google Lauer and Lauer and Kerr various years). The Lauers also studied the levels of commitment couples had to their marriage. The couples reported that they were in fact committed to and supportive of not only their own marriage, but marriage as an institution.
Irreconcilable differences are common to marriage and the basic strategy to deal with them is to negotiate as much as is possible, accept the irresolvable differences, and finally live happily with them. Keeping a positive outlook on your marriage is essential. As was mentioned above, as long as a couple is married they are technically at risk of divorce.
Try to remember who you thought was attractive your senior year in high school. Would you still find them attractive today? Some who marry in their teens actually outgrow one another, including their loss of attraction that stems from their changed tastes. Couples who married as teenagers must unite as they take into account their ongoing maturation and change in tastes. When marital data is collected by the US Census Bureau, it often shows that those marrying in their teen years have the highest rates of having ever been divorced.
As is mentioned above, most unwed mothers end up marrying the biological father of their baby. These marriages often end in divorce more than marriages for non-pregnant newlyweds. The existence of children at the time of the wedding is often associated with higher divorce rates.
Family Scientists have borrowed from the physics literature a concept called entropy which is roughly defined as the principle that matter tends to decay and reduce, toward its simplest parts. For example, a new car if parked in a field and ignored, would eventually decay and rot. A planted garden, if left unmaintained, would be overrun with weeds, pests, and yield low if any crop.
Marital Entropy is the principle that if a marriage does not receive preventative maintenance and upgrades it will move towards decay and break down. Couples who take ownership of their marriage and who realize that marriage is not a state of constant bliss (nothing really is) and that it often requires much work, will experience more stability and strength when they nurture their marriage. They treat their marriage like a nice car and become committed to preventing breakdowns rather than waiting to repair them.
These couples read and study experts like Gottman, Cherlin, Popenoe, and others who have focused their research on how to care for the marriage, acknowledging the propensity relationships have to decay if unattended.
Many individuals struggle to completely surrender their single status. They mentally remain on the marriage market in case “someone better than their current spouse comes along.” Norval Glenn in 1991 argued that many individuals see marriage as a temporary state while they keep an eye open for someone better. “More honest vows would often be “as long as we both shall love” or “as long as no one better comes along (page 268).”
Glenn gets at the core of the cultural values associated with risks of divorcing. (See “The Recent Trend in Marital Success in the United States” by Norval D. Glenn Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 261-270). In Figure 5 you can see the median duration of marriage for people 15 and older by sex and age. This data is exclusively for those who ended up divorcing. Even those who do divorce can expect a median (exact middle value in a list) of about 8 years for both men and women. The average couple could expect to stay married quite a long time.
A positive outlook for your marriage as a rewarding and enjoyable relationship is a realistic outlook. Some couples worry about being labeled naïve if they express the joys and rewards their marriage brings to their lives. Be hopeful and positive on the quality and duration of your marriage, because the odds are still in your favor. You've probably seen commercials where online matchmaking Websites strut their success in matching people to one another. There have been a few criticisms of online marital enhancement services, but millions have used them. Along, with DVD's, talk CDs, self-help books, and seminars there are many outlets for marital enhancement available to couples who seek them. Very few know that there is now a Website that offers support to marrieds who want to be proactive and preventative in their relationship http://marriage.eharmony.com/.
There also continues to be a trend of delaying first marriage until later in life. In 2005, the US median age at marriage was about 27 years for men (Washington DC was 29.9 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...ead_nbr=R1205& ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&- redoLog=false&-mt_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_R1204_US30&-format=US-30 ).
Marriage is very popular among US adults, in part because it does offer many rewards that unmarried people don't enjoy. A sociologist named Linda Waite co-wrote a book with Maggie Gallagher called The Case For Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially (2001, Doubleday). As its title implies, this book summarizes basic trends that have been found among married people for decades.
Marriage has become socially controversial in part because of the intense political efforts to legalize marriage for same-sex couples. Regardless of your moral position on the issue of same-sex marriage, you can see the political quest for it as an indicator of just how rewarding it is to be legally a “married couple.”
There are numerous studies and books on the benefits of marriage to married individuals.
Table 2 lists 10 categories of these known benefits for you to consider.
Table 2: Ten Benefits of Being Married in Contrast to Being Single
1. Better physical and emotional health
2. More wealth and income
3. Positive social status
4. More and safer sex
5. Life-long continuity of intimate relationships
6. Safer circumstances for children
7. Longer life expectancy
8. Lower odds of being crime victims
9. Enhanced legal and insurance rights and benefits (tax, medical, and inheritance)
10. Higher self-reported happiness
Keep in mind as you think about this, that a toxic marriage has never been universally shown to be better than being unmarried or never married. It would be unwise to marry carelessly. It would also be unwise to think that once you marry you are at the end of your problems. A newlywed once told her mother that “now that I'm married, I'm at the end of all my problems.” Her mother wisely replied, “which end, Dear?” Marriage requires preventative, proactive, consistent, and timely maintenance to be rewarding and satisfying. The bottom line is that the burden of your marital quality falls to you and your spouse.
Cohabitation has been studied extensively for the last 3 decades, especially in contrast between cohabiting and married couples. Clear findings consistently show that cohabiting and marriage are two different creatures. Those who cohabit have less clarity on the intention and direction of the relationship than do marrieds. Also, people who cohabit then later marry are more likely to divorce than those who never cohabited. In 2010 the US Center for Disease Control reported that cohabitation is very common in our day:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/...3/sr23_028.pdf This report also stated that some of the cohabitation relationships dissolved while others transitioned to marriage. Less educated cohabiters cohabited longer while college-graduated cohabiters transitioned to marriage more.
There are a number of different ways of measuring cohabitation. The US Census Bureau reported about 6,209,000 US Unmarried-Partner households in 2007. Since a household in this case contains at least 2 persons we can derive 6,209,000 x 2= 12,418,000 unmarried adults sharing households. These data were extrapolated from the American Community Survey, and the types of Unmarried-Partner Households are identified in Figure 6 below.
Generally speaking cohabiting relationships are much more unstable than married ones (Popenoe (2009) and (Williams, K. et al 2008, For Better or For Worse? The Consequences of Marriage and Cohabitation for Single Mothers, Social Forces, Vol. 86, No 4, June page1481-1511). Popenoe (2009) is very clear about his argument that cohabiting is not as healthy in terms of the well-being of children as marriage has proven to be. He also identifies the trend of unmarried pregnancies that come with cohabitation trends.
Not all cohabitation experiences are the same. There are people who cohabit more than once. Serial cohabiters are persons who have a series of cohabiting relationships over the course of time. These persons tend to be poorer and less educated in the US. When or if these persons ever marry, their divorce risks are over 2 times higher than those who never cohabited in a series (see Lichter, D.T. and Qian, Z. 2008, Nov. Vol 70 4, pages 861-878; J. of Marriage and Family).
This again confirms the belief among younger people in the US that cohabitation is normal or expected.
Those cohabiters who get pregnant often have two choices. marry or break up. Breaking up is often more common than marrying (Lichter & Qian, 2008 page 863). Another recent study reported on lower commitment levels among cohabiting couples, and that the less religious were more likely to cohabit than marry (Stanley, S. M. et al, 2004 J. of Family Issues, Vol. 25, No. 4 496-519, “Maybe I Do Interpersonal Commitment and Premarital or Nonmarital Cohabitation”). Lichter and Qian (2008) reported that cohabiting couple's intention to marry plays into their relationship outcome. In other words, if they move in together thinking they will marry someday it may lead to a longer relationship as long as both have the same intention and neither changes their mind. Finally, there are known benefits to being married in a long-term relationship rather than being single, divorced, cohabiting, or other. Table 3 shows a quote taken from the cohabitation and marriage study referenced above called Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States: A Statistical Portrait Based on Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth.” Better mental and physical health with better medical insurance coverage proves to be a crucial quality of life factor for marrieds. As far as children are concerned, having better care and better adult outcomes among married people's children is also a crucial factor for parents and children.
Table 3: Health Benefits Known to be an Advantage Among Married Persons in the US
1. Generally better mental and physical health outcomes compared with unmarried persons (9)
2. Longer lives (10)
3. Higher rates of health insurance coverage (11)
4. Lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease (12) than unmarried persons
5. Better health and well-being of children
6. Children born to unmarried mothers are at greater risk for poverty, teen childbearing, poor school achievement, and marital disruption in adulthood than children born to married mothers (6,7,13-16)
There are also known financial benefits when comparing married to not-marrieds. More wealth accumulation, higher assets, and higher monthly income are consistent among marrieds. Figure 9 shows the 2007 annual earnings of marrieds compared to Single Men and Single Women income levels. The first thing you notice is that marrieds have consistently higher annual incomes. In 2007 specifically, marrieds had \$28,231 more income than Single Men and \$42,293 more than Single Women. The difference is even more pronounced if dual income married annual incomes are compared (e.g., in 2007 dual income couples had \$86,435 which is \$42,077 higher than Single Men and \$56,139 more than Single Women).
b
Table 4 summarizes the known benefits to marrieds over non-marrieds that have been established through numerous studies over the last 3 decades. Married people are safer and less prone to get into trouble than others. There is a buffering effect that accompanies having a life-long devoted spouse who helps deflect stress and hardships on a daily basis. Thus some of the health benefits of longer life, less suicide, more stable health coverage, and less illness and addiction. Also, marrieds have more social support, more continuity in long-term relationships, and especially more closeness for men in intimate family relationships. Husbands are less likely to abuse and be violent toward their wives than are boyfriends and partners. Married people have clear life-long goals and tend to buy homes, invest, and plan for retirement more than others. The government and military recognize spouses and reward them with tax breaks, benefits, and other sources of coverage and support more than others. In later life, many elderly report that their family relationships are very supportive and important to them. Studies show that the elderly enjoy their human investment in their children and grandchildren that yields emotional and social rewards throughout their golden years.
Table 4: Known Benefits Enjoyed by Married Couples in Comparison to Non-Married Persons
1. Less likely to become victims of crime
2. Less likely to commit crimes
3. Less addiction
4. Fewer accidents (especially among men)
5. Less suicide
6. Better stress management because spouse is a buffer to life's stresses
7. More social and emotional support (less loneliness)
8. More intimate connections to family members
9. Long-term continuity in family relationships of children, in-laws, grandchildren, etc.
10. Lower risk of domestic violence for women
11. Longer life expectancies
12. More and better self-rated sex
13. More emotional and financial security (for both spouses)
14. Less uncertainty about direction of life and goals
15. More cost effective to live married versus single circumstances
16. Tax deductions
17. More military benefits
18. More accumulated belongings and investments
19. More medical benefits
20. More legal rights | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.09%3A_Marriage_and_Other_Long-Term_relationships.txt |
Chapter 10: Parenting
Functions of Parents
“No matter what happens in this life or the next, I will always be his mother.”
I heard this from a 56 year old mother who lost her son to a drunk driving-related accident. She is absolutely right that once a person becomes a parent they are forever a parent. Parenting is the process of nurturing, caring for, socializing, and preparing one's children for their eventual adult roles. Parenting is a universal family experience that spans across the history of the human family and across every culture in the world.
Newborns are not born human-at least not in the social or emotional sense of being human. They have to learn all the nuances of proper behavior, how to meet expectations, and everything else needed to become a member of society. A newborn in the presence of others, interacting with family and friends typically acquires their needed socialization by the time they reach young adulthood (not all children are raised…this travesty is documented at http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php).
Parents serve many functions that play a crucial role in the society's endurance and success at many levels. Parents function as caregivers to the children in their families and thereby provide the next generation of adults. They protect, feed, and provide personal care for their children from birth through adulthood.
Parents function as agents of socialization for their children. Socialization is the process by which people learn characteristics of their group's norms, values, attitudes, and behaviors. From the first moments of life, children begin a process of socialization wherein parents, family, and friends establish an infant's Social Construction of Reality which is what people define as real because of their background assumptions and life experiences with others. An average US child's social construction of reality includes knowledge that he or she belongs, can depend on others to meet their needs, and has privileges and obligations that accompany membership in their family and community.
For the average US child, it's safe to say that the most important socialization takes place early in life. Primary socialization typically begins at birth and moves forward until the beginning of the school years. Primary socialization includes all the ways the newborn is molded into a social being capable of interacting in and meeting the expectations of society. Most primary socialization is facilitated by the family, friends, day care, and to a certain degree various forms of media.
Parents function as teachers from birth to grave. They teach hygiene skills, manners, exercise, work, entertainment, sleep, eating patterns, study skills, dating, marriage, parenting skills, etc. Parents teach their children at every age and mentor them through example and actions into successful roles of their own.
Parents function as the guardians of their children's lives. Twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days a year until the child is independent, a parent protects, advises, manages and supports their child. They select schools, medical care, teams, daycare, and a myriad of other services for their children. The law considers the parents to be simultaneously accountable for the nature of their parenting efforts and legally entitled to rights and privileges that support and protect them. Parents are not at liberty to treat their children beyond the bounds of state and local laws. But, within those laws they have tremendous freedoms to parent according to their conscience and values.
Parents function as mediators between their children and the community at large. They act as the adult decision maker in many matters for their children. They also act in defense of their children if misbehaviors are an issue in the community, schools, and other organizations. They act in the role of advocacy to ensure the best opportunities for their child.
Over the last few decades, nearly 4 million live births were recorded in the United States per year. About 40 percent of those are first births to a mother. Most babies are born to younger mothers. About 60 percent of all births in the US are to mothers ages 15-29. (Retrieved 9 March 2010 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0091.pdf, Table 91 Women Who Had a Child Last Year By Age: 1990 to 2008).
One of the more recent trends in the US over the last 3 decades has been the increasing proportion of births to unmarried women which is about 40 percent of all US births.
Nearly two out of three of those unmarried births are to White mothers. (retrieved 9 March, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0085.pdf Table 85 Births to unmarried Women by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age of Mother: 1990 to 2006).
The average US woman will have an estimated 2.123 births in her lifetime (retrieved 9 March 2010 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0083.pdf Table 83 Total Fertility Rate by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1980 2007). This is derived from a rate. The Total Fertility Rate is the average number of births per woman in a given population. A U.S. woman will have, on the average, enough children to replace the mother and father who created them.
Birth rates were lower in the 1980s than they are today.
Most women and men in the U.S. become parents at some point in their adult lives. This might included being a parent to a birth child, adopted child, step child, or unrelated child that the adults raise like their own. All parents more or less perform the functions listed above. All who care for children parent according to their parenting paradigm. Parenting paradigms are conceptual patterns or ideas that provide the basis of parents' strategy in the parenting role. These paradigms can be habitual based on how the parent was parented (or not parented) as a child. They can also be formal, being derived from self-help books or formal education. These paradigms also tend to come from how parents define their roles, what they are trying to accomplish in the long-run, and how effectively they perform their parenting role.
Childhood Dependence
The goal of parents from a developmental perspective is ideally to raise independent, capable, and self-directed adults who can succeed in their own familial and non-familial roles in society. Generally speaking, a child's independence is very low until adolescence. Teens exert their independence in a process called individuation.
Individuation is the process of separating oneself, one's identity, and one's dependence on others, especially on parents. Children begin separating from parents in their second year and gradual efforts at independence are visible as children master certain self-care processes during childhood. Table 1 shows the levels of dependence and a child's own ability to nurture others over certain stages of the life course.
Table 1: Children's Dependence and Their Ability to Nurture Others Over Certain Life Course Stages
Stage Dependence or Independence Levels Ability to Nurture Others
Newborn None None
1-5 Very Low Very Little
6-12 Functional Low
13-18 Moderate Moderate
19-24 Increasingly higher Increasingly higher
Parenthood High but needs support High but needs support
Parenting between birth and age 18 requires a solid understanding of how a child develops and matures through childhood and into their young adult roles. Psychologists have studied child development for years. Jean Piaget (pronounced peeahjay), Sigmund Freud, Eric Erickson, John B. Watson, George Herbert Mead, Charles Cooley (the latter are sociologists), and others have developed theories that guide crucial research on children and how they develop. Since we can't cover them in detail, let's discuss a few core ideas that can guide parents and their efforts.
Newborns to 5 year olds have little to no independence. In other words, left alone in the wilderness, most could not survive. In a home with an adult caregiver, most 0-5 year olds can learn to take care of some of their own needs. They desire independence but do not yet have the thinking, muscle movement, or growth in place for it. Most have little to offer in terms of real nurturing, yet many develop nurturance in their play activities. The children in the 6-12 year old group are growing physically and developing emotionally and intellectually. They become functional in their independence and if called upon can assist parents and others with various tasks. They develop the ability to provide the caregiving of younger children, but lack the reasoning skills required to nurture to any degree resembling the adult level of nurturing. In the 13-18 year old group abstract reasoning skills begin and children grow into complex reasoning, synthesis of related ideas, and emotional complexity. For most teens, they could survive if no longer under the care of an adult caregiver, but it would be difficult. They can nurture others to some degree. Generally speaking, due to hormonal fluctuations their emotional nature is volatile and extreme in terms of highs and lows.
Reading some of the details of these 3 age categories, you begin to see that the same parenting strategies would not work very well for each of the groups of ages discussed above. On top of that individual children vary even within the same family on which parenting approach is most effective.
Once children attain the age of young adulthood, leave home, and/or completely individuate they enter a role of being independent while perpetually dependent to some degree. Young adults in this generation continue to depend heavily on their parents for advice, resources, money, food, and other forms of support. Their independence would most accurately be described as increasingly higher as they prepare for their own adult roles. Their ability to nurture emotionally and in other ways is increasingly higher as well.
Once children become parents on their own they enter the roles of mother and father and join the ranks of tens of billions of parents who've lived before them and fundamentally attempted to do about the same things for their children. Young parents often see their own parents as a tremendous resource of experience and knowledge. Studies show that young parents adjust better when they have access to support from friends and family.
Simply put, they benefit a great deal from having a listening ear and someone to share words of parental wisdom. These adults are independent and can nurture, especially with support.
Finding the Balance Between Control and Freedom
With all of this variety and diversity of development and growth, how can parents plan for and properly perform their parenting roles? The answer is to find a handful of parenting paradigms and approaches that will work with children. There are a few core approaches that originate from the classical and contemporary parenting scientists.
Figure 2 shows one useful model that I developed from many research studies and from a number of parenting paradigms and which can lead to an ideal outcome of having raised children who are independent co-adults (defined below).
Many families have a tradition of just surviving the traumas, addictions, heartaches, and tragedies that preceded them in their upbringing. The base of this model presents the two strategies of: first, urging individuation and second, avoiding enmeshment with your children. Individuation is the process by which children become their own persons and learn to identify themselves as distinct individuals with unique tastes, desires, talents, and values. Individuated children can distinguish between the consequences of their own behaviors and consequences of others.
An individuated child develops his or her own taste in music, food, politics, etc. This child sees their family as one among many social groups they belong to (albeit one of the more significant ones). An example might include although ashamed of a drug-addicted brother, an individuated child fully realizes that the brother has made his own choices and must live with them and that brother's behavior may be embarrassing at times, but does not reflect the nature of the rest of the family members. Individuated children have also developed enough independence to strike out on their own and assume their own adult roles.
It is very wise to avoid relationship patterns of enmeshment. Enmeshment between parents and children occurs when they weave their identities so tightly around one another that it renders them both incapable functioning independently. Many parents create this pattern in their relationship when they assume that their child is an extension of themselves, not much unlike the “Mini Me” in the movie, Gold Finger. Enmeshed parent-child relationships often have very weak boundaries and unhealthy interdependence that lingers into adulthood. Think of spaghetti noodles over-boiled to the point that they form one large gooey mass of paste. They would be considered enmeshed or entangled with one another.
An example of this came to my attention when one of my students complained that her parents had maxed out her credit cards for a vacation cruise. She couldn't apply for a student loan after that because of her credit score. Another student's mother insisted on having her way in his marriage including which birth control, class scheduling, and even how his wife should breast feed the “proper” way.
Parents who allow their children to make most of their own choices give their children opportunities for growth and development which contribute to high individuation and low enmeshment. Examples might include “Which t-shirt do you want do where for school today? What would you like to drink with your dinner? Or, let's sit down together and set some guidelines for how to be safe on a date.” Children of all ages respond well to parental attempts to promote independence, individuation, and self-sufficiency. They may not understand it while young, but parents who allow the individuality of their children to develop and who avoid seeing and treating their children as simply extensions of themselves, empower their children to move out on their own and accept adult roles.
Many studies have focused on how much support and how much control children should be given by their parents. Generally speaking, parents with high levels of support for children and their interests will find the most favorable outcomes. If parents want their children to grow up healthy, accomplish individual goals, become a contributing member of society and avoid delinquency, then supporting those children in as many ways as possible is a good idea. But support alone is not enough. Children need guidance and control. They need their parents to set healthy limits and enforce consequences when these limits are exceeded.
They need parents involved in their lives enough to be very specific about limitations and rules. They need parents to be in charge. There is a generational effect that relates to this support and control approach. Figure 3 shows the trends that transpired for Baby Boomers and their children.
Baby Boomers were born in the years 1946-1964. Their parents were of the old school “spare the rod, spoil the child” or “you live in my house, you live by my rules” paradigm. These parents were very strict and rigid about parental authority reigning supreme.
Parents of Baby Boomers took and had nearly all the control. Funny, isn't it that the Hippie rebellion came from this generation of over-controlling parents. Children typically rebel when there is something to rebel against, especially against a strict display of authority. It's much easier to rebel against rigid parents than democratic ones. When a moderate measure of authority is presented to them they often have minimal needs to rebel.
The middle of the continuum is the healthy zone where control is shared between the authority figure (parents) and the developing members of the family (children). Healthy parents seek for and apply children's input. Vacation plans, home remodeling, even cars and colors of cars are often decided upon in family meetings or gatherings. Healthy parents tend to have enough confidence in themselves to yield some of the control to children, but not all of it.
This brings us back to the Baby Boomers. They collectively held strong beliefs against repeating the harshness placed upon them by their parents. Many made the mistake of under-controlling their children. They let their children self-discover their own path in life. Many Baby Boomer as parents themselves, felt remorse when their children made serious mistakes in life. Some of these mistakes might have been avoided by an increase in control. You see, children with too lax of parents often act out just to test their parents' interest in and devotion to them. Many in-patient treatment facilities are filled with the children of under-controlling Baby Boomer parents.
Children raised in homes with highly supportive and moderately controlling parents grow up and become contributing adult members of their own families and communities. Our freedom to choose must never be taken or limited by threats and coercion. By the same token, parents make a huge mistake by parenting with a “hands-off” attitude toward their children. The research on parenting styles indicates that parents must be the authority figures in the home, they must take a stand, and they also must allow their children to negotiate their own will amidst all of the worldly distractions and choices they are faced with everyday.
Figure 4 shows another issue related to high support and moderate control-caring for the next generation. Many parents grew up under circumstances limited by emotional, financial, or social un-met needs. Where abuse and addiction were involved they too often grew up as caregivers rather than dependent children. When this happens, the children grow into adulthood with childhood deficiencies (see Abraham Maslow's Pyramid of Hierarchy of Needs).
Thus as adults these individuals enter the ranks of parenthood looking to have their childhood needs be met by their children. This can create a parenting legacy where the children, grandchildren, and even great grandchildren are nurturers and caregivers to their parents, grandparents, and even great grandparents (Look at the red arrows in Figure 4).
Even if a parent was not raised in a highly supportive and moderately controlling home and even if he or she has unmet childhood needs, the essential task at hand is to provide for and nurture their own children and grandchildren (see blue arrows in Figure 5).
The challenge is to break the chain of counter-caregiving. Parents who seek professional counseling often learn that unmet childhood needs are like water, long-passed under the bridge, which cannot ever truly be recaptured. However, their approach to filling their children's needs and supporting and controlling in a healthy manner can actually provide some healing for the parent and ultimately reverse the unhealthy pattern or tradition.
The metaphor used by one of my graduate school professors was simply “Water flows downhill. No matter the upbringing a parent had when he or she was a child, the task at hand is to fill the cup [needs] of the next generation. Make sure and do whatever it takes to break this cycle of trying to extract water [caregiving] from younger family members who themselves are too young and inexperienced to become caregivers” (Boyd Rollins, Ph.D., Advanced Parenting research Lecture Notes, BYU 1990). It's a simple metaphor, but effective enough.
Behaviorism and the Cognitive Model
The next level in the model presented above in Figure 2 is called Behaviorism.
Behaviorism is a theory of learning that simply states that children will repeat behaviors that they perceive to bring a desired reward while ceasing behaviors that they perceive bring punishments. All of us (children, too) tend to maximize our rewards while minimizing our punishments. The Behaviorism approach to parenting is a powerful paradigm when it comes to raising smaller children. Reasoning skills don't develop enough in preschoolers. You understand the dangers of busy streets and traffic risks.
But, when you tell a small child not to play near one, they typically cannot process all the nuances of the dangers that might occur.
A 4-year old will learn better from a parent who makes him come in for 10 minutes of time out if he forgets and goes near the street again. He may say that his ball rolled into the street and he simply retrieved it. Ten minutes to a small child may feel like hours to an adult. This is a strong punishment to a child who wants to play. Now, it can be argued that an angry swat on the behind is also going to be perceived as a punishment.
This is true. But, numerous studies consistently indicate that non-spanking approaches to disciplining a child can be very effective. A 2008 ABC News poll found that about 65 percent of Americans approve of parents spanking children, but only 26 percent approve of spanking in the schools (retrieved 11 March 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/da...oll021108.html).
Many parents are very aware that the state authorities will hold them accountable if they do not protect their children from danger. They also know that Psychologists and others frown upon spanking. Thus spanking has gone underground for many parents. It takes place behind closed doors. This is a big change from the 1960s and 1970s when I grew up in Georgia. Back then you could be whipped by a belt, a small limb of a tree (switch), and wooden paddle, or other convenient object at home, at school, at church, or on the bus. It was perceived to be “for my own good.” Go figure. Yes, I was a Baby Boomer.
I know of a spanking received by my student. Her stepmother swatted her with a wooden spoon and it was perceived as being highly out of line by her father. Thus it was the only spanking she ever received. When she eventually married, she was determined not to spank so she bought a book that offered alternatives to spankings. Her husband came in one day from a long day of work and found her in tears. She had two toddlers who were misbehaving and she had spanked them each with a simple swat on their diaper. Her husband reassured her by saying that it was fine and he thought that she did what any mother might do in her place. She agreed, but explained that she was probably the only mother in the world who had administered the swat using the paper back book she was reading on alternatives to spanking. True story.
Spankings are common and are often used when parental frustration leads the parent to lash out. Behaviorism is for many parents a guiding strategy that focuses the parent's attention on effective parental intervention efforts that work well and often work quickly.
The key in using this approach is to know your child well enough to know what he or she defines as a reward or a punishment. Some children are sensitive to parental criticism and will respond well to a disappointed look or tone of voice.
Other children respond better to giving or withdrawing privileges (Xbox, Cell phone, TV, or play time with friends). Once you get an idea of where your child stands on rewards and punishments, then you can selectively use them as a reward or punishment approach.
I remember my daughter's kindergarten teacher, Mrs. Peterson. She told us during the first parent-teacher conference we had with her that “1 Tootsie Pop as a reward is more effective than 100 spankings or scoldings.” She was correct and effective with her students. Your children will probably have rewards and punishments that vary from child to child. Table 2 shows some of these to illustrate the point, although it would be impossible to list the rewards or punishments of every child in the world.
The Behaviorism formula is relatively simple once you've identified your particular child's rewards and punishments. If you want a child to learn a new habit or improve on a skill, motivate them with a reward. For example, if she puts her own dirty laundry away for a week, you'll let her pick out her next outfit at the store (then really let her pick it out no matter what you think about it). You can also add unexpected rewards. For example, you notice that your son is playing well with his little sister and you come in and praise them both with a treat for playing well together. This rewards desirable behaviors in unexpected ways and can be a powerful reinforcer for desired behaviors.
You can also withhold rewards when misbehavior occurs. For example, a child who gets an hour of video game time after his chores and homework are finished might lose his hour on a day where he forgot to do his homework. Likewise, a grounding may be applied for other behaviors and consequences. One of my personal favorites as the father of six was to purposefully give a long grounding. After a few days, I'd offer the child a negotiated early release for improving the behavior or activity at hand.
The core of the most effective rewarding and punishing system is to connect the reward or punishment to the natural consequence of the behavior. In other words, when a teen stays out past their curfew, grounding them from their friends is the natural consequence.
It helps to logically reinforce the behavior to the outcome. If you want a child to behave in a public setting, reward the child while they are behaving. Many well-meaning parents wait until the child is frustrated and misbehaving then break out the treats. When they do this, they are rewarding misbehavior with treats.
Table 2: Example of Rewards and Punishments for Children
Possible Rewards Possible Punishments
Verbal approval Verbal disapproval
Verbal praise Verbal reprimands
Sweets Time out (in chair, bedroom corner)
Playtime, friend time Groundings (friends, toys, driving, etc.)
Special time with parents Chores
Access to toys No access to toys
Money/allowance Suspend allowance, small monetary fines
Permission Denial of opportunities
Driving, Outings with friends Withdrawal of privileges
One of the findings about Behaviorism is that it works best for younger children and should be complimented with a logical or thinking-based approached called the Cognitive model as the children get older. The Cognitive model of parenting is an approach that applies reason and clarification to the child in a persuasive effort to get them to understand why they should behave a certain way. After age 7, children develop more and more reasoning skills. Children younger than that will try to understand, but benefit more from short statements and behavioral rewards and punishments. Teenagers and young adults have developed abstract reasoning skills. They can think and reason complex matters and therefore can carry on conversation and present their case while understanding their parents' case.
The cognitive model is a relief for many parents who complain that Behaviorism feels too much like a bribe or extortion, because the parents are using that paradigm to get desired results. My answer to this concern is that when someone bribes or extorts another, they are typically doing it for selfish reasons. When parents use rewards and punishments with smaller children the desired outcome is typically supportive of the child and the child's development and growth. It's not a bribe to help someone be a better or more mature person.
Finally, remember that children (and adults) tend to do what rewards them while avoiding what punishes them. If they typically speed to work without getting caught they continue to speed. If they did get caught and accumulated points against their license, say with the threat of loosing it if they got one more ticket, then slowing down to avoid the punishment becomes more appealing. We tend to avoid repeating behaviors that punish us in undesirable ways.
Would that any parenting paradigm worked for every child in every case, but it doesn't.
Behaviorism and cognitive approaches fail with some children, especially when their emotions override their reason and their judgment. Teenagers have very emotional decision-making processes that often require tremendous patience from parents. Even when a child's behaviors and thinking are irrational and based more on emotional approaches, these paradigms still work better than none at all or better than simply spanking or grounding.
The next step in the model shown in Figure 2 is to assimilate children early into responsibility and eventually into their adult roles. Parents often don't want to let their children suffer. But, they eventually learn that a child's failures are not a bad thing. It can be a powerful learning experience for a child to fail when trying out for a team, a play, or a job. Their mistakes inform their ability to learn and improve according to their strengths and weaknesses. There are a few parenting types that support children learning from their own efforts and a few others that are more interference in that processes.
Types of Parenting
Rescue Parents are constantly interfering with their children's activities. They continuously help with homework (or do it for the child), seek special favors for their children from teachers and/or coaches, rush in before the child can fail to extract the child from the risk of failing, or make sure the child never has to face any consequences for his or her actions. Rescue parents undermine their child's self-worth by removing their child from any risk of failure in the pursuit of successes. This makes the child feel incapable of doing things on their own. Rescue parents raise children who are dependent, non-individuated, and often enmeshed.
Dominating Parents over control and coerce their children. They typically demand compliance and are harsh and overly strict in their punishments. They continuously force their children to dress and act as the parent's desire. They force their children's choices of friends, hobbies, and interests. They also use humiliation and shame to make the child comply. These dominating parents make the children prisoners of their control and dependent upon the parent or someone who eventually replaces the parent (such as a dominating spouse).
Mentoring Parents tend to negotiate and share control with their children. They typically let the small things be decided by the child (clothing, class schedules, and hobbies). They also tend to set guidelines and negotiate with their children on how to proceed on various important matters (minimum age to date, when and what type of cell phone to acquire, and when to get a driver's license). They often give the child choices. For example, a parent might say, “I can't afford to get you a car of your own, but if you don't mind too much driving the old family van, I'll share the insurance expenses with you.” Or for a younger child, the parent might say, “you can wear your t-shirt or tank top, but you can't go shirtless to the park because the sun might harm your skin.”
Figure 5 shows a photomontage of parents and children. As you look at the photos of parents and their children, think about how they represent the myriad opportunities for children to take on and accept responsibilities. Parents find that even early in the preschool years, children can take on small chores and tasks around the house. If doing chores is defined as positive and rewarding, children can learn to work side by side with their parents in house and yard work. Such skills are invaluable in our day. Employers struggle to find teens and young adults who have experience working and fulfilling assigned tasks adequately.
Generally speaking, when parents and children work together on mundane tasks, there is a much higher likelihood of establishing a bond and an emotional connection than if family members are just watching TV or playing on the computer. Much research has shown that, with most women being in the labor force, men and children have more opportunities than ever before to perform house and yard work. Doing work together as parents and children can be a very bonding and growing experience for both.
I often ask my students this question, “How many of you were asked to do more than kitchen work or house cleaning by your parents when your were growing up?" Over the last 20 years most of my students have cleaned their room and done kitchen work as their main work experiences. Every once and a while a child from a farm background wows the other students with the types of difficult and complex work they did from about age 5 on (this is in part why farming is so dangerous to children). Many of my students work part-time to put themselves through college. Those that already established good working relationships and the ability to follow through have a better work experience.
Parents trying to raise their children to be responsible co-adults may need to know what being a co-adult child means. Co-adulthood is the status children attain when they are independent, capable of fulfilling responsibilities and roles, and confident in their own identities as emerging adults. The opposite of co-adulthood is simply adult dependent children, many of whom are enmeshed with their parents and other family members.
A co-adult is independent. But that does not imply that she or he is no longer in need of support and guidance. Just the opposite is true. Many studies of college-aged young adults show a continuing reliance on their parents clear until their mid to late twenties.
Psychologists will tell you that their studies suggest that the US young adult has a fully mature brain around the mid to late twenties.
One thing needs to be said about parenting. Parents are not the only ones who socialize another family member. Studies have shown that children socialize parents as well. I joke with my wife about how she and I debated as newlyweds about someday saving up and buying a pickup truck or a Ford Mustang. When we found out that we were expecting our first child, we caught ourselves one day in a Dodge sales lot looking at the newly invented minivans (early 1980s). Wow! You could have tipped us over with a feather when we both realized how our tastes had change based on the expectation of a child.
Parents go through dramatic changes in anticipation of, and accommodation to a newborn. Newborns come with 24-7, 365 constant needs. Sure, parents buy the bottles, diapers, toys, etc. But, the baby sets the standards for how they like to be fed and when.
The baby sets the sleep patterns (especially in the first 6 months). The baby conditions the parents to hold them, play with them, and interact with them on their own terms.
Sure parents socialize the baby at the same time. But, the baby, with very little conscious efforts sets the rules of much of the caregiving game because he or she cries when unhappy or needs are unmet and smiles and giggles when things turn out as they want them to be. Thus the parents are rewarded by giggles and smiles while being punished by crying and tears. It becomes easy to acknowledge that parents who want to provide the best care for their children are indeed socialized by each child to meet that child's needs in a certain way.
When the child socializes the parent it is not planned at first. It is just their way of surviving. When the parent socializes the child much of the parent's own upbringing, own understandings about what a parent is “supposed to do”, and what the experts are saying comes into play. This is why it is so important for parents to carefully consider how they socialize the child's sense of self-worth.
Self-worth v. Shame
Self-worth is the feeling of acceptance a child has about his or her own strengths and weaknesses, desirable and undesirable traits, and value as an individual. To sociologists, self-esteem or the high or low appraisal is not as important today as it was thought to have been 20 years ago. I have urged my students for over 2 decades to teach their children to value themselves and acknowledge the simple truth that no one is perfect, no one is good at everything, and that each child has the opportunity to discover their own uniqueness. There is innate value in being unique and an individual. Parents are in a prime position to teach their children to see a balance in how they value themselves.
One of the most demeaning messages sent to children from their parents is a message of shame. Shame is a feeling of being worthless, bad, broken, or flawed at an irreparable level. I once gave a seminar to students on shame. I walked in with a fresh bottle of never-opened apple juice and asked them if anyone would drink this if I gave it to them.
Most raised their hands to indicate they would. I then defined shame and asked them to check the bottom of their shoes for dirt, twigs, or small stones. I then opened the apple juice bottle and dumped all that debris from their shoes into the bottle. “Who would drink this now?” I asked. For some reason none of them would.
I then poured the apple juice into a glass and left all the debris in then bottom of the bottle with half the juice. Still no one would drink it. “Why?” I asked. “Because the juice is ruined and the very thought of knowing what was in it makes it worthless.” One student responded. “Exactly!” I explained. “Some parents raise their children to believe that they are as worthless and ruined as was the apple juice and that nothing could be done to fix them.” My point is many parents today raise their own children in the same shame-based manner that their parents used on them. Shaming children will never yield the positive outcomes parents want in their children.
Shame is at the core of every single addiction be it alcohol or drugs, TV or gambling, eating or shopping. Addiction is a natural expectation for people who define themselves as permanently broken or flawed. Recovery programs focus specifically on how to help the addicts accept themselves in a broken state (like most non-shamed people already do).
Shame is not the same as guilt. Guilt is a feeling of remorse for doing something wrong or not having done what one should have done. Guilt may be healthy. Shame rarely is.
That generation which raised the Baby Boomers used shame the same way they used a belt. It was an emotional tool devised to control and sometimes break the will of a child so that he or she would conform to the parent's will. Many of those Baby Boomers use shame today on their children and grandchildren. Shaming a child teaches them to accept their permanently broken status and give up hope on finding the joy of their own uniqueness's and talents.
Parents don't have to use shame, even if their parents did it to them. Parents are the significant others of their children. Significant others are those other people whose evaluation of the individual are important and regularly considered during interactions.
Parents are in a prime position to teach healthy self-worth or toxic shame and worthlessness. Especially for their pre-school children, parents teach their children how to see value in themselves and to see balance in how they find out what they are good at in life. Parents avoiding shame, teach their children how to learn from failures and mistakes.
They teach them how to be patient and work hard at their goals. When the outcome goes in an undesirable way these parents console their child and reinforce that child's uniqueness and value as an individual. These parents teach their children not to draw hasty conclusions too early in life. When the children have tried and tested their talents and limits enough and launch out on their own, they can take not only a positive evaluation of themselves into their adult roles, but also a process of balancing their strengths and weaknesses in the big picture of their lives.
The process leading up to a healthy self-worth is easy to grasp. I've taught my students for decades to think of how they get feedback from others and watch others to get an idea of their expectations in a given role as though they were a weight lifter. Look at Figure 6 to see a metaphor on how we measure our self-worth by weighing our ideal expectations against our real or actual performance. The key to understanding self-concept is to understand that balanced self-concept works the same way as balanced weights. Ever try to lift a weight sets with 30 pounds on one side and only 20 pounds on the other? Please Don't!
The same can be said of those who try to balance too high of an “Ideal” expectation in a role, because they're most likely to perform less than expected in their “Actual” performance in this role. Again, balance between “Ideal” and “Actual” is crucial. In this example, imagine that you are looking at the self-concept formed by a young female college graduate. She has been accepted into a prestigious corporate internship role and has actually been labeled the “Intern.”
If this young professional woman was raised to be fair to herself and others in seeing the balance of her worth in terms of reasonable “Shoulds and oughts” she will be more accurate in learning from her successes and failures rather than simply chalking them up as more evidence of her core worthlessness (rocks in the apple juice). The goal is to help children learn to set reasonable goals and see one's efforts as objectively as possible.
As parents your definition of self-worth will shine on your children in direct and indirect ways. They will see how you keep the balance or don't. Make a concerted effort to value your children. Express that value to them often (some suggest that you should express it daily). Make a concerted effort to console them in their grief when they feel they might have let themselves or others down. Then teach them how to see their worth in terms of being good at some things (like most) and not so good at others (like most). | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.10%3A_Parenting.txt |
Chapter 11: Family Resources and Economics
Since earliest human record, the family has been a group of persons committed to meeting one another's economic needs. This is a vital function of the modern family in our day. As newborns enter the family, they are fed and clothed, protected and nurtured into childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. When they leave home they continue to receive economic support, even into the college experience.
How many times per month do your parents help you out financially? You'd be surprised to know that many students do receive financial help from family even after they marry, graduate college, and enter the workplace. In my own family I had 2 occasions where my parents helped me financially during my college experience. Other than that, I was completely on my own. It makes me happy that today's students have parental support.
In a study performed by College Parents of America in 2007, of 1,727 parents it was reported that “college students' finances were of “extreme or great concern to nearly half the parents.” Other findings reported by parents indicated that cell phones were the preferred method of communication (College Parents of America, S. A. (2010). Finances Top Survey List of Current College Parent Concerns. retrieved 4 January, 2010 from http://www.collegeparents.org/cpa/re...urvey_ccp.html , 1-3). The report stated that:
“What are all those cell phone conversations about? As noted above, student finances are of paramount concern to those respondents among you who are current college parents, with that and health and safety issues topping a list of choices that also included academics, campus or community involvement opportunities, career planning and personal relationships (page 1).”
So, parents not only continue to provide economic support, they are a social and emotional support to their college-aged children. Many have noted that among college students today, “adulthood” may not be the best word to describe them. They continue to be dependent upon their parents at some level into their late 20's. Perhaps “young adulthood” or in some cases “extended adolescence” is more accurately descriptive. As I mentioned, I am happy to know that parents support their children through the college years. You see, in the US colleges and universities are the gateways to financial security and opportunity; the higher the education the higher the income.
That's why it is so very important that children get to attend school and graduate with their high school diploma. In 2008 over half the US population had some college experience with 38 percent graduating at some level (retrieved 1 April, 2010 from http:// www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0226.pdf Table 226 Ed. Attainment...:2008). In 2007 the income levels by education showed a clear pattern of more money earned by those who have more education in college and university (retrieved 1 April, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0227.pdf Table 227 Mean Earnings by Highest Degree: 2007). About 45 percent of our population never gets to go to college or university and some even drop out of high school. This is a dual-edged issue. On one side of the sword poor people get less quality of K-12 education than middle class and rich people; so, they have financial hardships that prevents their access to the gateway to financial security. On the other side, their lower financial and educational status undermines healthy and self-promoting life styles. Poorer people are more likely to be victimized by crime, commit crime, go hungry, cohabit and/or divorce, be abused, etc. Of most concern to me are the children who are raised in poorer families.
Children and Poverty
Childhood in our day does not require children to contribute much back to the family economy for most families. In our society with all the privileges and economic affluence there are still members of families, communities, and racial categories who go without, go hungry, and haven't the slightest notion of ever going to college. Today, many children grow up in poverty, even in the United States. A recent study pointed out the current trends in childhood rates of poverty (see “Child Poverty Rates Increased As Recession Began” Retrieved 30 November 2009 from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx? tabid=18557). Using US Census data this study indicated that in 2008 19 percent of persons below the poverty level were children. New Hampshire had 8.6 percent below poverty while Arizona had 26.2 percent.
http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_892.html ). Children of color have a higher likelihood of living in poverty. Wight and Chau also reported that 27 percent of White children; 61 percent of Black children; 31 percent of Asian children; 57 percent of American Indian children; and 62 percent of Hispanic children all live in poverty.
Poverty in the US is layered across racial categories. What is poverty in the US?
The US has an official definition of being poor or in poverty. Poverty Line is the official measure of those whose incomes are less than three times a lower cost food budget. This definition has been the US's official poverty definition since the 1930s with only a few adjustments. Near Poverty is when one earns up to 25% above the poverty line. We would say that a person near poverty has more income than someone in poverty, but not more than 25 percent more. In Table 1 below you can see the US Health and Human Services 2009 poverty guidelines with estimates of near poverty levels. Most who qualify as living below poverty also qualify for state and federal welfare which typically include health care benefits, food assistance, housing and utility assistance, and some cash aid.
Those near poverty may or may not qualify depending upon current state and federal regulations. Absolute Poverty is the level of poverty where individuals and families cannot sustain food, shelter, warmth, and safety needs. Those below poverty are already in a bind. For example, the average home where I live in Utah cost way more than the average poor family could ever afford.
Table 1: US Poverty Guidelines 2009 With Near Poverty Estimates
Number of People in Family Poverty Line Near Poverty Estimates (<125% of Poverty Line)
1 \$10,830 \$13,536
2 \$14,570 \$18,211
3 \$18,310 \$22,886
4 \$22,050 \$27,561
5 \$25,790 \$32,236
6 \$29,530 \$36,911
7 \$33,270 \$41,586
8 \$37,010 \$46,261
US Census data indicate that people have various levels of poverty by racial grouping. In Figure 1 you can see the poverty and near poverty rates for various racial groups in the Unites States from 1980 to 2006. The thick black line represents the sum of the percent in poverty and below 125 percent of the poverty line (near poverty) for each year. The ranges suggest about 25 percent or just below 1 in 4 being in or near poverty for the US.
Whites (the redline) have the lowest rate of persons in poverty but make up the largest numbers of persons in poverty because Whites represent about 75 percent of the US population. Asians are slightly higher than Whites.
The blue line represents the percent in poverty for all races. It's much lower than the high rates of poverty for Blacks and Hispanics because Whites are such a larger portions of the population that it pulls the overall average downward for all races. The near poverty line is tan. Hispanic is second worse and Black is the worse for percent in poverty. We see that the layers in the strata have racial factors for both poverty and near poverty levels.
Table 2: US Percent of Uninsured by Selected Characteristics 2007
Category % Uninsured
Race
White 14.3%
Black 19.5%
Asian 16.8%
Hispanic 32.1%
Age
< 6 years old 10.5%
6-11 years old 10.3%
12-17 years old 12.0%
<18 years old 19.0%
18-24 years old 28.1%
25-34 years old 25.7%
35-44 years old 18.3%
45-64 years old 14.0%
65+ years old 1.9%
Income Level of Family
<\$25,000 per year income 24.5%
\$25-49,999 per year income 21.1%
\$50-74,999 per year income 14.5%
\$75,000 per year income 7.8%
Parents' Work Status
Worked Full-time 17.0%
Worked Part-time 23.4%
Did Not Work 25.4%
What about the nearly 11 percent of children without insurance or the nearly 18 percent of children in poverty without it? This is difficult to justify in today's modern society.
Every wealthy country that the US compares itself to (Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc.) offers health insurance as a right to all, not just a privilege to the wealthier people in the higher strata. The less income one has per year the higher the uninsurance rates.
About 1 in 4 who worked part-time or did not work at all have no insurance, while only 17 percent of full-time workers went without. The 2010 Federal Health Care Reform legislation established the first federal attempt to make health care coverage a right rather than a privilege.
Figure 2 shows stratification by marital status between married and single households.
The data is presented in constant 2006 US dollars which simply means they are adjusted for cost of living changes for each year. The first thing you see is that dual-earner marrieds (both husband and wife work in labor force) by far had the highest income levels between 1990 and 2006. Sole-earner married (husband only in labor force) comes in next followed closely by single males. Single females reported the lowest income. In sum, the females with the highest income are married. The male with a co-breadwinner wife has the highest combined income of all.
Figure 3 shows the stratification in our US society by educational levels. Keep in mind that the higher the education, the higher the annual income in 2007. This is typically true every year. The income levels are again higher for Whites and Asians followed by Blacks and Hispanics. But, the layers are clearly visible by education level. That's what is so cool about studying stratification. Official data begins to tell you the story about how the layers look in a society.
Not all economic disadvantage results from our choices. In the US, non-Whites, non-Asians, and non-males are more likely to be found in the lower layers. Figure 4 portrays what the layering of society might look like if the US population were divided into 3 groups, the top 10 percent wealthy, the next 20 percent wealthy, and the remaining 70 percent of middle and lower classes.
The top 10 percent of our country owns the lion share of all the wealth available to be owned in the US. They own as much as 100 times the average US person's wealth. For a relative few, they make more in a year than most of us make in a lifetime. Theirs is the life of high levels of property, power, and prestige. Among the next 20 percent Upper-class, they hold the high ranking jobs, run for elected office, and run the major corporations in CEO-level positions. These types of jobs: pay more; require more education; require more abstract thought; and allow for more self-directed, autonomy in their daily activities. The blue or largest category includes the remainder of us. We fall in some layer between upper middle class, middle class, working class, labor class, and/or poor.
Figure 4. Portrayal of United States' Economic Layering
Purchasing a Home
For those who can in our current economic conditions, buying a home is the major investment for most US families. Even when interest rates are low, the cost of a home is extremely expensive. If you got a \$100,000 home at 8 percent interest for 30 years, then you would pay \$100,000 for the home and another \$164,154 in mortgage interest. That totals \$264,154 for a \$100,000 home. If the home does not appreciate in value, this is a terrible investment.
There are strategies that can be used to minimize the overall cost of purchasing a home.
You can save money and put a large down payment on the home. This will lower the initial cost of the amount financed. You can make an extra 1/12th of a house payment toward the principle of the loan every month. By the end of the year, you would have made a 13th payment all to lower the overall balance of the loan (principle). Another strategy is to make a 15 year payment instead of a 30 year payment. In the loan above, that would mean making a monthly payment of \$955.65 instead of \$733.76. How might that benefit you? First, you'd pay off the loan in 15 not 30 years; and second, you'd save \$91,626 in mortgage interest. You can ask your lender to give you the 10, 15, 20, and 30 year loan payment schedule when you close on the loan.
One of the major US financial problems has been the financing of established worth of the home into a second mortgage or home equity loan. Home equity is the value in the home that is higher than the amount still owned on the home loan. My neighbor lives in a \$275,000 home and only owes \$50,000. He refuses to get a loan against the value, because he wants to own his home outright. Some finance experts recommend doing the opposite, loan against your home and use the loan to invest and make wealth in the stock market. If you are a finance expert that would likely work out. If not, that may be too risky to the family's economy. Debt can be very difficult to a family economy.
Debt and Spending
It is estimated that if a family has a credit card, their average credit card balances totaled \$16,007. This is important because the US has become a nation with liberal debt and debt incurring policies (retrieved 1 April, 2010 from http://www.creditcards.com/creditcar....php#footnote1 Credit card statistics, industry facts, debt statistics By Ben Woolsey and Matt Schulz). Woolsey and Schulz also reported that there were over _ billion credit cards in circulation in the US contributing to a total consumer debt of \$2.46 trillion! Eight percent of US college students are reported to have credit with an average amount owed of \$2,200. They are also estimated to have accrued \$20,000 in student loan debt.
In fact, the US Federal Government is in debt and paid 8 percent of its 2.983 trillion expenditures to pay net interest on the national deficit in 2008. That's \$238,640,000 in interest (retrieved 1 April, 2010 from http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf 2009
1040 Instruction Booklet page 100). The US spent \$459,000,000 more than it brought in from tax revenues (15% overspend). This pattern of running a deficit worries many who understand that deficit spending cannot be sustained in families or in nations. Part of the problem is the concept a friend of mine calls “funny money.” He describes funny money as money that isn't printed and handled and therefore misunderstood.
Many of us buy things with credit or debit cards that give us cash back or other rewards.
It is also very common to have our paychecks electronically deposited in our banks or credit unions. Our bills are then electronically paid online or with automatic withdrawals. This is extremely convenient, yet it makes it so that we rarely touch “real money.” To illustrate this I took a fresh one dollar bill and slowly began to tear it into small pieces in front of my class. They cringed, asked me to stop, and joked about turning me in to federal authorities. I held up the shredded bill and asked, “Why does this bother you so much?”
“You are wasting a dollar that can't ever be reused. It's a total loss,” they complained.
Then I hold up my credit card and ask, “Why can we spend \$30-60 dollars on a credit card and not even flinch, yet get bent out of shape over a one dollar bill?” I already know the answer. The dollar bill is tangible and touchable. The credit card works on small numbers which show up as blips on electronic screens or numbers on paper receipts. It's funny money to many of us. We are heavily marketed to go into debt. My wife and I used to keep a tally of all the credit card limits we were pre-approved for that came via mail solicitations-over \$100,000 in a 10 day period during the year 2007. The debt was there for the taking without one caution to me the consumer. Very few of the companies that loan money ever warn consumers about the problems of getting into too much debt. Why would they if you make good money you can have what you want immediately and pay it back over the next 5-10 years with massive interest payments? Their ideal customer would run up a large balance of debt and make a minimum payment each month, thereby bringing in the most profits to the company. The wise consumer uses debt to his or her advantage.
Credit cards are not necessarily a bad thing. They facilitate travel and small transactions for the family. But, credit card balances or unpaid debt can be very burdensome to a budget. I have researched and taught family financial matters for years. I suggest three unique rules that I like to call the “Rules of Three” when it comes to family finances.
• First Rule, save three months of worth of income and keep it in the bank. That means save enough to meet all your fixed debts (rent, mortgage, car, medical, insurance, etc.) so that you can keep your family afloat if you suffer a job loss or crisis.
• Second Rule, have only one credit card with no bonus or rewards program. Keep a zero balance on it. Set your credit limit to what it might cost to pay three weeks worth of bills (including your rent, mortgage, and car payments). I'm not suggesting that you never pay your bills with a credit card. I'm suggesting that if you use your card for transactions or travel and have a lower limit on it, you can more readily control your spending. Don't ever use your credit card for long-term debt. It should be a tool for short-term financial matters.
• Third Rule, whenever there is a consumer item you really want (TV, Cell Phone, Handheld, etc.) wait three full days before you buy it. I've had students disagree with me on this saying that some things go on sale and you will miss a good buy if you wait. My point is that if you haven't planned for it, saved for it, and budgeted for it, then a three day cooling off period may help you prevent unwanted and unneeded debt. Keep in mind that if we are marketed to with an approach of “hurry, sale ends soon,” then most likely the marketing has triggered the use of our rational and emotional decision-making processes (limbic part of brain) and we might rush out and buy feeling like we are actually being responsible purchasing agents; even if we never really needed or wanted what the sale is selling.
Save for a consumer item for at least three weeks, three months, or three years. If you want or need a new kitchen appliance, save for three weeks and buy one within your budget. If you want a new computer or TV, save for three months and buy one within your budget. If you want a new car, save for three years and buy one within your budget.
In preparation for buying a car, some find that it works to save as much as a car payment might be, but put the payment into your own savings account. At the end of three years, go buy a car you can afford. By the way here is another three idea-buy a last-year's model new car in the third quarter of the year (especially August) and you typically will save thousands. Budget and plan using these “rules of three” principles. Do you budget?
Budgeting
Most couples don't have a monthly budget. It makes it very difficult to manage a family's finances without one so I strongly suggest you find one. There are numerous free budgets online. I found 10 really easy formats of budgeting in one internet search for “free monthly budgets.” The two main things about a monthly budget is to be able to know how much money you currently have in your funds and where you are spending it.
If you haven't budgeted yet and want to start, ask your parents for help. Show them this practice budget and ask them what they recommend from their own experience. There is no “right” way to budget. It's just better to budget than to not.
To develop a budget, make a list of all your fixed expenses which are monthly expenses that are set and do not depend upon your consumer choices. These typically include: rent, mortgage payments, car payments, and insurance payments to name a few. Now make a list of other things you spend your money on that relate to household matters. These fall under the definition of a variable expense which are expenses that can change from month-to-month based on needs and wants and which are not fixed expenses. These typically include: food, gasoline and car maintenance, dining out, pay-per-view, cold drinks, groceries, clothing, etc. If you want to budget, the next few tables will help you with the basics. Table 3 is simply the tracking sheet you can use to find out where you are spending your money.
In Table 3 you will need to record every purchase or expenditure you make. I know it sounds tedious but you really need to track your spending in order to estimate a budget for how to spend in the future. Make sure and note what types of fun you spend money on. If you go to a movie once per week that would be four visits per month and might require its own budget. If you golf, attend sporting events, or dance you may find the spending is enough to justify a budget allocation in advance. After you've tracked your expenses go to Table 4 and put them into the next month's budget.
Table 4 has hypothetical numbers placed in it to demonstrate how the budget works. It budgets \$1,091 dollars per month. I am sure this is high for some and low for others, but bear with me and the point will emerge in the end. In the second month, you actually deduct what you spent from each of these categories. You don't have to exceed your total monthly income of monies (that's where savings comes in). I've put in some hypothetical expenditures in Table 4 so you can visualize what I mean by writing down your expenses.
Notice that three of these budget categories broke even. They are also the three fixed expenses. Notice also that three others had left-over monies. The “Fun” category was overspent by \$40.00 which could be filled with leftovers from the other categories.
When a category is overspent you should decide if it requires more allocation (for example make Fun have \$90.00 per month) or control spending to keep it under the limit.
After all the left-over's are calculated, add them into savings or some other category.
This hypothetical month had \$128.00 left over and it could be rolled into the next month in case unexpected expenses show up.
Table 5 shows you another hypothetical budget with an increase in “Fun” that was taken from the food budget. Fundamentally, a budget tracks where you spend your money, how much you currently have, and how to strategize savings for future plans. The wise college student learns to budget sooner than later so that as family size increases so do their skills in budgeting. Microsoft has a number of free templates for family budgeting available at http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/te...885141033.aspx? CategoryID=CT101172321033&ofcresset=1&AxInstalled=1&c=0
The “hedonistic treadmill” emerged as a concept in recent self-help books of financial matters. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure as the main goal of one's life with pleasure being the core value of daily life. Many in the US have fallen into the trap of seeing pleasure as the best goal and a purchase as the best way to acquire that pleasure. Thus, they get on a treadmill of purchasing which cannot provide long-lasting pleasure in most cases and requires new and more varied purchases to renew that short-term pleasure over and over. The hedonistic treadmill would not be a major problem if one were very wealthy. But, for average middle class person, the marketing pressures to buy, the patterns of seeing a purchase as a path to 'happiness,” and the availability of easy to obtain credit make it very difficult to get off the treadmill. This pattern can be very destructive financially and can undermine the family system as a whole. Figure 5 shows a list of financial best practices that can be very useful to follow for stability and security in the family.
It surprises some people to hear that debt can be a good thing. It can be if debt is used wisely. Credit cards are a necessity for most and can be useful in building a strong credit score. To control credit card use is simple: spend with it very conservatively, pay your balance off every month, never spend up to your limit, and make sure others can't use your card. How well you use and manage your credit card now will influence how well you qualify for car and home loans later in your life.
Secured loans are loans that have some form of collateral so that the risk to the lender is minimized. Car loans and mortgages are examples of this type of loan. If the borrower can't pay the loan, then the car or home can be legally sold to make up for some of the lost loan value. Unsecured loans have no collateral associated with them and typically are given based on individual credit scores. These would include signature loans or personal loans and are much more risky to the lender.
Just a quick note on mortgages; some of my students have felt that the mortgage industry is doomed and that they have lost their chance to buy a home and have it work out for them in the long run. Even in today's volatile markets, homeowners have economic advantages that renters do not have. Mortgage interest can be deducted from taxes.
Having a mortgage and paying your monthly payments on time is an effective way to build your credit score. Finally, in most states and communities, homeowners have more rights and privileges than renters.
Planning Financially for the Future
Guarding your credit score is crucial for your family's financial security. In the 1950's two researchers began a scoring system designed to provide a standardized credit score for everyone in the US. The FICO Score is the most common credit scoring system in the world and is named after Bill Fair and Earl Isaac-Fair Isaac Corporation score or FICO. Your credit score is comprised of your payment history, how your credit capacity compares to your usage (not too many unpaid balances), how long you've had credit, which types of credit you've had, and finally how many times your credit was checked (retrieved 2 April, 2010 from http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_...ore_and_others ).
You must become a manager of your credit score. The online www.about.com article, the “Top Five Money Mistakes College Students Make” has very useful information in it (retrieved 2 April, 2010 from http://financialplan.about.com/od/st...y-mistakes.htm). Overdoing credit card debt, ignoring or ruining your credit score, not budgeting, and misusing student loan money are listed. Many other Internet-based articles point to the same mistakes and how easy they are to make for uneducated students who are offered numerous pre-approved credit cards as freshmen.
There are many studies that demonstrate that misusing credit negatively impacts college students' overall lives and experiences (see for example, Xiao, J. S. (2007). Academic Success and Well-Being of College Students: Behaviors Matter. Take Charge of America Institute Report, November , 1-23). I recently studied this among our own students at Utah Valley University and found that less debt was associated with students being overall more satisfied with their lives (not yet published).
Every family needs a 5, 10, 15, and 20 year financial plan. For the most part such a plan focuses on long-term goals while giving you guidelines to follow in the short-term.
Answer these simple questions, “What do we need/want to pay for in 5, 10, 15, and 20 years and how do we need to prepare now to accomplish those dreams?” Buying a home, owning a home, planning for retirement, putting kids through college, life insurance coverage, starting a business, traveling the world, being debt free, and other goals might emerge in the planning process. Once you have these goals typed out for the next 2 decades you can couch most of your budgeting, saving, and spending activities into them.
Remember that the “Rules of Three” suggest not buying in a hurry and that makes even more sense when you think about the nature of each purchase as it fits into the long-term plan.
There is no such thing as “extra money.” I had a student tell me that she and her husband got some extra money back from an end of year bonus at work. I asked what they planned on doing with it and she replied, “we're still deciding. It will be something fun!”
I mused over her response. I was teaching a senior-level family finance class and had seen her monthly budget. She had 2 bills that they made installment payments on that she could pay off with her unexpected windfall. But, and here is the main point, she and her husband felt stressed and under pressure and this money represented a gift of relief that in her own words, “we work very hard and we deserve to do something fun with this.”
All money is real money, even credit card money. There is no such thing as extra money because with a 20 year plan, a monthly budget, and clear-cut goals any money (expected or unexpected) can be applied to a long-term goal or budget category where it can be applied. In fact, had this student and her husband planned for it, it could be applied to a fun category in the budget or split in half with some going to debt reduction and the rest to fun. They actually bought a high-end flat-screen TV, but could not afford cable or satellite to watch on it. All money should be allocated and spent in the larger framework of the family finances.
http://www.wealth-bulletin.com/rich-...nt/1053598720/ Millionaire Level Plummets by Baum, S. 11 March 2009).
If you are middle class, you can increase your family's net worth by following a few basic principles. First invest low and sell high. Second, consider real estate investments as a renter-landlord or owner-finance agent. Third, become a full-on, unabashed cheapskate.
Don't ever pay full price for anything. Don't ever sell below the market value. Fourth, don't ever try to do the expert stuff by yourself. It is very easy to get an advisor, read a book, attend a seminar, or get professionals on your team. Many of my students take an elective finance class from the lower division offerings in the Business Department. I've had one join the ranks of the US millionaires and he makes about \$60,000.00 per year.
To him, his family finance and investment hobby has opened numerous opportunities for his family and given them the freedom to do things they'd like to do. Some of us sabotage such successful efforts as these. Why?
Undermining Financial Stability
Entitlement is a feeling of wanting something for nothing, of being justified in having one's wants met, and/or a feeling of being excluded from the same rules that bind most of the member of society. You may benefit from knowing that the concept of “sense of entitlement” is often associated with addictive behaviors and unhealthy relationship patterns. Entitled people have difficulty discerning the difference between “what I want” and “what I need” when it comes to money. A flat screen TV is owed to them if they want it, because they are special and there needs should be met regardless of the finances involved to acquire them. Entitled people feel that it is their right to have what they want. Many of us have feelings of entitlement in some areas of our lives. But, when or if our pursuit of the things we want interferes with our financial security, moral and ethical propriety, or social responsibilities, this entitlement can become pathological.
In the US, many people feel entitled when it comes to consumer goods. They feel obligated to buy things that truly fall under the category of wants rather than needs.
Many, who lack enough resources will overspend in the process of acquiring things they sometimes feel buyer's remorse over (remember the treadmill?). It is a painful lesson to learn when debt suddenly becomes overbearing. One of my friends used to say, “never finance a pizza.” He meant that pizzas, movie rentals, new clothes, and other small ticket items add up way too fast and it is unwise to make many small purchases that land you with a pile of debt. Not having the family financial guidelines as listed in this chapter, leaves one with no guidance, little direction, and a vulnerability to financial insecurity in a very aggressive market-place-based society that ours has come to be.
Why is it that some human behaviors make so very little sense to a reasonable person?
Why do people spend themselves into a financial hole. Why do they get sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies that encumber their lives for decades?
Why do people persist in getting into hurtful relationships? Why are so many of us unhealthy because of our eating patterns? The answer is simple-we are human beings with choice and intelligence but emotions play a significant role in how we think and feel our way through the many decisions we make each day. A few emotions are very caustic to our sense of self-value: shame is a feeling of being flawed at our very cores; guilt is a feeling of remorse for having done wrong in our actions or inactions; and fear is a feeling of anxiety or apprehension over uncertainties in our lives.
Shame, guilt, and fear underlie many unhealthy financial decisions in our lives. I once witnessed a power struggle between amother and son in a small-town grocery store. The mother refused to buy her son a certain brand of cold cereal. He insisted and parked his shoes right in front of her shopping cart. Emotions elevated, tempers flared, and eventually the mother slapped him across the face. I was proud of her for holding the line on her decision, but disappointed that it came to violence. As I continued to act uninterested, the son cried, the mother bought the box of cereal and I wished in the end I had chosen another store to shop in that day. Her guilt and perhaps shame lead to an unhealthy yielding to her son's feelings of entitlement.
Many of us who suffer guilt, shame, and fear medicate these feelings when we buy. We are not thinking rationally as much as feeling irrationally. Some people even become addicted to spending and are called “Shopaholics” because their spending habits interfere with their normal daily activities. When spending is obsessive or out of control it is often because of suffering from caustic feelings and not responding to them in appropriate ways. I've had my finance students answer these four questions when it comes to understanding their own unhealthy spending habits: “Does more money make you feel better about yourself, more loved by others, or happier? Can you find the chains binding you to your shame and self issues and severe them? Do you deserve success? Is spending like perfume that hides a guilt or shame odor?” Notice these are not budgeting and planning questions. They are based on understanding our feelings.
Figure 6 shows some of the emotionally driven unhealthy financial motivations that sometimes plague us. A metaphor that I've used with my students involves being thirsty but drinking from the wrong cup to quench that thirst. Many people eat when they are really thirsty. Others drink soda pop when they crave water. Some drink alcohol when they would probably benefit more from a sports drink with electrolytes. In the US we are notorious for drinking from the wrong cup. We keep ourselves so busy and distracted that we struggle to identify what is truly going on and how best to solve it.
When we misspend or manage our finances poorly or in destructive ways we often have legitimate needs but are trying to meet them in the wrong way. Some people shop when they feel lonely. They might also spend money for cruises or fun, but soon find that being with other people is not always the cure for loneliness and that happiness is a choice only they can make for themselves. Others spend to make up to themselves (or their own children) for neglectful, abusive, and traumatic childhood circumstances.
Money in this case is used both to medicate the problem (with a cure that doesn't work) and to reinforce their shameful feelings of worthlessness. So if they misspend and mismanage their money, they simultaneously create problems that prove what they've felt all along-they are not worthy of happiness or success.
There are those who put a tremendous amount of energy into looking good, appearing to be wealthy or privileged, or being more sophisticated than they truly are. One of my buddies who kept bankrupting finally realized his emotionally-based pattern of financial self-destruction. He said, “I have a millionaire's taste and a janitor's income. I'm tired of suffering to prove something to others when I'm not that something.” The medicating phenomenon in money mismanagement is similar in many way to the medicating phenomenon in drug and alcohol abuse. People who hurt try to distract themselves from it by getting a short-term high from their money or spending. They go to Vegas, buy something new, take friends and family out for diner, and other activities that keep them from feeling whatever pain that hurts them.
I worked for hours one day trying to untangle a knot in my tow strap that I had used to tow a friends car down the mountain. My friend watched me patiently and when I finally asked him for his pocket knife because I was just ready to cut the knot out and shorten the strap, he asked, “can I show you a trick?” He pushed the knot in onto itself and with the material in this strap it created slack enough to untie the knot. Because I did not understand what he knew, I was willing to cut the knot. People do this with money at times, especially when they are irrational in their thinking and entangled in an emotional issue. Trying to instantly solve a deeper emotional problem is not sustainable in the long-run.
People with deep feelings of shame and worthlessness will often go out of their way to distract others from that part of their being. They dress, act, and live extremely unusual lives and hope that others will notice the more superficial aspects of their natures and not see the perceived flaws. “look at me, but don't notice me” is a common theme among those who take on a persona (punk, emo, goody-two-shoes, etc.) that is more of a distraction than anything else. I see this commonly among celebrities who get caught doing outrageous things. I sometimes see it in my students who are so very fragile, yet outwardly look extremely capable.
Trying to feel loved and needing to feel loved is by far one of the strongest human needs we have. I watched a set of grandparents in my neighborhood who recently file for bankruptcy. They mortgaged the equity in their home, spent their savings, and used all those funds trying to facilitate “great memories” with their children. Amusement parks all across the US had better revenues thanks in part to their efforts. When the party ended they found themselves broke and still alone. Their children and grandchildren had very busy lives and could not give Grandma and Grandpa the time.
Today's elderly have a reputation for being conservative in their spending and in saving.
Yet, more and more elderly are mismanaging their money. USA Today online reported that “From 1991 to 2007, the rate of personal bankruptcy filings among those ages 65 or older jumped by 150%, according to AARP, which will release the new research from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project. The most startling rise occurred among those ages 75 to 84, whose rate soared 433%” (“Bankruptcy Rising Among Seniors” retrieved 5 April, 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...-seniors_N.htm ). Reasons for this trend include medical bills, wanting things they can't afford, maintaining a higher status, being taken advantage of by predatory lenders, and inflation that makes the spending power of their retirements less powerful. I once saw a bumper sticker that read, “I'm spending my grandchildren's inheritance.” For some elderly this is literally the case. If shame guilt and/or fear are interfering with your money management there are self-help books and therapists who can help you work through it. Taking control of your money and how you manage it is best done now than later. Point number 10 back in Figure 5 repeats the theme of making your savings investments and other financial assets hard to reach. I have a millionaire friend who has a bank in Illinois. He never lived there, but he set up a savings account that can only be used over the course of three days. In other words, he can get money out of it through a complicated and safe withdrawal process that he put into place on purpose. This keeps him from spontaneous purchases and spending. Besides, there are very clever con men and women in the US who will take your money from you with smile on their faces and without remorse.
The most common theme of their ploy is the quick cash, something-for-nothing, rare opportunity approach that makes you feel pressure to act now or you might miss the payoff. By far the most notable US con man was Bernie Madoff (Born 1938 in Queens, NY). He was one of the most notorious con men, having conned millions form the country's elite class who invested with him in order to get a huge and quick payoff on their money. Confidence scams tend to exploit our greed, vanity, and ignorance as they promise quick profits, low risks, and certain outcomes. Confidence scams are as old as time and rarely ever produce the desired outcome for the investor. They are fundamentally unsecured loans with huge risks and will cost millions of dollars this year to naïve investors. There never has nor never will be a “something for nothing miracle investment.”
The last two points in Figure 5 are very simple. First, unless you are that genius who can invest and plan and predict stock markets, then hire a genius. Let the experts with high ratings (bonded) and a track record of proven success and references do what you cannot do for yourself. It cost money, but typically pays more money in the end. That financial expert will help you assess your 5, 10, 15, and 20 year goals and how best to achieve them. Finally, treat your money with dignity and respect and it will respond in kind.
Don't put your money in a humiliating role of debt, earning interests that works against you. Put your money in a dignified interest-earning place where you can buy low and sell high and show profit in the end. There are many self-help books on managing your money. I'd recommend that you get some and read them.
One final thought about money and spending it in a marriage or couple relationship; there is often a debate between spouses and partners about what is a need and what is just a want. Many define a need as something as important that demands their attention. A want to most is superfluous and not required. The trick of being united in your budget and spending choices is to working together, communicate about needs and wants, and to yield to one another's wants at times, even if to you it only feels like a need.
Unfortunately there is no universal standard of a true need versus a true want. It depends on each individual family member.
You might use these questions in distinguishing needs from wants: “Do we value owning things over doing things? Do we value doing things over owning things? Given our long-term goals do we value investing in things more than owning or doing things? and/or finally, Do we value supporting people over all the rest?” Taking the time to discuss and evaluate your points of view, then negotiate together on them as a healthy financial resources management strategy. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.11%3A_Family_Resources_and_Economics.txt |
Chapter 12: Divorce and Separation
In the United States, Marriage is the legal union of people. Outside of the US, most societies define marriage between a man and a woman or between a man and women (see polygamy among Mormon splinter groups, Muslim cultures, and tribal cultures throughout the world).
Same-sex Marriage is the legal union of two people of the same sex. Since 2001 when the Netherlands granted same-sex marriage rights to its citizens, about 6 other Western nations have granted same-sex marriage rights. Many countries refuse to give same-sex marriage rights to its citizens. Notice that in modern societies, the state government claims the authority to grant marriage rights. This has not always been true for Western societies. A few centuries ago, tribal or clan leaders, a father, or elderly members of small groups could grant marriages.
To legally marry in the United States today, one simply goes to the local county or state office and applies for a state marriage license. The state also claims authority in granting divorce rights to couples. Divorce is the legal dissolution of a previously granted marriage. To understand marriage and divorce trends in the US you should think in 3's.
Every year states grant marriages and divorces in a ratio that adds up to 3. In other words, about 2 marriages are granted by the state for every 1 divorce, even though in 2008 there were over 2.1 million marriages and about 1 million divorces (retrieved 17 September, 2009 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nv.../nvsr57_19.htm Table A2. Provisional Vital Statistics for the US, Dec 2008; National vital Statistics Report Vol 57, Number 19). Thus, the ratio of 3 breaks down to 2:1 marriages: divorces.
Most marriages still endure and the odds are that divorce won't happen to most marriages.
It is a myth that 1 in 2 marriages eventually ends in divorce. There are a few myths about US divorce trends that will be dispelled in this chapter. You might have heard the myth of the “Seven-year itch” where divorce happens prior to or shortly after the 7th year.
Current government estimates indicate that about 75 percent of couples make their ten-year anniversary in their first marriage(see US Census Bureau, 2004 Detailed Tables-Number, Timing and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2004; Table 2 Percent Reaching Stated Anniversary, By Marriage Cohort and Sex, and Sex for first and Second Marriages, Retrieved 9 Sept 2009 from www.census.gov). The myths are false, but divorce does happen more in our day than it did 50 years ago and more people today are currently divorced than were currently divorced 50 years ago.
Effect of Baby Boomers on the Divorce Rate
We'll discuss these trends in divorce rates below, but first we must define cohort. A Cohort is a group of people who have some demographic characteristic, typically associated with their birth year or group of birth years. The Baby Boom is a cohort of those born between 1946 and 1964 and represented a never before nor never after repeated high period of birth rates that yielded about 70 million living Baby Boomers today (i.e., 1946-1964).
There are few different rates for measuring divorce. The most common divorce rate used by the US Census Bureau is the number of divorces/ 1,000 population. Another divorce rate is the number of divorces/1,000 married women.
Look at Figure 1 below to see the United States marriage and divorce rates/1,000 population from 1900 to 2006. Notice that divorce rates have always been much lower than marriage rates in the US. Also notice that marriage and divorce rates moved in very similar directions over the last century. A slight rise is visible for both after WWI and WWII ended (1919 and 1946). A slight decline is visible during the Depression (1930s) and turbulent 1960s. Most importantly notice that both marriage and divorce rates have been declining in the 1990s and 2000s. Younger people today wait to marry until their late twenties (Delayed Marriage) while other family forms such as single parenting, cohabiting, and three-generational families have increased in the US.
Figure 1 also shows the trends in ratio of divorces to marriages for the US. In 1900 there was 1 divorce per 13 marriages that year or 1:13, in 1930 1:6, in 1950 1:4, in 1970 1:3, 1980 1:2, 1990 1:2, and 2006 1:2. Today, that means that every year there are to state-sanctioned legal marriages with only 1 state-sanctioned legal dissolution of a marriage.
One plus two equals three. For the last 12 months ending in December 2008 there was a marriage rate of 7.1 marriages for every 1,000 population and a divorce rate of 3.5 divorces for every 1,000 population. As mentioned above, that translates to over 2.1 million marriages and about 1 million divorces in 2008.
The National center for Health Statistics reported May 24 2001 that 43 percent of current marriages break up within the first 15 years of marriage (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01.../firstmarr.htm). That was in 2001 and not today. It was the highest official scientifically-based divorce risks estimate given which was a full 7 percentage points shy of the 50/50 figure carelessly thrown around in the media and classrooms.
Figure 2 shows a more detail description of US divorce rates since 1940 and some of the factors that contributed to them. As you already noticed in Figure 1, divorce rates were relatively low prior to 1940. But, in the 1940s WWII was ongoing and divorce rates moved upward with a one-year spike in 1946. As a reminder, keep in mind that 1946 was the United States' most unusual year for family-related rates. Divorce rates, marriage rates, birth rates and remarriage rates surged during this year while couples married at their lowest median age in US history. Remember that the Baby Boom began in 1946.
Table 1: Percent Ever Divorced *and Percent Currently Divorced in 2004 by Age Groups US: Boomers Ages 40-59 in 2004
Ages 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-49 Boomers 50-59 Boomers 60-69 Pre-Boomers 70+ Total
Males Ever Div. 0.1% 0.8% 5.1% 13.1% 20.7% 30.3% 37.5% 34.1% 20.6% 20.7%
Males Currently Div. 0.1% 0.7% 3.2% 6.6% 10.9% 14.7% 16.2% 13.0% 6.2% 9.3%
Females Ever Div. 0.2% 2.5% 7.0% 17.1% 25.6% 33.9% 40.7% 32.3% 17.8% 22.9%
Females Currently Div. 0.1% 1.7% 4.1% 9.1% 11.7% 16.4% 19.4% 15.0% 7.2% 10.9%
*Data retrieved 16 September, 2009 from www.Census.gov Number Timing and Duration of Marriages and Divorce 2004 released in 2007: Table 3. Marital History for People 15 Years and Over by Age and Sex: 2004
When scientists and government researchers predict the risks you might have of divorce they use the experiences of currently married people who have and have not divorced-therein lies part of the complication of deriving an “odds or risks of divorce” that we can have confidence in enough to offer advice to the soon-to-be-married. The US has had its worst divorcing cohort ever and some of them will likely divorce again before their death. The trend among younger marrieds is to remain married longer and divorce less…but, what if they collectively have an increase in their marital dissolution experiences?
What if all of the sudden, millions and millions of currently married couples flock to the courthouse to file for divorce?
Odds of Divorce
First, that scenario isn't likely to happen because today's married couples tend to remain married. Second, and this is more important, the national risk of divorce is different from your personal risk of divorce in one crucial factor-you have very little influence in the national rates and a great deal of influence in your on marriage quality and outcome. You and your spouse have much control over your marital experience, how you enhance it, how you protect it from medical, economic, and other stressors that can undermine it, and finally how you maintain it.
Family scientists refer to Marital Entropy as the principle based on the belief that if a marriage does not receive preventative maintenance and upgrades it will move towards decay and break down. Hearing an evening news report on national divorce trends has much less impact on your marriage than a preventative weekend away together to recharge your romance and commitment which is a marital maintenance strategy designed to combat marital entropy. A proactive and assertive approach to your marital quality is far more influential than most other factors leading to divorce.
It is true that the longer a couple is married the lower their odds of divorce. Figure 3 shows a visual depiction of how the odds of divorce decline over time. The first 3 years of marriage require many adjustments for newlyweds. Often special mention is the process of transitioning into a cohesive couple relationship with negotiated financial, sexual, social, emotional, intellectual, physical, and spiritual rules of engagement. Most couples have many of these negotiations in place by years 7-10. Anyone can divorce at any time in a marriage. Since longevity is often associated with the arrival of children, accumulation of wealth, establishment of acceptable social status (being married is still highly regarded as a status), and the buffering of many of life's daily stressors; the average couple finds it difficult and too costly to divorce, even though some features of the marriage are less than desirable (See Levinger's Model below).
Using Social Exchange theory as a basis for understanding why couples stay married or divorce, you begin to see that spouses consider their cost-to-benefits, rewards-punishments, and/or pros-cons in their decisions. Remember that, Social Exchange Theory claims that society is composed of ever present interactions among individuals who attempt to maximize rewards while minimizing costs. Assumptions in this theory are similar to Conflict theory assumptions yet have their interactistic underpinnings.
Basically, human beings are rational creatures, capable of making sound choices when the pros and cons of the choice are understood. This theory uses a formula to measure the choice making processes: (REWARDS-COSTS)=OUTCOMES or (What I get out of it-What I lose by doing it)=My decision. In 1979 Levinger and Moles published a chapter in a scholarly anthology wherein they discussed the rational choices made by spouses who were considering divorcing or remaining married. It's been referred to as “Levinger's Model.” Levinger's Model looks like this in the formula: AttractionsBarriers)+/- Alternative Attractions= My decision to stay married or divorce. Look at Table 2 below to see an example of how Levinger's Model clarifies the choices people might make and their perceived rewards and costs.
Table 2: Levinger's Model of Rational Choice in Divorce
(Attractions) Magnets=Rewards that stem from being married (Barriers) Walls=Punishments or losses you'd face if you divorced. You'd have to climb over these walls if you divorced (Alternative Attractions) Lures Away From Your Marriage=Something attractive that you could obtain if you were unmarried
Positive social status Loss of positive status and new negative status-stigma of being 'divorced' Liberated status with freedom to explore relationships with others
Wealth Accumulation Division of wealth (at least by half) Opportunity to be disentangled with family costs
Co-parenting Co-parenting with ex-spouse, never truly free from this role Share custody alleviating some degree of burden of parenting
Sex Much less availability and predictablility of sexual partner Possibility of new sexual partner
Health Support and Stress Buffer Loss of health support and additional stress from divorce process Different types of stressors and relief from pre-divorce stresses
Stay Married Formula
(+Attractions)
(+)Barriers (-)Lures
Divorce Formula
(-Attractions)
(-)Barriers (+)Lures
In Table 2 you see that Levinger's Attractions are simply the magnets or rewards that stem from being married. These are the payoffs or rewards that come from being married and include positive social status, wealth accumulation, co-parenting, sexual intercourse, and the health support and stress buffer that marriage typically brings to each spouse.
Levinger's Barriers are simply the costs or punishments that might be incurred if a married person chose to divorce. These might include losing all the attractions and magnets, changing to a negative status, suffering a division of wealth, co-parenting at a distance and without same-household convenience, experiencing a change/decline in sexual frequency and predictability, and losing the health and stress buffer that married couples enjoy (even unhappily married couples experience some measure of this buffer).
Levinger's Alternative Attractions are basically lures or something appealing that a now-married spouse might find rewarding if they go ahead and divorce. These might include liberation and the freedom that comes from being single (albeit divorced) and newly available on the market, a financial disentanglement from ex-spouse and at times child care (especially common view held among men who often share custody but pay less in the end for their children), alleviation of parenting when children are with other parent, freedom from unwanted sexual demands and/or possibility of new sexual partner or partners, abandonment of overbearing stressors from marriage.
I personally have been studying the family for more than 20 years and have seen trends in divorce that reflect the collective society according to Levinger's model. I've also seen the cases of my personal friends where in one case the mother of four left the marriage and let her Ex have full custody, full parental responsibility, and full homemaking under stressful psychological and emotional duress for the children. In her case, the lure of online Dungeons and Dragons gamer with evening real-world roles and escapades offered her an appealing alternative to her perceived mundane mothering routines.
I've also seen the case of a father of three who left the marriage and forfeited any responsibility, refusing to pay court ordered child support and refusing to spend time with his children (The state garnished his wages). In his case he had a series of girlfriends, a new truck, and a no-rent bedroom in his mother's home. This while his ex-wife was forced onto welfare and has not left poverty these last 14 years since the divorce. The lure for this man was a second childhood of pleasures and self-interests. Generally speaking there are some that find high school reunions, online match making, and the singles social scene to be an appealing lure. Others are more interested in alleviating undesirable and at times even hostile marital living conditions.
Look at the last two rows in Table 2. They show how you can use a formula to understand the propensity a couple has to divorcing or staying married. In the Stay Married formula, the Attractions and Barriers are high while the lures or low. Translated into Social Exchange thinking-there are many reward in the marriage with many barriers that would prove more punishing if a spouse wanted to divorce. At the same time there are few lures that might draw a spouse away from their marriage.
The divorce formula is also revealing. Attractions are low, barriers are low, and lures are high. In other words-there are few rewards from being married, low barriers or low perceived punishments from divorcing, with high lures to draw a spouse away from the marriage. One would expect satisfied couples to have the stay married formula while dissatisfied couples would have the divorce formula. By the way, the formula is only descriptive (it tells the state of the union) and not predictive (it cannot tell you what the couple might do). Some with the divorce formula in place remain married for years. A few with the stay married formula become dissatisfied and begin focusing on lures.
One Social Exchange principle that clarifies the rational processes experienced by couples is called the concept of equity. Equity is a sense that the interactions are fair to us and fair to others involved by the consequences of our choices. For example, why is it that women who work 40 hours a week and have a husband who works 40 hours per week do not perform the same number of weekly hours of housework and childcare?
Scientists have surveyed many couples to find the answer. Most often, it boils down to a sense of fairness or equity. Because she defines it as her role to do housework and childcare, while he doesn't, because they tend to fight when she does try to get him to perform housework, and because she may think he's incompetent, they live with an inequitable arrangement as though it were equitable (don't get me started on the evidence that supports men sharing the actual roles of housekeepers and childcare providers-see Joseph Pleck, “Working Wives/ Working Husbands” Sage Pub, CA).
Figure 4 shows a list of more and less commonly used divorce rates. We have already discussed the Crude Divorce rate, Refined Divorce Rate, Proportion Divorced, and Percent Ever Divorced. The adult Divorce rate is much less commonly used because in the United States, most who marry are already 18 and older. The ratio approach to measuring divorce and marriage can be expressed as actual numbers (in 2008 there were over 2.1 million marriages and about 1 million divorces in the US) or as a ratio of 1 divorce/2 marriages in the US in 2006.
What Predicts Divorce in the US?
Years and years of research on divorce yielded a few common themes of what puts a couple at more or less risk of divorce. Before we discuss those factors let me point out an uncomfortable truth-all of us are at risk of dying as long as we are alive, likewise, all of us are at risk of divorcing as long as we are married. But, the presence of divorce risks does not imply the outcome of divorce. There is a geography factor of US divorce.
Divorce rates tend to be lower in the North East and Higher in the West. Nevada typically has the highest of all state divorce rates, but is often excluded from comparison because of the “Vegas marriage” or “Vegas Divorce” effect. Figure 5 shows the Higher divorce rate in Arkansas, US average, and Lower divorce rate in Pennsylvania.
Simply enduring the difficult times of marriage is associated with remaining married.
Basically the explanation falls under these types of issues, they are disadvantaged economically, socially, and emotionally, their circumstances have accompanying hardships that would not be present had they waited to age 25 (for example, had they graduated college first and prepared themselves for the labor force and for the emotional complexity of marriage), many scientific studies indicate that there is a refining process of social and intellectual capacities that is not reached until around age 26, and young marriers exchange their prime years of self-discovery (adventure) for marriage. Another major individual choice-related factor is marrying because of an unplanned pregnancy.
Most babies born in the US are born to a married couple. But, today about 40 percent are born to single mothers of all ages. Even though many of these single mothers marry the baby's father, numerous studies have indicated that they have a higher likelihood of their marriage ending in divorce.
Many individuals struggle to completely surrender their single status. They mentally remain on the marriage market in case “someone better than their current spouse comes along.” Norval Glenn in 1991 argued that many individuals see marriage as a temporary state while they keep an eye open for someone better, “More honest vows would often be “as long as we both shall love” or “as long as no one better comes along (page 268).”
Glenn gets at the core of the cultural values associated with risks of divorcing. (See “The Recent Trend in Marital Success in the United States” by Norval D. Glenn Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 261-270) Robert and Jeanette Lauer are a husband-wife team who have not only studied the family but have written a college textbook called Marriage and Family: The Quest for Intimacy (2009, Cengage). They studied commitment and endurance of married couples. They identified 29 factors among couples who had been together for 15 years or more. They found that both husbands and wives reported as their number 1 and 2 factors that “My spouse is my best friend and I like my spouse as a person” (see 'Til Death Do Us Part:
How Couples Stay Together 1986 by Robert Lauer and also Google Lauer and Lauer and Kerr various years). The Lauers also studied the levels of commitment couples had to their marriage. The couples reported that they were in fact committed to and supportive of not only their own marriage but marriage as an institution. Irreconcilable differences are common to marriage and the basic strategy to deal with them is to negotiate as much as is possible, accept the irresolvable differences, and finally live happily with them.
Family Scientists have borrowed from the physics literature a concept called entropy which is roughly defined as the principle that matter tends to decay and reduction, toward its simplest parts. For example, a new car if parked in a field and ignored would eventually decay and rot. A planted garden if left unmaintained would be overrun with weeds, pests, and yield low if any crop. Couples who take ownership of their marriage and who realize that marriage is not bliss and that it often requires much work, experience more stability and strength when they nurture their marriage. They treat their marriage like a nice car and become committed to preventing breakdowns rather than waiting to repair them. These couples read and study experts like Gottman, Cherlin, Popenoe, and others who have focused their research on how to care for the marriage, acknowledging the propensity relationships have to decay if unattended.
A positive outlook for your marriage as a rewarding and enjoyable relationship is a realistic outlook. Some couples worry about being labeled naïve if they express the joys and rewards their marriage brings to their lives. Be hopeful and positive on the quality and duration of your marriage, because the odds are still in your favor. You've probably seen commercials where online matchmaking Websites strut their success in matching people to one another. There have been a few criticisms of online marital enhancement services, but millions have used them. Along, with DVD's, talk CDs, self-help books, and seminars there are many outlets for marital enhancement available to couples who seek them. Very few know that there is now a Website that offers support to marrieds who want to be proactive and preventative in their relationship http://marriage.eharmony.com/.
“Doomed, soaring divorce rates, spousal violence, husbands killing wives, decline of marriage,” and other gloomy headlines are very common on electronic, TV, and print news stories. The media functions to disseminate information and its primary goal is to make money by selling advertising. The media never has claimed to be random or scientific in their stories. They don't really try to represent the entire society with every story. In fact, media is more accurately described as biased by the extremes, based on the nature of stories that are presented to us the viewers.
Many media critics have made the argument for years that the news and other media use fear as a theme for most stories, so that we will consume them. As you observed above, most in the US choose marriage and most who are divorced will eventually marry again.
True, marriage is not bliss, but it is a preferred lifestyle by most US adults. From the Social Exchange perspective, assuming that people maximize their rewards while minimizing their losses, marriage is widely defined as desirable and rewarding. There are strategies individuals can use to minimize the risks of divorce (personal level actions). Table 3 below lists 10 of these actions.
Table 3: Ten Actions Individuals Can Take to Minimize the Odds of Divorce
1. Wait until at least 20s to marry. Avoid marrying as a teenager
2. Don't marry out of duty to a child. Avoid marrying just because she got pregnant. Pregnancy is not mate-selection process we discussed in the pairing-off chapter.
3. Become proactive by maintaining your marriage with preventive efforts designed to avoid breakdowns. Find books, seminars, and a therapist to help you both work out the tough issues.
4. Never cohabit if you think you might marry.
5. Once married, leave the marriage market. Avoid keeping an eye open for a better spouse.
6. Remain committed to your marriage. Most couples have irreconcilable differences and most learn to live comfortably together in spite of them.
7. Keep a positive outlook>Avoid losing hope in you first 36 months. Those who get past the 3-year mark often see improvements in quality of marital relationships and the first 36 months have the most intense adjustments in them.
8. Take the media with a grain of salt. Avoid accepting evidences that your marriage is doomed. This means being careful not to let accurate or inaccurate statistics convince you that all is lost, especially before you even marry.
9. Do your homework when selecting a mate. Take your time and realize that marrying in our late 20s is common now and carefully identify someone who is homogamous to you, especially about wanting to be married.
10. Focus on the positive benefits found to be associated with being married in society while learning to overlook some of the downsides.
Finally, decades of studies have indicated that have a history of cohabitation, ever having cohabited, contributes to higher likelihood of divorce. Cohabitation has been studied extensively for the last 2 decades, especially in contrast between cohabiting and married couple. Clear findings consistently show that cohabiting and marriage are two different creatures (see studies by Lawrence Ganong and Marilyn Coleman). Those who cohabit tend to establish patterns of relationships that later inhibit marital duration. In other words people who cohabit then later marry are much more likely to divorce than those who never cohabited.
As mentioned before, cohabitation is more common in the US today than ever before.
Cohabiters are considered to be unique from those who marry in a variety of ways, yet the similarities between married and cohabiting spouses suggests that their lifestyles overlap. In both life styles, relationships are formed and often ended. Cohabiters have more than twice the risks of their relationship ending than do marrieds (See 2008, Andrew J. Cherlin, “Multiple Partnerships and Children's Wellbeing.” Austrian Institute of Family Studies, No 89 Page 33-36).
Cherlin also discussed the uniqueness of cohabiting versus married couples. In sum, cohabiters often feel financially ill-equipped to marry, have lower expectations of relationship satisfaction than do marrieds, and often expect a shorter relational duration than marrieds. Cherlin's main thesis of this article is the stability for children when adult intimate relationships end. Cherlin's concern is well grounded in the statistics of divorce. Figure 7 shows that millions of US children have experienced their parents divorces since 1960 with nearly 1 million children of divorce each year.
Effect on Children
Let's think for a minute about what is best for children in terms of their parents remaining married or divorcing. Every home should provide a safe, loving and nurturing environment where basic needs are met and where children are nurtured into the greatness of their potential. Sounds ideal, huh? But, that's not the real-world experience of most children. Familial stresses and hardships are the norm. Being a child of divorced parents does not imply that you are in some way worse off than children whose parents remain married, yet facilitated a harsh and destructive home environment for their children.
Divorce is a blessing/positive life change for many children and their parents. In fact some children of divorce are very happily married in their own adult relationships because of their sensitive searching for a safe and compatible partner and because they don't want their children to suffer as they themselves did. At the same time, having a parent who divorced probably increases the odds of divorce for most children. Judith Wallerstein has followed a clinical sample of children of divorce for nearly 4 decades.
Her conclusions match those of other researchers-children whose parents divorce are impacted throughout their lives by it in a variety of ways. The same could be said of children whose parents remained married and raised them in a caustic home environment.
Whenever a couple divorces (or separates for cohabiters) children experience changes in the stability of their lives at many levels. Many of these children have been through divorce more than once. When their parent's divorce children assume blame for it and believe that they should try to get their parents back together (Like Walt Disney's Parent Trap Movie). In reality the children typically don't influence their parents choices to divorce directly and children are certainly part of the equation, but rarely the sole cause of divorce. On top of that divorce brings change which is stressful by its very nature.
Children worry about being abandoned. They have had their core attachment to their parents violated. They become disillusioned with authority as they try to balance “they way things ought to be with the way things actually are.” They become aware of ex-spouse tensions and realize that they themselves are the subject of some of these tensions.
It is better for children to be forewarned of the coming divorce. As they discuss their concerns with you listen and reassure. Make it clear to children that they are not the cause of divorce, that both parents still love them and will always be their parent. Tell and show them that they will be taken care of as best a parent can. Show them that even though divorce is difficult you can work together to get through it. Show them that you and the absent parent will learn to get along and they will too. It's tempting, but ensure that they don't have to serve as messenger or go between or in any other way assume the burdens associated with the dissolved marriage. Table 4 presents some core guidelines for divorcing parents.
Table 4: Core Guidelines for Divorcing Parents
1. Respect each other, get along, and come to terms with the nuances of co-parenting (both parents and their new partners and their new partners will be at the kindergarten play)
2. Set up and maintain predictable routines, especially following mandates in the divorce settlement decree.
3. Take mediation and adhere to mediation guidelines.
4. Get professional help for the children where needed.
5. Ensure the constant safety and well being of your children.
6. Follow a mutually agreed upon divorce decree.
7. Help children remember the good times that happened before the divorce.
8. Expect children to act out in unexpected ways and work with the ex-spouse on being consistent and agreeing on how to discipline consistently. Encourage children to have a strong relationship with both parents.
9. Get your own professional help and guard against your children becoming caregivers to you. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.12%3A_Divorce_and_Separation.txt |
Chapter 13: Remarriage and Step-Families
In December, 2008 there were just over 2 million marriages and 1 million divorces in the US (retrieved 29 April, 2010 from Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2008 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nv.../nvsr57_19.pdf). There are many society-wide trends that undergird these marriage and divorce statistic. First, there is an 86 percent probability for women and 81 percent for men that they will marry by age 40 (retrieved 29 April, 2010 “Marriage and Cohabitation in the United States:…
Cycle 6 of the National Survey of Family Growth,” published in 2002 reported key findings about marriage trends in the US from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databri...19.htm#marital );
Second, about 48.8 percent of women and 50 percent of men had cohabited to some degree in the past (retrieved 29 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/...3/sr23_028.pdf);
Third, only about 27 percent of women and 33 percent of men married have never cohabited or been married before-this means they married for the first time with no cohabitation history (retrieved 29 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/...3/sr23_028.pdf);
Fourth, nearly 40 percent (38.5%) of all US births are to unwed mothers (retrieved 29 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm);
Fifth, there is a pattern of marrying, divorcing, and remarrying and even divorcing a second time (retrieved 29 April, 2010 from First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce, and Remarriage: United States Matthew D. Bramlett, Ph.D., and William D. Mosher, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics No. 323, May 31, 2001 http://www.cdc.go/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdf);
Sixth, a 2001 study found that 70 percent of currently married couples had the husband and wife both being in their first marriage-this means 30 percent were in a second, third, or greater marriage (retrieved 29 April, 2010 from Survey of Income and Program participation Wave 2 as reported at http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf).
Thus, most people in the US will marry, some for the first time, some who've been married or cohabiting, and some who've parented a baby out of wedlock. Many of those married persons will divorce at a future date. Many of those divorced persons will remarry (half to three-fourths). Some of those remarried persons will divorce (a second divorce). Some of those second divorced persons will remarry, etc. The US is drawn to marriage, yet does not always get it right the first time. I've taught my students for decades this simple statistically-based principle, “your current marriage has the best odds of NOT ending in divorce and becoming a source of joy and strength for you.” Those odds of success are highest in the first marriage, second highest in the second marriage, and so on.
Complexities of Stepfamilies
Remarriage is the legal union of a man and woman that follows the dissolution of a previous marriage for one or both spouses. Stepfamilies are formed when children from another marriage or relationship are brought into a family through a new marriage.
Stepfamilies can form in any of the following ways, a wife or husband was married before, a wife or husband cohabited before, a wife or husband was a single parent before and a child from that previous relationship becomes a step-son or step-daughter. Stepchildren can be of any age. When a former emotionally or legally significant relationship existed for a current spouse it creates a bi-nuclear family, or a family with two core adult relationships formed around the original adults who are no longer together (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 shows the relationship between Husband 1 (H1) and Wife 1 (W1) who were married for 3 years then divorced. They had a daughter together, Marie. Husband 1 then met Wife 2 (W2) who was a widow. They married. This made Wife 2 a step-mother to Marie then Husband 1 and Wife 2 had twins-a son (Sam) and daughter (Lisa) together.
Husband 1 and Wife 2 now have a bi-nuclear family with a nucleus from the second marriage and one from Husband 1 and Wife 1's first marriage. They form a stepfamily subsystem that includes Wife's 1 & 2 and Husband's 1 & 2 (even though Husband 2 is deceased, his position as Wife 2's first husband is part of the complexity of the stepfamily 1 subsystem.
Wife 1 and her daughter Marie had a single parent subsystem for nearly a decade. The complexity of this system included Marie visiting her dad and step-mom and receiving child support payments from Husband 1. For the most part this relationship was functional and not very negative. When Marie turned 10, Wife 1 remarried to a divorced man, Husband 3. Husband 3's former wife (W3) left him and wanted neither custody nor alimony. Wife 1 and Husband 3 formed stepfamily subsystem 2 which included Marie and Husband 1 to the extent that visitation and child support were concerned. Husband 3 and Wife 1 struggled financially for the first 3 years of their marriage, because of the loss of assets that came from Husband 1 and Wife 3's divorce.
Within one year of their marriage, Wife 1 and Husband 3 developed deeply rooted financial issues with the ex-husband. Husband 3 was angry at Husband 1 and it placed emotional strain on Wife 1 and Husband 3's relationship. Husband 1 refused to pay child support because he was certain that the money he gave for Marie was being spent on Mike, Jeff, and Bill. Husband 1 demanded receipts from Wife 1 and Husband 3. Of course this was not court ordered and was extremely impractical. It gave Husband 1 too much influence in Wife 1 and Husband 3's marriage. Then Husband 1's parents wanted to see Marie and Husband 3 refused them as retaliation for the financial mess. Law suits were threatened. Things only got worse after that. Welcome to the world of the bi-nuclear family complexity. Stepfamilies are perhaps the most complicated family systems in existence.
In February 2008, a report of the living arrangements of children in the US was given by the Census Bureau (retrieved 3 May, 2010 from Living Arrangements of Children: 2004 taken from the SIPP survey http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p70-114.pdf). The highlights of the report read:
“In 2004, 73.2 million children under age 18 lived in American households. The majority of these children (70 percent) lived with two parents. Most (87 percent) of the children who lived with two parents lived with their biological mother and father. Twenty-six percent of all children (19.3 million) lived with one parent. The majority (88 percent) of these children lived with their mother.”
Based on these survey results, 5.5 million children (7.6%) were living with at least 1 stepparent in 2005. The same figure was only 6.9 percent in 1996 and 7.0 percent in 2001.
By racial category the 2004 data broke down to 8 percent of White children, 6 percent of Black, 2.5 percent of Asian, and 7 percent of Hispanic (Table 1. Children by Presence and Type of Parent(s) and Race and Hispanic Origin: 2004). The same report showed that fathers were twice as likely to live with a step-child as was a mother (Table 3).
When relationships have crossed more than one social arrangement over time (Such as more than one marriage, cohabitation, or common-law arrangement), the social and emotional complexity of the family systems increases as does the need for stronger boundary maintenance. Figure 2 shows a diagram of the types of relationships and the demands of complexity and boundaries associated with them. A married couple with children have relatively low levels of social and emotional complexity in contrast to all the other categories presented here. Good boundaries are healthy in families. The phrase, “good fences make great neighbors” testifies to the need and benefit from healthy boundaries. In the nuclear family, good boundaries are like good fences to protect the immediate family and to keep out all others as deemed appropriate.
In a nuclear family there must be healthy sexual boundaries (only between the spouse or partners), healthy parenting boundaries (the parents care for, nurture, and provide structure to the dependent children), healthy financial boundaries (the parents raise the children teaching them to work and become more independent over time), healthy emotional boundaries (family member respect the privacy of the parents and children and protect all from intrusions of other family and friends), healthy social boundaries (friends and family have their place which is not as intimate as the closeness experienced by immediate family members), healthy physical boundaries (immediate family members have their own rooms, bathroom access, locks on doors and windows, and private space), and healthy safety boundaries (where the family is guarded by the older immediate family members from outside threats and harm).
Remarried couples (regardless of prior marriage or cohabitation) who have no children also have much less complexity because the ex-spouse or partners can be out of sight and mind. They have no visitation disputes, child support, nor holiday complexities that come with remarried couples who do have children. While there may be alimony issues these are not as intricately connected since there is no co-parental vagueness that comes with joint custody or non-custodial conditions.
Widowed and divorced persons find that there are more boundary issues, especially if they become dependent on others for financial and social/emotional support. With dependence come vague boundaries. When children are involved for the single parent, other adult family and non-family members often step in to provide support and nurturance. This typically is not of concern when an intact couple heads the family and works together to maintain healthy boundaries. In some ways, adults stepping in to help children often step in to help the single parents in various ways.
Remarried couples with children from other relationships are more complex in comparison. The ex-spouse gets co-parental influence that can easily spill into the marriage boundary if not properly guarded. Remember the ex's who were disputing in Figure 1 above because the father didn't want his child support to go to her new stepchildren? This is a common problem for the remarried couple. They share their money in a combined family fund. Her earnings and his earnings go into the same pot of money as does child support. Partitioning out the ex's child support in such a way that the stepsiblings are separated as belonging to “them and not us” can be very divisive.
Remarried schedules have to be broad and flexible. When a birthday comes up, the remarried couple may celebrate it then the ex-spouse and their family may celebrate it.
Things do not always work out as planned, so both parties have to bend and flex as needed. Remarried couples with children from more than one intimate relationship experience all of the above plus added complexity and boundary demands. If Bill and Sue have a 14 year-old from Sue's first marriage, a 10 year-old from her second marriage, and a 4 year-old from their marriage, plus a 17 year old from his cohabitation, and a 14 year old from his first marriage, then the complexities and need for stronger boundaries is even more intense.
With a remarried couple who have children from more than one other relationship that has legal entanglements with immediate, extended, and other family court-ordered rules of custody, visitation, and alimony, then things become scrutinizable. For example, if the court orders visitation every other weekend then records and details have to be kept showing the best faith effort of both parties to comply-it is after all, a court ordered process with legal ramification to all involved. In a perfect world people would always abide by the orders of the court. They would always make financial payments on time and visitations would always go as prescribed. Perfection is not reasonable in terms of expectations.
If you take any of the marriages below and add to that the issue of criminal charges or child protective orders, then the complexity and need for stronger boundaries can become extreme. Children have to be protected from criminals and once protective orders are issued, non-complying family members can be charged with crimes themselves. Under such extreme circumstances, visitation can be ordered under supervision such as a neutral third party supervisor. The stakes become intense because of the power the state has to hold the family accountable.
Figure 3 shows the family day-to-day activities and patterns experienced by a typical nuclear family. Nuclear families typically have complete control through the parents over the day-to-day patterns and activities. Parents, in cooperation with their children, set up meal times, vacations, and all the other arrangements and plans mentioned in the diagram. They rarely have input from other family members that would diffuse the control or cause a disruption in these activities and patterns. It is a very simple form of family in terms of planning and day-to-day family events.
Now, imagine the worst case scenario mentioned in Figure 2 where there was a remarried family with criminal and or legal issues pertaining to family members. The complexity of the day-to-day goings on would increase dramatically because the control is diffused between sets of parents (step-and their biological parent spouses). In other words, day-to-day interactions get fuzzy in every area because parental authority is spread over two sets of parents.
Figure 4 shows how complex the day-to-day activities of the family can become. The red arrows represent areas of day-to-day interaction that may be interfered with or confused by having two sets of parents in authority. For example, when step-father and biological mother allow the child to get a cell phone when she is only 11, but the step-mother and biological father feel that she is still too young and not mature enough to handle the responsibilities that come with having a cell phone. The more the parental authority is diffused, the less the parental continuity the child will have. If parents who have divorced and remarried other spouses don't concur, then the child may suffer by not receiving the healthy limitations needed for their circumstances. The red arrows show how the court-ordered criminal or legal issues can interfere. Imagine also that a court has ordered protection or visitation rules that must be supervised and must be documented for children to visit a parent. Each ruling that may interfere has the potential to throw any family out of its “groove” or day-to-day routines.
As many of you already know, the bonds of affection become strained in all types of families. It is very difficult in remarried families where unhealed hurts and boundary complexities persist. A model emerged in the late 1970s which identified family functioning on two intersecting dimensions, first, family cohesion is the degree to which family members have emotionally bonded to one another, the second is family adaptability, which is the degree to which a family can adjust to changes in family member's roles and relationships (See Olson, D. H. (1976). Bridging research theory and application: The triple threat in science. In D. H. Olson (8d..), Treating Relationships.
Lake Mills, IA: Graphic and Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process2, 5, 337-351.). The quality of communication comes into play for each family because communication either facilitates or inhibits cohesion and adaptability. The Circumflex Model is by far one of the most powerful family models ever developed for diagnosing, studying, and treating modern families. I could have placed the model anywhere in this textbook. I chose to place it here because of the extreme complexities that come with remarried and stepfamily processes. Healthy families tend to be average in regards to cohesion, adaptability, and quality communication. Olson defined a number of extremes that occur in families and there are a number of intervention strategies that therapists utilize to mediate these extremes during family therapy.
In Olson's model, families could be either disengaged or enmeshed. Disengaged means the family is too chaotic (very loose rules and weak patterns of associating, or there is little family leadership) or rigid (Very strict and structured patterns of associating, or there is too strict leadership). The family could also be too enmeshed. Enmeshed means the family members are overly entangled or over involved in the personal affairs of one another to the point that the changes experienced by one family member are experienced by other if not all family members. Enmeshment is an indication of weak interpersonal boundaries. Enmeshed people lean on others for their own identity-meaning their sense of self is based on being a sister, brother, parent, or friend rather than an individual.
When we lean too heavily on family and friends for our own identity we often let their actions or behaviors determine our own. They make decisions we follow because it feels like the right thing to do. We simply have a difficult time saying no because we depend too much on the decisions of others in lieu of our own decision making processes.
Remarried families find themselves making very difficult adjustments that transpire uniquely in the remarried or stepfamily circumstances. The merging of previous family systems into a new system does NOT occur with the ease TV viewers found among the characters playing in the Brady Bunch Series. So, what might be the goals of a remarried couple as they form stepfamilies? Most likely the same goals shared by any first married couple, meet the needs of the spouses, children, and pets, have a secure home which functions as a safe haven from the stresses and trials of the outside world, enjoy life together with people closest to you, acquire and own assets that will ensure financial stability over the long-term, and raising dependent children into their adult roles in a successful manner, to mention a few.
Strategies for Stepfamilies
What then, are strategies that are known to work in these stepfamilies? One core strategy is to recognize and deal with the events that brought all the stepfamily members together the way they did. Step-children and remarried parents likely have some grief that lingers from the divorce or death of another spouse or parent. Too many stepfamilies are emotionally battle-worn in a way that makes them want to disregard this grief and get the new families moving forward. Of course this is ill-advised. There are numerous studies, self-help books, and even Websites designed to help the remarried couple deal with the grief and transitions (see http://www.stepfamily.org/ or http://www.stepfamilies.info/ or http://www.stepfamily.net/ or http://www.thestepfamilylife.com/).
Eventually addressing grief, loss, and heartache is the best approach. Feeling grief for a loss does not undermine the current family system. In fact, if it's within the current stepfamily that the healing takes place, it can often strengthen the newly formed family as the sense of cohesion grows. I knew of a stepmother who married her second husband after the death of his first wife. She went from being the mother of her 4 small children to the mother of 10 (he had six ages 7 to 19). All her best efforts to bond to the children failed. They resented her, they criticized her to other friends and family, and they were angry at her even though she just entered their lives.
“One day, the light switch came on.” She explained to me. “They were mad at God or nature or something because their mother died slowly from cancer. It wasn't about me or what I did or said.” She went to relatives of these six children and gathered all the photos, stories, and memorabilia they had. One day, on the anniversary of their mother's passing she presented each of them with a photo album/memory book from their mother.
“It was a turning point in our relationships. I finally got out of the execution chair with them and became a friend. We could relate honestly together from that point on.
Her husband told me that it was more than just these six children who were still grieving.
“I had to move across town and buy another home and furniture because people complained so much about 'that woman who's sleeping in my late wife's bed and cooking in her kitchen.” To truly understand this family's experience you need to know it was a very small town during the 1970s. This husband never told his new wife or the children why he moved them. He was a mediator between the stepfamily and the small community they lived in.
Many stepmothers over expect what they can do for their new stepchildren and family.
They try and try not to be the “evil stepmother.” Listen, some of the best/worst villains in stories are stepmothers, Cinderella, Hansel and Gretelx, Snow White, and others.
Stepmothers are notorious for not treating the stepchildren with the same affection and loyalty as they do their own children. Some argue that stepmothers are doomed by virtue of the stereotypes and family disadvantages. The antidote for this is for new stepmothers to enter their role with a few strategies: first, be realistic in your hopes and dreams. It is not uncommon for stepchildren to grow to love their stepmothers, but typically not as much as they love their own biological mother. So, perhaps expecting to have a good friendship where love may emerge after years of working at the relationship is a better approach.
Second, go slow. Resist the temptation to want to hurry thing up and get them resolved so that they will be taken care of and out of the way. Healing, developing cohesion, and building flexibility and adaptation takes time if it is to become permanent.
Third, set short-term goals that are more easily attained. For example, you might set a goal to go on at least one family outing per month over the next two years as opposed to wanting to hold a family reunion were strong bonds are expected as though you'd all be close family members forever.
Fourth, learn and know your own limits as a wife and mother/stepmother. The Superman and Superwoman mythology makes for great movies and comic book stories, but they are not real. Your limitations can be used as a healthy boundary for what you are capable and willing to do as a mother and stepmother. For example, you may find that you can't help all the children with their homework (especially if there are many of them). Sometimes older children can be convinced to help the younger ones. Again, this has the potential to establish support patterns that reach across family and stepfamily systems.
Fifth, treat all the children with the same healthy standard of care. Children need to feel safe and protected. They want to feel loved and sometimes it is enough to let them know that you are sincerely interested in their well-being. Love may follow your care giving efforts in due time. All children want to have a confidant, someone to share their worries with, or a source of unconditional acceptance. Let children give input and search for consensus in matters of choice such as which restaurant to dine at or which vacation spot to visit. Finally, children need and though they may not know it, want boundaries. Show them you care by setting healthy limits, rules, and restrictions that both spouses agree upon and can uphold together.
It is important for stepparents to avoid getting caught up in the structure of their family.
In other words, it is not the fact that you are a combination of his, hers, theirs, or whatever. It's much more important to focus on how the family systems functions, ensuring that the criteria mentioned above are in place and working well. It also means that when adjustments are needed that the system allows for adaptation and accommodation. If the family is functional, adaptable, and increasingly cohesive then it has a solid base of resistance to acute and normative stressors.
One lesson learned by public educators that can be applied to stepfamilies is transparency. When assigning chores, make the process coming to those assignments clear to all. This means they'd better be fair to all. When it comes to discipline do the same and make sure the discipline is fair and predictable. When or if biased processes are discovered, correct them openly for all children to see.
William J. Doherty published a book on family rituals in 1999 (Quill Publishing, ISBN 0-380-73205-x). In it he framed family rituals as “intentional” efforts designed to build and connect the family members into a more cohesive group. He urged the smaller daily rituals that slowly but surely reinforce the strengthening cohesion. In the formative months and years of the stepfamily, rituals play an important role in building family cohesion. This is why it is important to travel together, eat out, celebrate birthdays and holidays, and spend time exploring activities and events that work well for most of the family. For some, family reunions become a hit and are continued for as long as they continue to be desirable. Over time, if certain family members miss a reunion or decide to no longer attend, then it's totally acceptable to hold them for those who desire to be a part of the tradition. No family should expect one-hundred percent participation at all family gatherings.
It is common to have unresolved issues from past marriages and family systems which inhibit current efforts to maintain stepfamily cohesion. In this case, if an adult son or daughter and their family disaffiliate, it is wise to continue gathering. It is a myth that a stepfamily (or any family) can only be as happy as the least happy member. The weakest link in the family chain should not set the tone for the entire family system's bond and friendship. Make such matters the focus of family discussion while together. Allow members to express their honest feelings. Make sure and share your own in return.
There is a really good chance that some will like most gatherings while a few may dislike them.
Bobby McFerrin sang a song that can also provide a theme for stepfamily formation
“Don't Worry, Be Happy” (1988). At times, stepparents feel compelled to work out the finest degree of family troubles in stepfamilies and may become overly occupied in this regard. Perhaps, they sense the vulnerability the stepfamily faces from the complexity involved. Most family members enjoy rewarding and positive interactions. Be careful to keep the “happy” in the process of building the family system.
Couples who unite in both verbal and written forms of expression often find themselves leading the family in a more united manner. Consider starting each New Year with a family plan. Include in it 5 goals for the family that can be met by December 31st. Also include one word that might be the buzzword for these goals. For example, in a family that enjoys meals and food, they might set goals to eat 5 dinners out of 7 together each week, eat out once per month, have a sharing time during the meal where a family member shares a best or worst for the day, have friends over for dinner at least once per month, and finally, eat out at a very unusual restaurant while on the family vacation. The buzzword might simply be, “dinner, chow time, or table.” It would be a word that is central to the goals of the family.
Sexual Boundaries
One other adjustment needs to be mentioned. Stepfamilies need strong boundaries. One of my students confided in me that she married a man who had 17 and 19 year-old boys.
She had 18 and 19 year-old girls. One day they returned from work to find the boys waiting outside the bathroom, hoping to get a glimpse of one of the girls as she walked from the bathroom across the hall into her bedroom. Upon investigation, they discovered that there were simultaneous crushes between the stepbrothers and stepsisters. For a few weeks, efforts to establish boundaries and diffuse infatuation failed to help things. They made a decision to give anyone over 18 two weeks to find another place and move out.
Harsh though this may appear, it worked. The oldest three moved into college housing and the 17 year-old stayed at home until he turned 18 and then moved out like the others.
A few years after that, another student told me that his brother ended up marrying his stepsister. The brother had been in the military and when his father remarried he did not even know the stepsister. After he got out and came home for a visit, the relationship formed and eventually ended in marriage. This is extreme, yet very common to find stepfamilies with ambiguous boundaries, unclear roles, and awkward interactions that may cause complications if unaddressed.
When the stepsiblings are young, sexual exploration or interactions may occur. It is both negligent and criminal to ignore these or fail to intervene. When a child has been sexually molested, he or she may be reactive. Sexual reactivity is a propensity among children to act in sexual ways as a result of having been sexually abused. They learn sexual ways from the abuse yet may or may not know that these sexual ways are inappropriate. Many sexually abused children will act out with children younger than themselves. Some may act out regardless of age difference or even role differences, meaning they may act out with adults or other children. Stepfamilies must intervene and do whatever is required to mediate sexual reactivity.
Local clinics and mental health providers may prove to be a valuable resource. If a crime is unreported, it may well need to be. This is the problem inherent to family sexual abuses-secrets. Stepfamilies must have clear sexual boundaries, especially since the biological factor or blood relative factor is not present, meaning the common resistance to sexual activity among blood-related family members is not there among nonblood-related stepsiblings. Focus on privacy, modesty, dignity and respect for self and others. Have very candid private and family discussions that bring secrets into the open and take the mystery out of sex.
Stepfamilies can be, and typically are, happy families. But, rarely does that happiness arrive without concerted efforts to make it a happy family. Strength comes in the persistent struggle against the forces of complexity, ambiguity, and missing family history. Even though couples give an amazing effort to create a functional stepfamily system, many stepchildren leave home with unresolved issues with either the parent or stepparent. If this happens to you, then so what? In the long-term it is the husband and wife who will spend their entire lives together, not the parents and children. If children are younger than 18 and living with a parent and step-parent, then do your best to meet their needs. Invite them to take joint responsibility for their happiness and the family's cohesion. Facilitate entertainment, positive memories, and rituals. If at the end of the day, your 18 year-old child or stepchild leaves home with issues of having been raised in a stepfamily, then accept your best effort, be happy as a couple, and move forward with your lives together.
Getting back into the Dating Market
Some couples do divorce then remarry each other, but this is rare. Remarriage after divorce is much more likely to occur if the divorcees are in their 20s. The odds of remarriage decline in the 30s, 40s, 50s, etc. Remarriage typically occurs sooner for the man than the woman. When a newly divorced woman or man finds themselves on the market, they often feel inept. Many express concern in lacking the courting skills required to meet someone new or initiate new relationships. For the most part, they are right. They, like most married people mentally leave the marriage-courting market and avail themselves to the business of being married and parents. Their sudden reentry into the dating scene is typically unexpected and intimidating. Men tend to move more quickly into the dating arena, seeking for social and emotional connection from their new-found friends. Women are typically more socially and emotionally connected while married. So, after the divorce they tend to have more friends and more ongoing family relationships.
Years ago, I studied elderly divorced men and women and contrasted their current state in terms of financial and social-emotional well being. By far, men were better off financially and women were better off in social and emotional areas of their lives (see Hammond and Muller, 1992, “The Later-life divorce, another look.” J. of Divorce and Remarriage, 17. _ 135-50; and Hammond et al, 2008 “Resource variations and marital status among later-life elderly,” J. of Applied and Clinical Sociology, Vol 2, No 1, Spring 47-60). This tends to be true in most cases for young and old alike. Men rarely get custody of the children after divorce. If his ex-wife is awarded an average child support and alimony, he still experiences an increase in his standard of living after divorce and he has the freedom from child rearing (not very healthy for the children).
For example, let's say he earned \$48,000 per year and had three children. That would mean that \$48,000 divided by 5 family members equals a pre-divorce standard of living of \$9,600 per family member. Let's say she was awarded a hefty \$12,000 per year in child support and alimony. Because she now has the children their standard of living drops to \$3,000 per year per family member. His post-divorce standard of living skyrockets to \$36,000 for himself. If he does the honorable thing and pays his financial obligations, then his ex-wife qualifies for welfare and he can live with relative financial freedom. That pattern, even though the details vary, is extremely common among today's divorcees-she has the children and poverty and he has the freedom and finances.
This in part explains why he is more likely to start dating sooner than her, and eventually why he remarries sooner than her. When formerly married individuals enter the dating and marriage market they experience similar fears and anxieties that never married daters feel. But, there is a significant difference in what they bring to the marriage market place. Each has a history of a long-term sexual, social, emotional, and co-existing relationship. Add to that the issues that contributed to the marital breakup, and you are looking at a complex dating experience with divorcees experiencing the date while carrying a vast store of positive and negative memories and experiences into the date.
One might expect that remarriage courtships would take longer than never married courtships from first date to marriage. The opposite has been found to be true. Most remarries court for less time before they remarried. It is believed that they are more aware of themselves, of how intimate relationships work, and of what they need at the moment than never marrieds. It's even more complicated than that.
When someone is on the marriage market they do look for homogamous mates (persons of similar tastes and backgrounds). They also look for those they are compatible with and for those who survive the filtering process (elimination of undesirables from the marriage pool). But, remarriers filter with a specific and unique filter in comparison to never marrieds. They look for someone who is not the same person they just divorced.
They especially try to find someone who they perceive will do for them what their ex could not or would not do. Like all persons on the marriage market, remarriers look to maximize their rewards while minimizing their losses or costs (Social Exchange Theory).
Figure 5 shows a diagram of some of these rewards and costs which remarriers would typically consider while on the market. Notice on the top of the diagram that men tend to have more rewards when they come to the marriage market than do women. Add to that the absence of children and you can see, in part, why men remarry sooner than women.
The “rewards” lists some of the desirable traits sought out by men and women alike.
Some of these are emphasized more by potential mates than others. Financial security is a major draw for potential mates. Adequacy, comfort, and luxury are examples of desirable levels of financial security. For decades Sociologists have taught the principle of relative deprivation. Relative deprivation is the perception of advantage or disadvantage that comes from our own personal experiences in comparison to others.
This means, we compare our current circumstances to the circumstances of others based on our past experiences. When divorced with three children, a single mother may find a potential mate attractive if he can simply relieve some of her financial burden. If divorced with three children and middle class, a single mother may find a potential mate attractive if he can maintain the middle class status. Finally a wealthy divorcee may seek someone to provide luxury.
In understanding expectations on finances or any other desirable trait in a remarriage partner, it is crucial to consider the issue of “perceived advantage or disadvantage.” Not only do remarrieds (us to by the way) consider their current rewards in contrast to past experiences, but they do so subjectively. In other words, emotions play into the formula, which modify the maximize rewards and minimize costs decision-making process. Also, some may ignore money altogether if they feel a stronger need for companionship or trustworthiness. Married couples have sex about three times per week. After divorce it drops dramatically for both ex-spouses. Sex and the intimacy that often comes with it motivate both men and women to seek out another mate. Loneliness is a big issue for divorcees. Men quickly find dating partners and are capable of attaining intimacy through dating. Women have the company of children and other family and friends that were in place before the divorce. But, those relationships may not fulfill the social and emotional needs that can be found in a spouse or intimate partner.
Simple as it may sound, if a desirable partner is available, then he or she is more appealing. Someone not in a deep relationship or engaged is immediately available for interaction and potential relationship building. Many seek another partner to distract them from their divorce pain and grief. There is nothing innately wrong about this.
Healthy dating and associations can be part of the healing process. But, marrying too soon, during the still-in-recovery state of mind can be detrimental, because once the injured partner heals, they may discover that they were not a good match after all.
Divorce risks are higher in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriages than they are in first marriages.
You've probably heard about “rebound relationships or marriages.” Marrying on the rebound is considered to be premature and unwise.
Friendship and love are essential needs all people have. Adjusting to the absences of friendship and love, even if your children are with you, is a difficult task for many.
Adults often needs adult friendship and love. For single mothers with custody (and the few single fathers who have custody), seeking out a co-parent who can live in the home with the family is a major reward. The single parent wants the children to have two parents influencing them and will often seek a mother or a father for the kids. For younger and older singles, children are an issue. Some younger divorcees don't want to marry a single parent while others do. Typically, the presence of children in the divorced woman's care will lower the odds of her remarriage.
I know of a 50 year old widow who dated my 48 year-old divorced buddy. They had so much in common professionally and personally, but she was done raising children and his youngest was in elementary school. They are still friends, but chose to not pursue the relationship further, even though he was interested in doing so. Children over the age of 18 are not as strong a deterrent as are the younger ones. The stepfather or stepmother only commits to be a consultant to an adult stepchild rather than a day-to-day caregiver.
If a single mother receives alimony or child support, the financial burden that might come with the remarriage are perceived as being lighter. Often a man must balance the financial costs as well as the social and emotional costs associated with marrying a single mother.
Physical attractiveness is important to many who remarry. It may weigh into the formula for some more than others. Divorced men, like never married men, consider physical attractiveness when choosing another mate. It is weighed, though in comparison to the other attributes which are important, given their past marital problems and issues.
When we marry it helps to have complimentary needs. In other words, if she needs to be cared for and he needs to take care of someone, their needs complement one another. I personally know single men who need to raise children and their motives are healthy.
They like being the “big brother-type” and truly enjoy most children. Obviously, a single mother looking for a co-parent would have complimentary needs with this person. Not all needs are complimentary and no one can fulfill all of their spouse's needs all the time.
This is true in all relationships. In remarriages, the spouses use the concept of equity in assessing their rewards. Equity is the overall sense of getting a good deal (or a bad one) when considering all the perceived rewards and costs of a relationship.
To an outsider, a couple may appear to be experiencing an imbalance in give and take.
Fortunately, a relationship only has to feel fair to the individual spouses. A remarried woman, who wanted her ex to spend more time with the children, may find it more valuable when her current husband does so and may weigh that as being more important than other contributions. Equity is subjective and changes as new needs arise or new circumstances emerge that families have to accommodate. Being educated, especially college educated means more income and more desirable traits in a potential mate.
College graduates have developed a sense of delayed gratification, have less traditional (and more diverse) family role expectations, and have many other resources to bring to the relationship in comparison to high school graduates. Owning a home as opposed to renting an apartment is an important reward.
A home provides privacy, income benefits, and a clear boundary which can all serve to aid the development of the remarriage and new family system. Finding a healthy mate is also subjectively defined. In the later years, elderly women almost always have to consider the current and near future health of a potential mate. A few of my friends who remarried after retirement experienced caregiving burdens. One experienced a decade before he became needy and dependent. Another cared for her disabled husband for 16 years before he died. An elderly man, friend to my father, cared for his disabled wife for 12 years before she died. Younger people consider health as well, but not with the same intensity as older daters who have to take into account future caregiving issues. The “right age” for a person to find a new mate is the one that works best for him or her, given their current needs. Sometimes twenty-something mothers will marry thirty-something fathers for stability and continuity. Other times a younger spouse may be more appealing for a variety of reasons. Some seek out the wealthy, famous, popular, or well-known as a new mate and these desires drive their filters. Finally, some simply have a void where the lost marriage or intimate relationship once resided. They may seek to find someone quickly if they perceive that the presence of a spouse or partner will fill that void.
When considering costs, keep in mind that women typically leave a marriage with more costs or losses which on the singles scene inhibit her finding a new mate with the same ease as do divorced men. She often has custody. Younger children cost money, need supervision and nurturing, and tire their mother such that she has less energy to be a companion and friend. There is no difference in divorced men and women in terms of health issues. But, divorce is considered to be an extreme stressor (Search Holmes and Rahe, Stress Scale). Divorced persons most likely suffer health declines from the stresses that came with the divorce. But some may have long-term or chronic health issues that, when considered in the overall formula, are costs and not rewards.
Single mothers often report high levels of stress, fatigue, and having people around, but still feeling lonely. Over time this may lead to health issues. If a single mother (or father) must pay court-ordered payments each month, then this is a financial cost or loss.
Men are much more likely to be ordered to pay child support or alimony. To a potential wife this goes in the loss category. Many divorcees carry unresolved issues for years at the emotional, psychological, spiritual, and even intellectual levels. When the divorce has not settled in at all of these levels, they often have unresolved issues and may have some emotional scars (Search Paul Bohannon's levels of divorce). I once advised my student to quit talking about the jerk her ex-husband proved to be. She couldn't understand why new men didn't want to spend time with her when she mostly talked about being a victim and her ex.
Ex-boyfriends, husbands, and partners can be very dangerous to their ex and her new husband. Recently, an ex-boyfriend tried to gun down his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend. The new boyfriend was a police officer and defended himself to the death of the ex-boyfriend. Some couples are not so lucky to escape harm. In less severe cases, annoying phone calls, arguments, mean or threatening letters, property damage and even threats of harm are launched from ex-spouses to new wives or husbands. In most cases, these are not criminal in nature and have to be tolerated or mediated through official channels. In these cases, children are sometimes used as battering rams against the ex.
They are mistreated, misinformed, or neglected in an attempt to seek vengeance.
Entering a new relationship were entanglements from the ex are not present is more rewarding. Poor and uneducated men and women offer less financial and intellectual input to a new marriage. This may not matter to some, but single mothers often place this as a high priority. If a potential mate has many children, cares for a dependent family member or friend, or has a severely ill child she or he may appear to be very unappealing.
Caregiving is common, but is rarely desired by potential mates. Most caregiving is given by women (although I cared for my cancer-ridden father before he died). Few would willingly take on a caregiving role out of altruistic intentions. Some may take it on if other rewards appeared to compensate creating an overall sense of equity. A desperate or overly needy person enters the relationship with a disadvantage in terms of leverage for negotiating with another spouse. Being needy or desperate my increase the odds of ending up with an insensitive or abusive partner or spouse.
Another issue common to finding a mate is the one of propinquity (sharing geographic closeness and meeting in the same geographic area). The Internet has change the issue of propinquity by allowing people to interact electronically through social and dating sites that help in the filtering process. These sites can eliminate unwanted dates and yield a more desirable pool of potential mates (at least that's what they promise). I know 5 couples that met for the first time on a dating Website. Each took considerable time in-person to compare values and assess the rewards and costs of each relationship. I know of 3 others that ended after the in-person interaction took place.
One 2009 ranking reported that Match.com and eHarmony had 20 million subscribers; Yahoo Personals had 9 million, and chemistry.com and Perfectmatch.com each had 4 million (Retrieved 13 May, 2010 from http://www.consumer-rankings.com/Dating/? c=4&e=r&ch=1&ad=3773827780&sc=search&kw=online %20dating&ag=1339548640&cr=14362201 gclid=COGJlt_dz6ECFQxZbAodxkyMKQ).
Sautter et al (2010) reported that internet dating is more common among computer-savvy and already socially networked daters (The Social Demography of Internet Dating in the United States.Citation Only Available By: Sautter, Jessica M.; Tippett, Rebecca M.; Morgan, S. Philip. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited), Jun2010, Vol. 91 Issue 2, p554-575, 22p; DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00707.x). Chih-Chien et al (2010) also reported three categories of online daters based on their motivations.
First were the adventurers who thrive in the anonymity provided by the Internet which shields them from elimination through traditional social norms. Adventurers seek communication, curiosity, and even emotional support as they seek to meet new people.
Escapers to a virtual world were the second category. Escapers find the real world too harsh and relax in the relatively anxiety-free cyber world. Third and finally were the Romantics who sincerely seek for love, friendship, and sex. Sex is not the major motivation, but is a common motivation for some Internet daters (CYBER RELATIONSHIP MOTIVES: SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION. By: CHIH-CHIEN WANG; YA-TING CHANG. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 2010, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p289-300, 12p). | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.13%3A_Remarriage_and_Step-Families.txt |
Chapter 14: Aging and Families
The United States of America is inhabited by many diverse people, including distinguishable generations of society's members based on age. Gerontology is the scientific study of the processes and phenomena of aging and growing old. Depending on the definition of being elderly, the government typically sets 65 to be the elderly years, the American Association of Retired Persons finds 55 to be the eligible age of membership, and many elderly define their 70's or 80's as the time they begin to feel elderly. Gerontology is multi-disciplinary with medical and biological scientists, social scientists, and even financial and economic scientists all studying the processes of aging from their disciplines point of view.
Social gerontology is the sociological subfield of gerontology which focuses on the nonphysical and social aspects of aging. Sociology focuses on the broad understanding of the elderly experience, their health, their emotional and social wellness, and their quality of life just to mention a few. How many elderly live in the US in 2008? Family Gerontology is the subfield that focuses on the family experiences of elderly persons.
Table 1: Numbers and Percent of United States Population Aged 65 and Over 2008
≤ 14 years of Age 15-64 Years old US Elderly Uniter States Total
61,146,753 (20.1%) 203,987,724 (67.1%) 38,690,169 (12.7%) 303,824,646 (100%)
The future growth of the US elderly population is immense in comparison to previous Census tabulations and growth rates. In Figure 1 below you see tremendous growth in the United States where the elderly now comprise only 1 in 8 members of US society, but will eventually in 2050 comprise 1 in 5. In Figure 2 below you can see that the oldest old--85 years and older is also growing rapidly. This means that in general more people are living longer. In fact there are more Centenarians than ever before. A centenarian is a living person who has had his or her 100 birthday. US Census counts indicated about 37,000 centenarians in 1990 and about 50,000 in 2000 (See Kestenbaum and Reneé, 2006 Retrieved from the Internet 19 July, 2008 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n17183322).
In many societies the elderly are revered (especially Asian societies). Filial piety is the value, respect, and reverence of one's elderly which is often accompanied by caregiving and support of the elderly. Grandparents and even great-grandparents are valued and included in the home of the mother, father, and their children. These families are enriched by 3 and sometimes 4 generations of family members supporting the socialization of the younger members of the family. In Western countries, the elderly and their extended family are considered co-equals and mutually independent until circumstances necessitate assistance from children and other family members.
Understanding the Generations of Life
Life course is an ideal sequence of events and positions the average person is expected to experience as he/she matures and moves through life. Dependence and independence levels change over the life course. In Figure 3 below, you can see that from birth to teen years, that children's' levels of dependence are relatively high and our levels of independence are relatively low. Newborns have little ability to nurture others, but as they are socialized and grow into their later-teen roles things change. By young adulthood, independence is a prime value which leads many to move out on their own and gain their own experiences (like most of you did).
Young adult's ability to nurture is moderate, but often dormant since most pursue avenues of preparation for their adult lives rather than immediately beginning their own families.
Married and cohabiting couples are much more independent and capable of nurturing and remain so throughout the grand-parenting years. As the life course progresses into later life, the oldest elderly begin to lose their independence as their health declines to the point that their resources lag behind the daily demands placed upon them. This is because all of us experience senescence. Senescence is the social, emotional, biological, intellectual, and spiritual processes associated with aging (http://www.senescence.info/).
For many in our modern societies, aging is feared, vilified, and surgically and cosmetically repaired. We do not like being “off our game” and senescence is viewed as a weakness. Yet, many elderly find their lives very satisfying. And they tend to report higher levels of self-esteem than do younger members of society. Because we tend to value youth, youthful appearance, and youthful-centered entertainment, biases appear in the US. There are in the United States many who hold deeply held biases and prejudices against the elderly. Ageism is the prejudice and discrimination against a person based on his/her chronological age.
Ageism is a unique form of bias. One may be prejudiced against another racial group, cultural or ethnic group, or religious group while never being at risk of becoming a member of that group. Ironically, ageist people are aging right now and will be until the day they die-they are essentially biased against their own future status.
For those who seek understanding of the elderly, there are three social theories that might help to understand the elderly and their later-life experiences. These are listed in order of their professional value by Gerontologists who study aging-related psychosocial issues.
Continuity theory claims that older adults maintain patterns in their later years which they had in their younger years. The elderly adapt to the many changes which accompany aging using a variety of effective personal strategies they developed earlier in their life.
For example, those who participated in outdoor activities in their younger years tend to continue to do so as older adults-although they tend to accommodate their health and fitness limitations as they deem appropriate.
Activity theory claims that the elderly benefit from high levels of activities, especially meaningful activities that help to replace lost life roles after retirement. The key to success in later-life is staying active and by doing so resist the social pressures that limit an older person's world. (Google Robert Havighurst and Aging).
Disengagement theory claims that as elderly people realize the inevitability of death and begin to systematically disengage from their previous youthful roles, society simultaneously prepares the pre-elderly and elderly to disengage from their roles. This was the first formal aging theory that fell short of credibility because the scientific data did not support its assumptions. There is quite a bit of support for Continuity and
Activity Theories (see The Encyclopedia of Aging online at http://www.medrounds.org/encyclopedi.../12/index.html).
To really understand the elderly today, you have to understand the larger social changes that have transpired over the last century. Around 1900, US elderly held a more cherished place in the hearts of younger family members. Most homes were intergenerational with grandparents, parents, and children all living in the same home and more often with kin on the wife's side being the social connection around which 3 generations would live (see Dorian Apple Sweetser, 1984 “Love and Work: Intergenerational Household Composition in the U. S. in 1900” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 46, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp. 289-293 retrieved on 18 June 2008 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/352460?seq=1).
In 2000, the US Census Bureau reported that there were 105.5 million households in the country (report C2KBR/01-8retrieved on 18 June 2008 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf). Table 2 reports that 3.7 percent or nearly 4 million households are multigenerational. This probably feels normal-not having older relatives live in your home. The point is that in years past elderly family members were considered a valuable asset with their wisdom and support of their children and grandchildren.
Theorizing Later Life
Modernization Theory claims that industrialization and modernization have lowered the power and influence which the elderly once had which has lead to much exclusion of elderly from community roles. Even though this theory is not as well established and is somewhat controversial, it has made a place in science for understanding how large-scale social forces have impacted the individual and collective lives of the elderly. In our modern societies, the economy has grown to a state that has created new levels of prosperity for most, the new technologies have outpaced the ability of the elderly to understand and use them, and the elderly are living much longer and are not essential to the economic survival of the family as was the case for millennia. Modernization can help us to understand why the elderly have become stigmatized and devalued over the last century.
Who make up the generations of our day? Look at Figure 4 below to see birth rates and generation labels for the United States. First notice the red and blue lines. The red represents the Crude Birth Rate, the numbers of births per 1,000 population in a given year. The Blue line represents the General Fertility Rate, the numbers of live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Both CBR and GBRs show a pattern of birth rates that were relatively high when the World-At-War Generation was born. Birth rates declined with the Great Depression until 1946 (the commencement of the Baby Boom). The Baby Boom represented a surge in birth rates that endured from 1946-1964 and declined to pre- Boom rates in 1965. Generation X or “Gen X” represents the children of the Baby Boomers which spilled into Generation Y or the “Millennials” which by most accounts are still being born.
The World-At-War Generation is slowly disappearing from the US population landscape.
On the 8th of June, 2008, the last living Veteran of World War I was honored by the White House and Congress. Frank W. Buckles fought in WWI and was held prisoner in Manila during World War II (see CNN, retrieved on 19 June, 2008 from http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/07/war.veteran/). Also the US Veterans Bureau reported that there were 2,911,900 WWII veterans as of 30 September 2007 with about 900 WWII veterans passing away each day. They also reported that 39.1 percent of all US veterans were aged 65 and older (See data sheet retrieved 19 June 2008 from http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/docs/4X6_...sharepoint.pdf).
The majority of the elderly today are women. If you consider the elderly as being divided into three life stages you can discern just how the elderly are comprised comparing males to females. The Young-old are 65-74 years, the Middle-old are 75-84 years, and the Old-old are 85+ years. In 2005 there were more females in all three ages, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+. This is because women, in most countries of the world, have a higher life expectancy than men. Life expectancy is the average numbers of years a person born today may expect to live.
The US Life expectancy today is about 80 for females and 75 for males (worldwide its 70 for females and 66 for males, see www.prb.org, 2007 Population Data Sheet , retrieved 19 June 2008). Life expectancies have increased dramatically over the last 50 years in the Western nations of Canada, United States, Australia, Japan, and Western Europe.
Overall men and women can expect to live longer than they did in the 1940s-1990s.
Data retrieved 19 June 2008 from Table 1. Resident population, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: United States, selected years 1950-2005 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf#001
The sex ratio in the quote above which was 44 for persons 58 to 89 would be interpreted as 44 males per 100 females. From www.census.gov I found this quote about US elderly males and females:
“Perhaps no feature of the oldest old is as striking as their sex ratio (the number of males per 100 females), which was 39 in 1994 (982,000 males and 2.5 million females). The sex ratio in the United States was 44 for persons 85 to 89 years old, and only 26 for persons 95 to 99 years old. In comparison, the sex ratio was 82 for persons 65 to 69 years old. (retrieved 19 June 2008 from http://www.census.gov/population/www.../elderpop.html). ”
The Baby Boomers represent 78.2 million US citizens as of 1 July 2005 (see http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...ns/006105.html). This large cohort of society's member is moving on mass into the ranks of the elderly. A cohort is a group of people who share a statistical or demographic trait such as those born between 1946-1964. Nearly 8,000 Baby Boomers turned 60 each day in 2006. The US Census estimates that 57.8 million baby Boomers will be around in 2030 after they've all retired. One issue for gerontologist is the financial strain the Baby Boomers will place on the rest of society once they are retired. Most speculate that baby Boomers will not receive the same from the Social Security Administration benefits their parents and grandparents enjoyed.
The children of the Baby Boomers were called the Generation X children or the “Baby Bust” because they were born in post-Boom low fertility rate years. They were different from their parents. They grew up with the computer age and came to computer technology much like an immigrant comes to a new country. This cohort grew up in an economic state of greater posterity than did previous generations. Generation Y or Millennials are also called the “Internet Generation or Screenagers” because they grew up with TV, video games, cell phones, PDAs, and movie screens. Each generation is culturally distinct compared to the previous ones even though much still remains in common. There is a good chance that children of Generation Y parents will be better skilled than their parents with a technology that has not yet been invented. Such has been the case comparing the last three generations.
In Tables 2 &3 below you see the increasing life expectancies in the US. The elderly of the future will be expected to live longer than any elderly in the history of the United States and world. Being born in the US affords the average member of society a longer life. In Table 3 below you can see that North American children are born with the higher life expectancies than other children around the world. By far, being born in Japan and Hong Kong would provide the absolute highest life expectancy at birth at 82 years for the total.
Table 2: United States Life Expectancies
Year Total Male Female
1970 70.8 67.1 74.7
1980 73.7 70.0 77.4
1990 75.4 71.8 78.8
2000 77.0 74.3 79.7
2010 78.5 75.6 81.4
2015 79.2 76.2 82.2
Table 3: 2007 World and Regional Life Expectancies
Region Total Male Female
World 68 66 70
Africa 53 52 54
N. America 78 70 81
L. America 73 70 76
Asia 68 67 70
Europe 75 71 79
Oceania 75 73 78
In fact all regions of the world are growing older. The developing countries are aging the fastest. Consider this screen capture and color map taken from the Population Reference Bureau World Population data Sheet 2007, Page 6.
(Retrieved 19 June 2008 from WWW.PRB.org Population Data Sheet 2007: Sources: C. Haub, 2007 World Population Data Sheet, and United Nations Population Division).
Over the past half-century, both the worldwide drop in fertility and concurrent rise in life expectancy have led to the gradual aging of the world's population. Look at Table 4 below. Since 1950, the share of persons ages 65 and older has risen from 5 percent to 7 percent worldwide. As the map shows, Europe and Japan have led the way, with North America, Australia, and New Zealand close behind. However, older persons are now more than 5 percent of the inhabitants in many developing countries and by 2050 are expected to be 19 percent of Latin America's population and 18 percent of Asia's.
Table 4: Worldwide Percent of Persons Ages 65 and Older
Year 2007 2025 2050
World 7 10 16
Industrialized Countries 16 21 26
Developing Countries 6 9 15
Europe 16 21 28
North America 12 18 21
Oceania 10 15 19
Latin Am. and Caribbean 6 10 19
Asia 6 10 18
Africa 3 4 7
Challenges of Being Elderly and Single
As mentioned elderly women outlive elderly men. Widowhood occurs when one's spouse dies. Widows are surviving wives and widowers are surviving husbands. As a young college student you probably don't worry about ever being a widow or widower.
How we define death, both our own and the death of others is very much influenced by the cultural definition of death we incorporated into our own values while growing up.
Most of us a related to someone who died in the last 24 months. It's very common for college students about your age to have lost a great aunt/uncle, great grandparent, and even a grand parent. It's not so common for you to have lost you own parent or sibling.
Grief is the feeling of loss we experience after a death, disappointment, or tragedy. When you experience grief you are said to be in bereavement. Bereavement is the circumstances and conditions that accompany grief.
Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross published her work as the stages of grief. These include, denial= “All is fine or it didn't happen,” anger=“why me?,” or, “I hate God for this,” bargaining="I'll be a better person if you (God) will just let him live,” depression=“all is lost or why try?,” and acceptance=”we'll be okay,” or, “we can get through this together” (see “On Death and Dying," 1973; Routledge Press). I've noticed that we all grieve when things disappoint us, when someone dies, or even when we break up with someone. I've seen my seniors grieve to a certain degree when they did not get into graduate school their first try. We all grieve and we all grieve in our own way. Studies show that most people experience denial, anger, bargaining, depression, or acceptance, but there exists some disagreement on the part about cycling through Kübler-Ross' stages in any order.
The study of aging would not be complete without focusing on family relationships and roles. Of the over 40,000,000 (millions) of elderly in the US, about 6 million still work for pay. About 7 million were taking adult education courses. About 21 million were married and about 13 million were widowed. Only 1, 400,000 lived in nursing homes.
About 32 million owned their homes. In the 65 plus age group there are only 73 men per 100 women (Data retrieved from US Census on 9 February, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...ns/013384.html). These trends lead to some important family related issues that need to be discussed here.
Just how the future of elderly family relationships will be in coming decades is very difficult to predict. Many elderly live single (regardless of any wishes to the contrary).
The US Census Bureau reported that among 65+ ages there were 3,500,000 elderly single men with no spouse or partner and 10,400,000 elderly women with no spouse or partner (retrieved 10 Feb. 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/www...lder_2008.html Table 14. Households by Type and Age of Householder 55 Years and Over: 2008). The sex imbalance among elderly single men and women is obvious. Although many single marrieds might enjoy an intimate relationship with a partner or spouse, the rewards and costs are different between men and women in these age ranges. It is true that their combined retirement incomes and living expenses might be increased together and therefore appealing to both.
Many widows have already been through something like this with their deceased husbands. Many divorcees and never marrieds have found their life patterns to be very established and difficult if not impossible to change. Thus, many elderly remain single and have friendships and intimacies without the long-term commitments that come with cohabiting or marrying again.
What do the trends for elderly unmarried in later life suggest to us? Quite simply more divorced and separated elderly are predicted. Figure 7 below shows the actual trends in increasing divorced elderly from 1963-2003. There are higher proportions of divorced and separated elderly now than in the past. This trend is not the same for widowhood. In other words there is only a slight increase in widowhood compared to a dramatic increase in being divorced or separated.
Another trend which is documented in Figure 8 below is the increasing numbers of those in the pre-elderly stages of life (ages 30-64). There are increased rates of divorcing and remaining divorced. The Baby Boomers were born between 1946-1964. They turn 65 between 2011-2029. This cohort in the US has the highest documented divorce rates of any age-related cohort ever studied in the United States (See Kreider, R.M., “Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces.” Figures 1a & 1b: Percent of Men and Women Ever Divorced, Among Those Ever Married by Selected Ages, for Selected Birth Cohorts:2001. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports: P70-97 Washington D.C.).
The numbers of elderly will nearly double by the time all the Baby Boomers reach 65 years in 2030. This leads to the conclusion that when the Baby Boomers reach age 65 ( beginning in the year 2011), the prevalence of divorced elderly will rise to an even higher level because of the sheer volume of divorced Baby Boomers who will also, for whatever reason, remain divorced into their later years.
Not all retirement years are created equally. Figure 9 shows the income comparisons of married versus divorced elderly males and females from 1994-2004. Notice that the highest median income levels were for married males. Divorced males had the next highest levels and divorced females (represented by the orange line) came in third.
Married females came in last, in part because this generation of elderly had a relatively high rate of traditional homemakers who have fewer Social Security retirement benefits than their husbands.
Figure 10 shows some of the quality of life differences found in the National Longitudinal Surveys-Mature Women data set (Yes, this is an example of secondary analysis research). Elderly divorced and widowed women were more likely to still be in the labor force than married ones. Married women had the lowest levels of reported unhappiness and rarely enjoying life. Feeling sad was similar among all categories.
Roles of Grandparents
The role of grandparent is a socially acceptable one in the US. It is admired by others, bragged about by grandparents, and more often than not appreciated by grandchildren.
Grandparents are given social approval by peers and society in general for being in that role. Grandparents also can be as actively or inactively involved as they desire. There are varying types of grandparental involvement and I've developed a few types just for comparison purposes here. Most US grandparents live in another household from their grandchildren. But, economic uncertainties and demographic changes with lower birth rates may contribute to the US returning to 3 or 4 generational households (see Pew Research Center: Social and demographic Trends Monday Feb. 11, 2008 “US Pop.
The “Disneyland Grandparents” entertain and distract their grandchildren from the mundane aspects of their daily lives at home. These grandparents provide a certain entertainment option that is missing for their not-yet established parents. Grandchildren come to have high expectations of indulgence when spending time with these grandparents.
The “Assistant Parent” grandparent is the one who takes the grandchildren to school functions, practices, and doctors appointments or waits for their grandchildren to come to their house after school and before the parents return home from work. Because the parents are typically both employed, these grandparents sometimes become an integral part of their grandchild's daily life and have an ongoing supportive role in the grandchild's busy schedule. Many young dual-employed couples could not afford the cost of formal daycare and many grandparents feel rewarded by the meaningful contribution they make in this role.
The “Parental Substitute” grandparent is the one who lives in the home with the grandchild (or the grandchild lives in their grandparent's home). This is an older family member who is, drawing retirement, depends heavily on Medicare for their medical expenses, and is typically in declining health. These grandparents have a great deal of stress that often reminds them of the original parental stresses they faced when they were raising their own children. The Parental Substitute grandparents often express fatigue and feeling overburdened.
Raising grandchildren is not what most grandparents anticipated to happen in their later lives. Grandparents in the US often have direct daily interaction with their grandchildren.
The US Census Bureau estimates over 6 million grandparents do have their grandchildren living in their home (retrieved 9 Feb., 2010 from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...ns/012095.html). This type of grandparent is common when unwed teen mothers keep their babies, when an adult child is divorced or widowed, or when a child or son/daughter-in-law becomes disabled.
Finally there is the “Distant Relative” grandparent. These grandparents visit at times and live at a geographic or emotional distance from their grandchildren. They typically can't or will not have a close relationship with the grandchildren. Telephones and the Internet allow these Grandparents to consult with the parents and be intermittently involved in the lives of their children and grandchildren. But, many grandchildren experiencing this type of grand parenting often report a disconnect to these grandparents.
Grandparents can have a positive and nurturing impact on their grandchildren or they can have a shameful and negative one. Some grandparents work diligently to reinforce the value of each individual grandchild, often trying not to repeat the same mistakes they made when raising their own children. These grandparents find ways to show and express their love, support, and valuation of the grandchild.
Other grandparents repeat the shameful patterns of parenting that they mistakenly used in their own parenting efforts. They label the grandchild and shame them as a form of control and discipline. When asked this question, “If you had to use a negative or positive symbol to portray how your Grandma or Grandpa view you, which would it be and why?”, grandchildren will indicate to some degree the nature of their relationship to their grandparents and how they perceive a low esteem that these grandparents have for them.
Elder Abuse is a significant problem in modern US families. Just to give you a short mention of it in this chapter for you to contemplate some of the facts, while Chapter 16 will cover family violence and tragedies in more detail. Elder Abuse is the mistreatment of, violence against, and otherwise harmful manipulation of elderly persons. Marlene Lee (2009) reported that elderly abuse is too common (Retrieved 10 Feb, 2010 from http://www.prb.org/Articles/2009/familyandhealth.aspx). She reported that fewer than 10 percent of US elderly are abused in any way and that verbal abuse was the most common form. She also reported that non-family persons accounted for more than half of all elderly abuse. When a family member was verbally abused it was more likely to be a spouse. Financial and physical abuse was more likely to be toward a child. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.14%3A_Aging_and_Families.txt |
Chapter 15: Politics, Government, and Issues
Child Labor
The United States has passed many laws at the city, state, and national level which have impacted the US family. From its earliest inception, settlers came with strong traditions and beliefs about what the family and its member “should” be like. Various laws were enacted, numerous traditions were set into place, and even though the system has common themes, there has never been complete consensus on what these laws and traditions “should” be for all of the population. Arguably, there can never be total consensus. But, over time the majority have won the policy and legal battles-a pattern which persist today. This chapter will discuss childhood, education, marital, and other issues where the family interacts with the state and other institutions in society.
Children were not always protected and nurtured in the US. At times they were kicked out by their parents being orphaned in a society that was hesitant to take in orphans. At other times they were beaten without any repercussion to the family or friends who mistreated them physically, sexually, and emotionally. In a truly unexpected historical process, it was the tender-hearted animal protection advocates who ended up facilitating the protection of children. An 1874 Case where Mary Ellen Wilson was being beaten by her adoptive parents, yet was rescued by the head of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals proved to be a turning point in US history as far as protection of children is concerned (retrieved 13 April 2010 from http://en.Wikipedia.org/ wiki/Timeline_of_children%27s_rights_in_the_United_States).
Soon after this event the first society for the protection of children was formed in 1875.
After that various labor and interest groups began promoting and advocating for better treatment of children. Eventually, in 1877 the American [Humane Society] Association formed as a coalition of animal and child protection groups (see http://www.americanhumane.org/. A psychologist named John Dewy (1859-1952) was also known as a national child protection and education advocate. He is attributed with making tremendous strides in behalf of children. He was also the 1899 President of the American Psychological Assoc. (see http://www.apa.org/about/governance/...residents.aspx).
During the Industrial Revolution, workers of all ages were employed in the jobs that kept the economy going. Women and children were employed for lower wages than men, and children were quite often placed in harsh and sometimes dangerous jobs. Over the last century formal efforts were made to protect children from exploitation in the workplace.
The US Department of Labor posts the children protection guidelines for those 18 and younger who are employed in the non-agricultural sector of the economy (see http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/childlbr.htm Retrieved 13 April, 2010). As you read from these provisions, you will notice that the issue of schooling is factored in:
“Minors age 16 and 17 may perform any job not declared hazardous by the Secretary, and are not subject to restrictions on hours Minors age 14 and 15 may work outside school hours in various nonmanufacturing, non-mining, nonhazardous jobs listed by the secretary in regulations published at 29 CFR Part 570 under the following conditions: no more than three hours on a school day, 18 hours in a school week, eight hours on a non-school day, or 40 hours in a non-school week. In addition, they may not begin work before 7 a.m. or work after 7 p.m., except from June 1 through Labor Day, when evening hours are extended until 9 p.m. The permissible work for 14 and 15 year olds is limited to those jobs in the retail, food service, and gasoline service establishments specifically listed in the Secretary's regulations. Those enrolled in an approved Work Experience and Career Exploration Program (WECEP) may work up to 23 hours in school weeks and three hours on school days (including during school hours) These are taken from Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended (PDF).
By federal mandate children are no longer exploited and put into danger. If that were to happen, the penalties to the business and corporation become punitive. Some form of schooling is also required. Today, many teenaged children are employed part-time. Some work with their parents, others babysit or do odd jobs, and still others are employed in the community. Teens have been participating in the labor force by the millions.
Figure 1 shows their proportion of labor force participation with estimated numbers. In 1980 8.8 percent of the labor force was comprised of teens (1990 was 6.2%; 2000 was 5.8%; and 2008 was 4.4%). The child labor laws protect all of these teens except the 19 year-olds who are protected under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (see www.osha.gov).
Why teens go to work in our society is interesting, some teens work to help out their families, others want to save for college expenses. Still others want to make a specific purchase (see http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/fe.../jobs_6-21.pdf retrieved 15 April, 2010 teen workers face dismal summer job outlook June 21, 2004).
Regardless of the motivation, early work experience benefits teens by helping them to get into college, building their resumes, and developing personal character and a strong work ethic. At a teen hiring website there is an article that documents the declining jobs available for teens in the US. (http://www.teens4hire.org/articles/joboutlook.asp). Their studies indicate that in 2010 about 80 percent of US teens want to work, but the jobs will not be there for all of them. Still, this generation of teens is work-minded and likely to gain some work experience at some level before age 20 and most likely work while attending school.
Education
Childhood education has been compulsory in the US for more than a century, with the first mandatory education laws emerging in the North Eastern states. In the US today most children have to be educated between ages 5-18, depending upon state laws. The K-12, Kindergarten through 12th grade model is the most common model of education in the US. Students can attend parochial schools, private schools, public schools, and/or home schools. Public schools are funded by the state (through taxation) and regulated by Boards of Education. Parochial schools are typically controlled and funded through either private or religious organizations. Home Schooling is the process of educating children in the home using family, friends, and consultants as educators.
There has been a steady growth in the resistance among parents to send their children to public schools. Safety, religious concerns, quality of education, content of education, and other concerns relating specifically to the child have fueled this growth. Teachers unions and the National Education Association oppose home schooling in the US, yet homeschooling is increasingly being adopted in the US and other Western nations as a common practice. (see Lips, Dan, Feinberg, Evan (2008-04-03). "Homeschooling: A Growing Option in American Education". Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/Research/education/bg2122.cfm. Retrieved 2008-08-15).
Studies of homeschooling versus other forms of schooling have shown trends in competence and, at times, excellence when comparing homeschooled to public schooled student achievement (see http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp).
Homeschooled children have recently won state and national Spelling and Geography Bees which has served as an affirmation to many homeschoolers about their efforts in behalf of their children. Many online homeschooling support websites have emerged to provide support and directions to parents who want to homeschool their children (see www.K12.com , www.keystoneschoolonline.com , www.CalvertSchool.org , www.homeedmag.com/ , www.homeschoolcentral.com/ ,or www.hslda.org/).
Most US children are educated in public schools. In 2008 there were 8.7 million nursery and kindergarteners, 32.3 million elementary, 16.7 million High school, and 18.6 million college students in the US (retrieved 15 April, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/www...l/cps2008.html. Education plays a key role in the economic quality of life for children when they become adults. Here's the fact, pure and simple-more education means more money and opportunity in the United States. Typically, the higher your education the higher your: economic status, power, prestige, and levels of property. Socio-Economic Status (SES) is a combination of one's education, occupation, and income and has been found to be highly correlated with a better quality of life for those in society who have higher SES scores. There is more job stability (less unemployment and more pay) for those with higher educations.
A recently published E-article articulated the many benefits of college graduation (see “Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society” by Sandy Baum and Jennifer Ma; in Trends in Higher Education Series 2007 Taken from Internet on 23 March 2009 from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_dow...d_pays_2007.pdf).
Baum and Ma also pointed out that the higher your education the better your medical insurance, health, lifestyle for family and next generation, contribution to society, and more. Education, especially earning degrees, is a doorway to many life-long payoffs to college graduates. You need education because we live in a credentialed society. Credentialed Societies are societies which use diplomas or degrees to determine who is eligible for a job. The key in the US is to graduate every chance you get. Certificate is 1- year past high school, Associates is 2-years degree, Bachelor's is 4-year degree, Masters is another 2-year degree past Bachelor's, and Doctorate is another 4-6 years past Bachelor's degree.
Look at Figure 2 below to see the relationship between higher education levels and the “American dream” or “Ideal” lifestyle. Education is the great equalizer and allows the tradition of college attendance and graduation to be introduced into any individual's personal and family life experience if they so desire and can muster the personal work and commitment along with the resources needed to attend then graduate. Tens of millions in the US have zero, nada, or no medical or health care coverage. Most of them have lower education levels and little to no college education. The extremely poor and disabled may have limited government coverage, but most poor and near poor have no medical insurance.
For the most part, working class and middle class people have some level of medical insurance. Interested in a job or career with yearly salary and not hourly pay? Interested in medical benefits and year-end bonuses with paid time off and vacations? Then you need at least a Bachelor's, Master's or Doctoral degree, or you may be from the top 10-25 percent of our economic strata that are born into privilege. They get the educational levels, social networking, marriage market, and overall better life chances that only money can buy, including exclusive education, prep-school, admittance into competitive programs, and Ivy League launch pads.
Table 1 also shows the levels of income typically associated with these degrees. The difference between high school dropouts and graduates is about \$8,100/year more for graduates or, on a 35-year career in the labor force, at least \$283,500 more money earned by graduates. What would a 4-year Bachelor's degree add per year? \$19,400 per year for Bachelor's grads compared to high school grads or \$679,000 in 35 years of career work.
A 4-year degree is financially well worth it.
Table 1: Degrees and Median Incomes Associated with Them
Degrees Median Yearly Incomes
Drop out \$23,400
High School \$31,500
Vocational Certificate \$37,100
Associates \$40,000
Bachelor's \$50,900
Masters \$61,300
Doctorate (Ph.D; Ed.D.; JD,; or MD) \$79,400
Specialization or Post-doctoral education \$100,000+
When students ask me how I feel about taking out student loans, I explain the following to them:
If you choose to go to college and forfeit full-time wages to become a full-time student you will lose about \$126,000 of wages while in college. Plus, it might cost you another \$25,000 in student loans or expenses. So you could conclude that it cost you about \$151,000 to earn a 4-year degree. Subtract that \$151,000 from the extra \$697,000 and you end up a \$546,000 net increase in career earnings, even accounting for missed wages and student loan expenses. So, going to college pays, but how does dropping out of high school affect individuals and society?
The worst possible scenario in terms of work and lifestyle is to drop out of high school, and millions drop out each year in the US. Table 2 shows the dropout rates by racial classification for the US. By far, Asians Americans dropout the least at only 18.7 percent, followed closely by Whites at 22.4 percent. Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans each have over 40 percent dropout rates-all that income lost, all that lifestyle forfeit, and all those other benefits of higher education missed.
Table 2: Dropout rates by Racial Classification in The United Sales 2007
Racial Classification Percent Dropping Out of High School
Native American 49.4%
African American 44.7%
Hispanic 42.2%
White 22.4%
Asian American 18.7%
Jason Amos (2008) in his study of US dropouts also stated that:
“Individuals who fail to earn a high school diploma are at a great disadvantage, and not only when it comes to finding good-paying jobs. They are also generally less healthy and die earlier, are more likely to become parents when very young, are more at risk of tangling with the criminal justice system, and are more likely to need social welfare assistance. Even more tragic, their children are more likely to become high school dropouts themselves, as are their children's children, and so on, in a possibly endless cycle of poverty (page 7).”
Truly this is an accurate statement. The US has some of the best educational opportunities for average children to acquire a good public education. But, it lacks cultural motivations that translate across racial and ethnic lines in such a way that education becomes valued and pursued by average children as a way of opening doors and improving life chances for themselves and their families. It is a paradox in the context of Weber's life chances, because so many life chances are readily available to average people, yet, they are refused or ignored by millions.
Amos (2008) also pointed out that high school dropouts from the Class of 2008 will lose \$318,000,000,000 in lost lifetime earnings. They will be more likely to be arrested and use welfare for another combined cost of \$25,000,000,000 to local and state agencies (page 8). The billions of lost earnings and judicial and welfare costs translate to a lower collective standard of living that could be corrected and improved upon if dropouts would graduate or even go back to earn their high school equivalency diploma, GED.
Figure 3 shows US dropout rates by race for 1972 and 1980-2006. Overall, the dropout rate has been slightly declining for years, but remains disproportionately high for non-Whites. This confirms data listed above and shows that it has been an ongoing problem, especially where non-White schools and districts have been historically underfunded at the basic level of need.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.(2008). The Condition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008-031), Indicator 23.
Marriage and Divorce Issues
Marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. Although some US states are allowing for same-sex marriages, those are the exceptions rather than the national norm, for the moment. Current US marriage laws date back to traditions and practices from Europe, especially from the United Kingdom. Generally speaking, in European and early US history, marriage was a legal issue of property ownership-the man had legal rights to his wife that fell clearly under the legal property right laws. Sad as it sounds, hundreds of years ago, a wife was a man's property. Historically a woman and man were married by the authority of a clan, tribe, religion, or family member.
European governments asserted rights over legal marriages starting in about the 1700s.
One law in Scotland was designed to stop secret marriages (see “An Act for the Better Preventing of Clandestine Marriage”). More and more governments demanded the right to declare a marriage as being legal. After the laws and traditions were in place, spouses were found to have certain rights and obligations toward one another. Children born to the same parents have consanguineous relationships with their parents and siblings, these are often referred to as blood-ties or genetic ties in modern-day terms.
Upon marriage couples form matrimonial relationships with one another. These are called affinal relationships which form through the marriage of a bride and groom and socially bind the extended family members into in-law type relationships. Also, long before genetics were discovered, exogamy rules applied which mandated that adults marry outside of one's family of origin and/or close range of cousins. For non-family members, endogamy rules apply which suggest the need for a marriage of people of similar categorical backgrounds and walks of life. Table 3 shows a list of these rights.
Table 3: Modern-day Marital Rights and Obligations to Spouse in The United States
1. To act as protector, nurturer, and supporter of one's spouse, even in difficult times.
2. To accept one's spouse's trial and calamities as your own while also accepting his or her gains or windfalls as your own
3. To provide sexual pleasure and services to one another
4. To declare (in almost all cases) exclusive sexual access and sexual fidelity to one's own spouse and none other
5. To claim rights to property and legal protection under the state recognized marriage
6. To provide unpaid services to one another in support of the couple's overall economic well-being
7. To co-own debts and obligations
8. To own and claim rights to property, inheritances, and assets
9. To serve as co-parents in the capacity of legal guardians of the children
10. To have social and religious claim in extended family relationships
11. To act, if needed, in each other's behalf legally and in informal ways
These rights and obligations may be obvious once you read them. But, they provide clear boundaries that facilitate the smooth functioning of families in the larger context of society. Family laws and rights undergird the regulation and governance of private property, the upbringing of children, and the interaction of the state with individual families.
Death of a Spouse
What happens when a spouse dies? The man who loses his wife to death is called a widower while the woman who loses her husband to death is called a widow. Property rights almost always default to the surviving spouse upon the death of a husband or wife.
Prenuptial agreements are contractual pre-arrangements agreed to prior to the marriage which identify the distribution of wealth if a divorce or death transpires. These agreements, if made according to law, trump traditional survivor and inheritance practices.
Wealthy couples who remarry, famous couples, and wealthier people who have more wealth at stake tend to make pre-nuptial agreements prior to marriage more than do average couples. One critic of pre-nuptial agreements told me that “a pre-nup is nothing more than an agreement to end the marriage before it ever really starts.” I disagree. With great fortunes at stake, many children protect their inheritances from potentially greedy spouses by forcing or encouraging pre-nuptial agreements.
Inheritance patterns use to follow a patriarchal pattern of father to son. This was during the early colonies which eventually formed the United States and also thereafter for decades. Remember, back then a wife was protected as the man's property. The widow was also felt to be protected by her oldest son. In modern law, the widow or widower now receives all assets and debt obligations of the deceased spouse. In a few societies, inheritances are passed from mothers to daughters to granddaughters, these are called matrilineal inheritance patterns. Patrilineal inheritances are passed from grandfathers to fathers to sons.
Legal wills are documents prepared by individuals and filed with the state in which the person lives and which dictates how inheritances and assets are to be distributed after the death of the individual. When there is no will (this is called dying intestate) and few assets, declaring the distribution of assets may not matter. Where a will is in place and is verified as being valid by the state (this is called probating the will) all creditors and debtors are notified and after a lengthy court and legal process, the will is executed. This probation of the will can be very expensive. An executor (male) or executrix (female) legally ensures that the will is followed. A living trust is a legal action that puts a person's assets into an Internal Revenue Service-classification that shelters assets from taxes and protects the person's allocation of assets from the public eye. Again, wills and living trusts are more often utilized by wealthy and/or famous persons who have more property at stake.
Divorce Laws
What happens when marriages end in divorce? This is much more complicated than simple wills and trusts. Most couples have no pre-nuptial agreement, so assets and debts must be divided. Most couples have children, and if they are under age 18 when the divorce is filed for, then child custody terms have to be settled. During a divorce, child custody or child guardianship is the legal right an adult (most often a parent) has to act in behalf of a minor (less than 18 year old) child. During marriage, either parent can act in the child's behalf. After divorce, legal arrangements have to be articulate stating how the child or children will live since their parents are no longer married.
One of the most common settlements of child custody after divorce is joint custody. Joint custody is an award of custody to both parents wherein the child is considered to live physically at both addresses (the mother's and the father's). The judge agrees to and signs divorce papers stating how the child support will be paid, how the children will visit the other parent over the course of the year, and how adjustments to the visitations arrangements are to be agreed upon and made. Child support is a legal agreement on how much money a parent must pay for the care of a child after divorce. Child support is most often associated with sole custody arrangements, but may be present under joint custody as well.
Sole custody is an award agreed to and signed by a judge where one parent is considered the custodial parent and where visitation with the non-custodial parent is scheduled over the course of the year. The phrase, “sole physical custody” is often used to describe sole custody, because the custodial parent spends the majority of the child's life with them and ensures that the non-present parent gets scheduled visitation with the child. A non-custodial parent is the visiting parent in this type of custody arrangement.
Often the non-custodial parent agrees to pay maintenance support to their ex-spouse in the form of alimony. Alimony is financial support to an ex-spouse. Alimony may be short or long-term rehabilitative to support an ex-spouse getting up on their feet as independent bread winners, and/or compensatory reimbursing an ex-spouse for support and investments made over the course of the marriage. The court considers the duration of the marriage, the spouses' ages, the income of both parties, health of both parties, and if a party is female or male (alimony is more often awarded to females).
Child support payments most often are made directly to the state and dispersed according to court orders. When child support payments are not made, the non-custodial parent is considered delinquent and is often referred to as a “deadbeat parent.” I personally dislike this label and find that an absence of payments of child support does not always a deadbeat make. There are disabled, challenged, and at times unemployed (or underemployed) parents who may desire to fulfill their financial obligations to the child, but simply can't. When child support and/or alimony are not paid, ex-spouses often appeal to state recovery services agencies that have legal power to garnish wages and attach assets and tax returns so that divorce-decreed support is collected. As mentioned in Chapter 12, no-fault divorce completely changed the nature of the divorce process and settlement in the United States.
For most of US history, fault had to be proven in order for a divorce to be granted. I've often taught my students that prior to 1969 you had to prove that “your spouse was a louse to get them out of the house.” Today, no-fault divorce is the common practice. In no-fault divorce, couples can dissolve a happy marriage, a functional marriage, even a convenient and congenial marriage with no regard to who is at fault for the marriage ending in divorce. California was the first to pass a no-fault divorce law which went into effect in 1970 (see the California Family Law Act of 1969). Almost all the other states except New York followed suit (most passed similar laws by 1983). Interestingly, other countries did not follow the no-fault example set by the United States.
No-fault divorce eliminated the need for the expenses of developing a court case and having an adversarial battle with the ex-spouse. It allowed couples to declare “irreconcilable differences” and simply move on with their lives, without each other. I personally know a 90 year old man whose wife filed for divorce after a 7-year attempt at their first marriage (during the 1950's). He told me that the judge would not grant her a divorce, but was willing to grant him one. It turned out that she refused to consummate their marriage (have sexual relations with him), but had sex with other men. In his words, “the judge said I deserved a divorce, but she didn't. So, I agreed to end the marriage.”
An annulment is a legal decree that the marriage is void-as though the marriage never happened. Annulments are decrees as though there never was a marriage. Annulments are not just handed out easily. They are often filed for very early in the marriage. They often take into considerations unexpected extremes such as failure to share the marriage bed; illegal activities and/or fraud, infidelity, and even insanity.
I personally know another man who discovered that his new wife had been unfaithful to him the day after they returned from their honeymoon. She had sex with her ex-husband.
When the man made this discovery after their 15th anniversary he confronted his wife.
She filed for divorce and the marriage was ended in six months. Had the early affair been discovered immediately, he may have been able to apply for an annulment. In very rare cases kidnapping can be grounds for an annulment. This might be if it was later discovered that one of the spouses was forced to marry in the first place (I realize how bizarre some of these extremes sound).
Divorce has been found in most societies and cultures of the world throughout most of the recorded history of humans. The society and state in which the divorce occurs greatly influences the reconciliation of assets and liabilities during the divorce process. For those with modest assets and liabilities, things can be worked out with going to court. For middle-class persons collaborative or mediated divorces are more and more common. If there are children, mediation is required before divorces will be decreed. Many couples choose to work out their divorce terms with professional help, but without attorneys-this is where professional mediation helps.
Collaborative divorces use attorneys for all the behind the scenes work and then file the results with the State courts. For mediated divorce, mediators who may or may not be attorneys work to find a mutually agreeable solution for both spouses. For those with more, things often end up litigated before a judge. Wikipedia reported that when Robert Murdoch divorced his wife it is estimated that they spent 1.7 billion US dollars on the divorce(retrieved 19 April 2010 from http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nsive_divorces).
Community Property (also called marital property) is property acquired and obtained during the marriage, which neither person owned before the marriage. This includes all monies earned by either spouse during the marriage plus the assets they purchased with those monies. It may also include retirements and annuities earned during the marriage, but not yet paid out. Separate Property was owned before the marriage, inherited during the marriage, or acquired after the separation. States vary on how the rules of consideration for division are considered in community property.
Most state laws mention “equitable division” when it comes to property division in divorces. But, property rarely gets divided exactly equally. According to one Web Site, (retrieved 19 April, 2010 from http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/wdget.html).
Numerous sites offer free advice for those studying or considering divorce (see http://www.eglin.af.mil/legal/diadvi.htm). You might also be interested in the Cornell web page which has an accurate summary of all 50 State's divorce codes (see http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_divorce).
As of the writing of this chapter, Massachusetts had legalized same-sex marriages. This opened a new era of issues in divorce. In a 2008 Washington Post article the issues of same-sex divorce were discussed (retrieved 19 April, 2010 from “Same-Sex Divorce Challenges the Legal System Most States Lack Law, Precedent To Settle Issues” by Lizner, D. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010101734.html). This article not only addresses the uniqueness of same-sex divorce issues, but also focuses on the fact that the IRS tax laws rarely address deductions and other issues which are in place for heterosexual couples. Legislatures may be waiting to see what happens, ignoring the issue, or trying to find a working consensus so that IRS tax law can be written. Essentially, same-sex marriages are so rare and unique that few laws are in place to resolve the legal equity issues. Most same-sex couples are cohabiters and their relationship breakups fall under the common-law marriage laws.
Cohabitation
Cohabitation is very common in the US with tens of millions of cohabiters. Heterosexual and same-sex couples cohabit and when their relationships end, they typically refer to common-law marriage laws if their state actually has these laws. Most states have done away with “common-law” laws. Common-law marriages are cohabiting relationships which have no state license and typically have no marriage ceremony.
So, what is the difference between Common-law marriages and simple cohabitation relationships? States vary, but where common-law is available these core issues are used in making distinctions. First, did the couple present themselves as spouses; second, are they of the same age required in the jurisdiction they live in to even be married; third, did they spend significant time together as a couple; fourth did they share bank accounts; and fifth, are they legally marriageable (not still married to another)? The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that “Currently, only 9 states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages contracted within their borders. In addition, five states have "grandfathered" common law marriage (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) allowing those established before a certain date to be recognized. New Hampshire recognizes common law marriage only for purposes of probate, and Utah recognizes common law marriages only if they have been validated by a court or administrative order” (retrieved 17 April, 2010 from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265).
I'd add that Utah and Washington D.C. now recognize common-law. Common-law has few of the tax breaks that the IRS allows for married couples, but has similar division of property where states recognize them. If children were born to the cohabiting couple and raised together, some states require a legal dissolution of the relationship to handle these post-relationship issues.
Adoption
Another important issue relating to legal issues of the family in the broader social context is adoption. Adoption is the formal process of making a child not born in a family, legally part of the family, having the same rights as a birth child is afforded. Adoptions are very common in the US and the world. In every adoption there is a birth mother, birth father, adopting parent or parents, and the government that will formalize the adoption process. In the US, one study suggested that 1.1 percent of women and 2.3 percent of men ages 18-44 have ever adopted a child. Another 1.6 percent of the population ages 18-44 want to adopt a child (retrieved 19 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/adoption.htm , Fedstats). A 2009 Federal report commented on the characteristics of people who adopt who tend to be married, older, male, and have had various infertility issues (retrieved 19 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db12.pdf).
Figure 4 shows the percentage of White, total, and Black women who relinquished their child to adoption during the first month of life, starting pre-1973 and going up through 2002. Fewer and fewer women relinquish their newborns to adoption. In fact this same report suggested only 1 percent did as of 2002. Part of the reason is the availability of both abortion and contraception to the average unwed mother. The US passed the 2000 Adoption Awareness Act which trained pregnancy and health counselors on how to present adoption as an option to women with unintended pregnancies (see https://www.adoptioncouncil.org/infa...nitiative.html).
Adoptions are common both within and beyond the US. The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption was passed in 1993. The US signed on in 1994. As of this writing, 80 nations had signed on with this convention. Basically, participating nations ensure that the safeguards for children are in place for the best interest of the child, the children are legally adoptable, proper effort is given to the child's country of origin (laws and customs), and that all legal requirements are met by the country of origin and the country the child is being adopted into at the time of the adoption (see http://adoption.state.gov/hague/overview.html).
When adoptions take place, great efforts are made to protect the confidentiality of children and parents, so statistics are often difficult to come by.
In spite of this a few statistics are known. According to http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/international.html there were over 250,000 children adopted to the US between 1971 and 2001 (retrieved 19 April, 2010 Factsheets on Adoption). There were 2 girls for every boy adopted and 80 percent were ages 4 and under. Asia provided almost 60 percent of the adopted children, followed by Europe, Mexico, and South America.
Without exception, lawyers are needed to assist parents through the very difficult and tedious processes of conforming to the Hague Convention while adopting internationally.
The US State Department, Office of Children's Issues recently reported that over 50,000 children have been legally and successfully adopted from Russia (retrieved 19 April, 2010 from http://adoption.state.gov/news/russia.html). Russia was recently in the news because a set of US parents sent their troubled Russian child back home after his issues surpassed their willingness or capacity to meet his needs.
The United States has an organization that assists families, states, and government entities with adoption issues. It is called the National Council on Adoption at https://www.adoptioncouncil.org/. Even birth parents can go here for support.
Biological fathers and mothers have to relinquish their rights to the child. This does not always take place if the father is out of the picture and does not know about the child, or if the father cannot be located. Many adoption advocates argue in behalf of consideration of father's rights.
Parental rights are the legal rights and obligations afforded to the birth or adopted parents. If a child is born, these legal rights are in place. If a parent adopts a child, then it is the court that grants him or her, their parental rights. These rights include obligations to care for and be responsible for the child. They also typically include custody of the child, visitation of the child, ability to represent the child and speak for the child in medical, legal, and social matters, the responsibility to raise the child, the obligation to keep the child safe and to ensure that the child is educated, and unfortunately the obligation to be liable for any destructive acts the child may commit.
A parent or parents may voluntarily yield their parental rights to an adopting parent through the courts. In some cases the state has legal authority to take the rights of a parent under certain adverse circumstances. The parental rights have been supported up to the US Supreme Court in numerous rulings. Grandparent's rights have been established thus far as being limited to the right to request visitation and not much else.
Parental rights trump grandparent rights. But, in extreme circumstances the best interest of the child is considered and courts may grant grandparents certain privileges if the court is trying to keep children off the welfare rolls (e.g., when the mother is in prison or jail).
Emancipation of a minor is the legal process of a child being freed from control of his or her parents which simultaneously frees the parents of obligations to the child.
Emancipation of children is possible in most countries of the world, yet rare. A minor is a person younger than 18 in the US and can theoretically apply for emancipation if so desired. The minor would petition the court with legal assistance for emancipation and depending on the laws of that state would have to prove a case and the capacity to support him or herself (of course with an attorney's help which may even be paid for by the state).
Open adoption is when information about the parents is shared between birth parents and adopting parents. Closed adoption is when no information is shared between parents and confidentiality is enforced. Adoption is a different process than most other endeavors which family members undertake. Adoption requires a fortitude that is not needed even when homes are purchased, marriages are entered into, and wills are probated. Adoption has a “cloud of uncertainty” that hangs over it. When parents want to adopt they have to pay money for legal support, initiate a relationship with the birth parent (if the adoption is open), decide if they actually want to adopt the child, and then endure through the uncertainty of the adoption process that may take years.
Don't get discouraged about adoption. Thousands of parents adopt each year. Just realize that adoption includes the adopting parents, birth parents, grandparents (at times), courts, and multiple jurisdictions. My friends have one son they are the birth parents to and three adopted children. They went to Lithuania to adopt their 2nd child. He had been abused and neglected so it took them 4 years to even be able to hug him. They adopted their 3rd child from California. They adopted their 4th child from Alabama.
The children are all teens now and the oldest child married last year. Sounds cut and dry doesn't it?
Here is the rest of the story. Over the years they tried to adopt three children from a mother who was institutionalized for mental illness. They had those children for 6 months before the mother backed out. “Total emotional devastation” was how they described being torn from these children. Years later they called us and announced that they had 2 newborn twins that were extremely high risk health and medical-wise. They paid the mother, followed through with the legal process and the mother backed out three days before her grace period ended. She kept their money and placed the twins into the state foster system until she was released from prison.
My other friend, who adopted, took a year to get all the financial, legal, social, and physical issues resolved. Her adoption was finalized and she has been the mother of this wonderful young man for 10 years now. She told me that adoption is not the same as birth because there is always a small question mark floating above the whole thing.
“That question mark is really big during the adoption process. Once it's all legal, my son's birth mother could show up at any time into his life. She could sue, she could kidnap him, or she could decide she needs to be his friend. I know these are not very likely, but we adoptive parents live with this when birth parents never have to.”
Paternity is the establishment of one man as the biological father of a child. How can you know who the father of a child might be? I had a student in 1991 that narrowed down the potential father of her child to 3 college students that she had sex with in the course of a week. Thousands of years ago, it would have been nearly impossible to establish which provided the sperm that fertilized the egg. Today we have DNA tests. If the man and woman are married, then paternity is assumed to be assigned to the husband. If there is an out-of-marriage pregnancy, paternity can be established to within 99.9 percent accuracy with a DNA test involving only a painless swab inside the mouth. If the father is not the sperm donor, then the likelihood may range from zero (not the father) to a few percentage points. If the tested person is a close relative of the father (brother, father, or uncle) that can also be established.
A biological explanation of the test was available on 20 April, 2010 at http://bioforensics.com/conference/Paternity/. When paternity and maternity are in place, legal guardianship is granted. A Legal Guardian is the steward or person authorized to act in behalf of the child in all manners. Guardianship is clear in cases of birth and adoption. But, what happens in cases of criminal behavior, abuse, neglect, and other nefarious circumstances where the child is at risk of harm? State legal practice allows courts to appoint a guardian in place of the legal parents when needed. When this happens, legal guardianship may be granted for a period of time for the child.
A Guardian ad litem is an adult appointed to represent the interest of the child during divorces, abuse, neglect, or other hardships where the child's interests need to be protected independent of the parents. When a court appoints an ad litem for a child it is called a Court Ordered Special Advocate (CASA). In 1977, a Judge named David W. Soukup initiated CASA and it was later adopted, boasting 68,000 CASA women and men in the US (retrieved 22 April, 2010 from http://www.in.gov/judiciary/galcasa/about.html).
One of my students served as a CASA, advocating for children in a bitter, other-accusing, and generally nasty divorce. She truly felt a need to protect the minor child and was given authority and legal backing to do so. In the end, the child's parents divorced, but their efforts to use this little girl as a pawn in their cruel game of divorce chess was greatly limited. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.15%3A_Politics_Government_and_Issues.txt |
Chapter 16: Violence and Tragedies
Family Functions and Dysfunctions
Families are functional at some levels and simultaneously dysfunctional at others. No two families are exactly alike and very few families experience blissful ideal family experiences. Think about it, how could a family be ideal when its members are mortals?
It can't. Even in the history and myths of ancient civilizations, families had dysfunctions.
For example, Father Abraham's polygamous family had two sons, Ishmael (first-born) and Isaac (second-born). Ishmael and Isaac could not live together because their family broke up as a result of their mothers not getting along (their descendants still hold traditional enmity over these issues). Royal histories are filled with sibling rivalry, incestuous relationships, and violence.
The Roman lore of its founding history includes the fight between two adult brothers over what would eventually become Rome, wherein the twin boys were nearly drowned by their uncle (search Romulus and Remus to be surprised at who these twin's step-mother proved to be). Ancient Greek mythology is also full of family feuding and fighting and discord (search Prometheus, Hercules, Oedipus, and Narcissus). And these characters were assumed to be gods! Again, all modern families have functions and dysfunctions.
Family functions are the tasks and goals that support and sustain the family.
Dysfunctions are failures in the family to accomplish these tasks and goals. Functions are intended. Dysfunctions are typically unintended. For example, family members do not intend to establish poor communication patterns, invisible sexual boundaries (incest), or economic hardships. The basic family functions which are intended include: economic cooperation, control of sexuality, socializing children, identity and social status, and social and emotional need fulfillment.
Figures 1 and 2 show diagrams of how family functions and dysfunctions can be compared to an equalizer on a stereo system. In Figure 1 this family meets the needs of communication, boundaries that are in place and maintained, economic cooperation, nurturance through relationships, raising the child/children, and offering love and support to other family members. Some families meet family members needs better than others.
These are often referred to as being high resource families. There are other families that meet some needs well and other needs poorly.
Figure 2 shows a family that meets most needs poorly. These are called low resource families. This family fails to meet the needs of communication, boundaries that are in place and maintained, economic cooperation, nurturance through relationships, raising the child/children, and offering love and support to other family members. This looks like a hopeless situation, but with voluntary efforts at seeking help or even involuntary efforts (state intervention), more resources could be attained and the family may improve its functionality.
Family dysfunctions can be handed down from generation to generation, with few family members aware that something is wrong in the family system. I know of a 62 year old man who shared with me in private that he was the first in a long line of family members who did NOT sexually abuse other family members. “I broke the chain of abuse,” he declared. His father would not acknowledge the abuse, much less talk to him about his having broken the chain.
Violence and Abuse
Family Abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or harm of another family member. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal. If you were like me, and you grew up in an abusive home, please accept the fact that it was not your fault. Abuse is perpetrated by powerful people on less powerful people. Young children should be protected by older family members from predators and non-family members who could cause harm. If you were not protected, or worse, if you were preyed upon by someone who was supposed to protect you, then it is their fault not yours!
You may have heard that there is a chain of abuse passed from parent to child to grandchild. That may be true, but not if you don't want it to be in your case. Some estimates place it at 1 in 3 sexually abused children grow up to be abusers. Many abuse survivors are meticulous about marrying non-abusers and about over-protecting their children from potential abusers. Based on my professional and private research in the area of surviving abuse, I'd urge you to seek professional help and support for dealing with your childhood traumas. There are numerous free resources including: http://www.ascasupport.org/; http://www.sexualabusesurvivors.com/; and http://www.providentliving.org/ses/e...2112-1,00.html. Again, it is not your fault. But, healing is your responsibility. It is not enough to simply ignore or deny the abuse. That would be like trying to heal from a 2-inch wood sliver that is lodged in your leg by simply ignoring it.
Sexual abuse is a particularly sinister form of abuse. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reported that 80,000 cases of child sexual abuse are reported each year in the US with many more cases unreported (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from Child Sexual Abuse, “Facts for Families,” No. 9 (5/08) http://www.aacap.org/galleries/Facts...xual_abuse.pdf). They list possible symptoms:
“Sexually abused children may also develop the following: unusual interest in or avoidance of all things of a sexual nature, sleep problems or nightmares, depression or withdrawal from friends or family, seductiveness, statements that their bodies are dirty or damaged, or fear that there is something wrong with them in the genital area, refusal to go to school, delinquency/conduct problems, secretiveness, aspects of sexual molestation in drawings, games, fantasies, unusual aggressiveness, or suicidal behavior”
Nowhere in this document (or any professional document based on treating survivors) does it blame the victim. Yet, it does urge adult and child survivors of abuse and their family members to seek out professional help and support.
One way to approach child abuse awareness and prevention as a parent or grandparent is to teach your child a simple rule about their safety. Many of the available programs on child sexual abuse prevention use the “No Touch” style of this rule. I teach my students to teach their children this simple rule-no one should touch you where your shirt and shorts cover your body! That is your “no touch zone.” Don't let anyone touch your chest, tummy, hips, buttocks, between the legs, or thighs. If anyone does, then scream “stop!” And tell your mom or dad, teacher, or other trusted adult. There is a useful PDF file on preventing sexual abuse provided by the Centers for Disease Control at http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...hildAbuse.html Now you also have to teach them the difference in a family hug and unwanted inappropriate touch. But, teach it! That's where most parents fail in this regard. They don't want to talk about it (especially if their own wounds are unhealed) and they rarely bring it up. Of special concern to me as the father of 5 sons is the increasing trend of adult female to teen male sexual abuse trends. The news regularly broadcast stories of teachers, teacher's aids, coaches, and mothers of the teen's friends who are seducing and raping teen boys. Most states do not prosecute these abuse cases as they would a male adult to female minor case (often called forcible or statutory rape). Both boys and girls should be protected from sexual misconduct by adults with the threat of felony charges for the adult perpetrator.
Recent US data indicates that there were 3,200,000 alleged cases of child abuse in neglect in 2007 (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...ataSheet-a.pdf). After investigation, about 794,000 were classified as victims. It was reported that 59 percent were neglected, 4 percent suffered emotional abuse, 8 percent suffered sexual abuse, and 11 percent suffered physical abuse. They also reported that girls were slightly more abused than boys (52% to 48%) and that women abused slightly more than men (56% to 42% with some cases the sex of the perpetrator was unknown).
Figure 3 shows child abuse data from 2000-2007 for males, females and total. Again female children were slightly more likely to be abused than males. I find it comforting that the number of substantiated cases declined between 2006-7, but this drop still represents hundreds of thousands of cases. The actual number of cases may be 2 or 3 times that high, since many cases go unreported. Figure 4 shows the specific types of abuse that have occurred. These too are declining yet consistent in their relationship to one another.
Other national studies of child abuse report similar findings (see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families. Child Maltreatment 2007 [Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009] available at: http://www.childwelfare.gov.2.Finkelhor, Ormrod, H, Turner, H, Hamby, S. The Victimization of Children and Youth: A Comprehensive National Survey. Child Maltreatment 2005; 10:5-25.3.Theodore, AD, Chang, JJ, Runyan, DK, Hunter, WM, Bangdewala, SI, Agans,R. Epidemiologic Features of the Physical and Sexual Maltreatment of Children in the Carolinas. Pediatrics 2005; 115: e330-e337).
The US now has a national Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) which is designed to gather more accurate data on child maltreatment. Restricted usage files of state case-level data are available for researchers from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect at www.ndacan.cornell.edu In addition, aggregated counts of key indicators by State are available for 1990-2007. The Child Maltreatment reports are available on the Internet at http://www.acf.hhs.gov programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can” (retrieved 23 April,2010 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/cm07.pdf).
Figure 5 shows the numbers of child abuse victims by their ages. The 18+ category was less than 1,000 cases per year, but it still occurs. Even children who are old enough to vote get abused sometimes. The highest numbers of abuse cases were found among the 2-5 year olds with rates getting lower and lower for the older children. One website reported that 12 percent of high school girls and 3 percent of boys had been sexually abused (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.rainn.org/getinformation/statistics/sexual-assault-victims).
Over half of the reports of child maltreatment came from professionals (57%). This report stated that in 2007 about 1,760 children died, mostly from neglect. The World Health Organization published the “World Report on Violence and Health. In 2000 it was estimated that 57,000 children died from maltreatment worldwide (retrieved 23
April, 2010 from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_p...iolence/global campaign/en/chap3.pdf).
In families, abuse may also be perpetrated by adults against adults. When violence occurs between adult spouses and partners, it is often called intimate partner violence or IPV. The CDC provides a useful definition: “In the context of this document, intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as actual or threatened physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or stalking abuse by an intimate partner. An intimate partner can be a current or former spouse or non-marital partner, such as a boyfriend, girlfriend, or dating partner…” (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/IPV/IPV...-Screening.pdf). The guidelines in this PDF file focus on frequency of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse which includes a body map to document physical damage.
Questions include: have you ever been (or recently): hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise physically hurt by someone close to you (partner, spouse, close friend) or has anyone forced you to have sexual activities?
Other assessments ask these questions: are you in danger now, is the perpetrator here with you now, do you have a safe place to go to after the treatment, do you feel in danger, are any children in danger, are drugs and/or weapons involved, and how serious have the threats been?
The US Bureau of Justice Statistics reports crime for each year. In 2007 there were 186,560 crimes perpetrated by spouses and 79,860 perpetrated by ex-spouses. (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007 Statistical Tables http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf). These included 153,790 assaults by spouses and another 63,650 assaults by ex-spouses. These also included 20,670 rapes and sexual assaults by spouses and another 6,200 by ex-spouses. Quite disheartening was the report that almost 60% of victims did NOT report their crime to police (this is a victimization survey, not just police data). The BJS estimates for 2008 yielded these statistics:
• About 22% of murders in 2002 were family murders.
• Of the nearly 500,000 men and women in state prisons for a violent crime in 1997, 15% were there for a violent crime against a family member.
• Intimate partners were responsible for 3% of all violence against males and 23% of all violence against females in 2008.
• Family violence accounted for 11% of all reported and unreported violence between 1998 and 2002.
(retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=94).
In another BJS report for the year 2008, it showed how many cases of violence were perpetrated on males and females and who did the violence (see Figure 6). Females were over 5 times more likely to be attacked by their intimate partner than were males (504,980 female being attacks to 88,120 males being attacked). They were also about twice as likely to be attacked by a relative as males. Males were more likely to be attacked by a friend or acquaintance. The Rape Abuse and Incest National Network reported that 3 percent of men had been victims of attempted rape or rape in their lifetimes and about 1 in every 10 rape victims is male (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.rainn.org/get-information...ssault-victims). For a comprehensive overview of rape and the related issues of blame see http://freebooks.uvu.edu Chapter 20.
Figure 7 presents family maltreatment on a continuum of violence and control. The red bar represents behaviors considered to be abusive. In families, normal disagreements occur. These are typically not at the degree of violence or control that authorities would become involved. Most parents spank their children. This is a two-edged sword. A spanking can be a simple swat. Used rarely and with low levels of violence and control, this would not concern authorities. The other edge of the sword is that some parents use spanking at high levels of violence and control.
In the name of spanking they, may emotionally, physically and sexually (really rare) abuse their kids. I have a friend who went to a family reunion and was slapped 5 times by an angry sister during the reunion. She was 54 during this event (let me just say something. When I reference my friends, these are true stories. I try to disguise some of the details, but they are real people. To date I have taught more than 13,000 students in university or college. These stories are real). All abuse is emotional or has emotional underpinnings because in families we are emotionally connected to each other and because we all filter experience through our emotions.
I am biased about sexual abuse. Fondling, touching, and sexual intercourse are all violence to me, especially when an adult is perpetrating a child. Even verbal sexual comments are inappropriate. To me, children are to be protected and nurtured, not exploited. The laws of all 50 states concur with this opinion. But, much goes undetected from authorities. There are homes where boys and girls, teens, and even young adults are violated sexually at some level.
In one extreme case in our state, a girl was beaten so severely that she died. Her parents even beat her in her pelvic area and threw her through a sheetrock wall (www.ksl.com).
Hundreds of similar stories were available, yet hers is in the hands of the criminal justice system and out of the public eye (as are so many cases like it). Except that both parents are in prison, to the public, it is forgotten. Physical abuse includes punches, shoves, bullying, etc. It is extremely common and can lead to murder.
The sexual assault, stalking, and homicide categories of maltreatment are typically considered to be between adults and other adults, but parents do injure children to the point of death. Current spouses, ex-spouses (partners or lovers), and relatives sexually assault, stalk, and/or kill other family members. The first suspect in the murder case of a woman is by default her intimate partner. Once he is ruled out, the police focus on other theories of the crime.
Family violence is common and mostly perpetrated by males on others, but males are also victims of family violence. Even though violent crime have been declining since 1994, males are far more likely to be victimized than females (except in sexual violence).
In less common circumstances women perpetrate violence on men (see Carney M, Buttell F, Dutton D (2007). "Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment". Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (1): 108-15). There are networks of shelters for men abused by women and/or other men.
The easiest way for a man to get help is to call 911. There are online resources that can provide information (search shelters for me or go to http://dahmw.org/ for more information).
Spousal and/or intimate partner abuse is extremely concerning to those who try to intervene in family violence. One study using a sample of 16,000 adults in the US, reported that 25 percent of women and 7.5 percent of men had been assaulted by their spouse, cohabiting partner, or date, this data yields estimates of over 2 million intimate partner assaults per year in the US. (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 181867, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of
Intimate Partner Violence, at iii (2000), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm). Scientists at the CDC estimate that there were over \$8 billion in medical costs for spousal violence in 1995 and 8 million lost work days (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from Intimate Partner Violence: Consequences http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePreventio...sequences.html).
Intimate partner violence use to be called domestic violence. It can be physical, emotional, sexual, threats of violence, or stalking. Stalking is when someone harasses or threatens another repeatedly, even knowing their pursuit is unwanted. Various studies indicate that intimate partner violence is more common among the poor, unemployed, younger parents, and substance abusing partners in society (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/...nce/causes.htm). The best strategies for intervening include: arrest of the perpetrator, protection orders from courts, prosecution of perpetrators, and batterer intervention programs (retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/...tervention.htm). Unfortunately, the victim often refuses to follow through on pressing charges.
It is very important to understand how violence and abuse transpire in intimate relationships. A 2006 study was published which identified the nature of control and violence between the 2 people involved. The researcher, Michael P. Johnson, reported that four categories emerged:
“Intimate terrorism is where the individual is violent and controlling, the partner is not. In violent resistance, the individual is violent but not controlling, the partner is the violent and controlling one. In situational couple violence, although the individual is violent, neither the individual nor the partner is violent and controlling. In mutual violent control, the individual and the partner are violent and controlling” (retrieved 26 April, 2010 from http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/a...act/12/11/1003; Violence Against Women, Vol. 12, No. 11, 1003-1018 (2006):Conflict and Control).
In the 1970s, new models emerged which helped professionals understand and intervene in abuse. These models focused on the cyclical nature of abuse (see Walker, Lenore E. (1979) The Battered Woman. New York: Harper and Row). That means abusers typically cycle in and out of violence with their intimate partners. For example, after the relationship becomes established abusers go through a stage of tension and frustration build up. These times are filled with perceived offenses by the perpetrator who begins to define himself as being victimized. Eventually the perpetrator attacks and releases this pent up anger and hostility. Shortly thereafter he feels remorse and reconciles himself to his family member (victim).
Sometimes there is a phase of calm that last until the perpetrator recycles back into the tension and frustration build up stage again, repeating the violent cycle over and over (see Mills, Linda G. Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse (2008) for more details on how to break the cycle as a victim). Why women and some men stay with their abuser is difficult to explain, but is a major component of successful efforts to intervene. Some have learned that this is part of an intimate relationship-to suffer and forgive. Others stay because they see no economic possibilities if they did leave. Others stay to minimize the relationship break up and the impact the harm of that breakup may cause to their children. Communities have responded to this ongoing problem in multiple ways and at multiple levels. Coordinated efforts have been designed to get police, medical personnel, courts, family, and other social agencies working in the same direction for the best outcomes (reduced abuse). The most common model used today to intervene in domestic violence is called the Duluth Model.
The Duluth Model came in the 1980s from Duluth, Minnesota where an experiment was attempted that united 11 community agencies to reduce violence against women (see http://www.theduluthmodel.org/history.php). This model claims that it is the community that controls abusers (not the spouse), that there are differing types of abuse and each must be responded to in appropriate ways, that socio-economic and historical factors of persons involved must be considered, and that intervention must include perpetrators and victims (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from The Duluth Model home page at http://www.theduluthmodel.org/duluthmodelonpublic.php).
Critics of the Duluth model point out the absence of counseling and therapeutic efforts.
Other critics argue that it is the court and legal avenues that ultimately protect the victims. Intervention Models often include Duluth and cognitive behavioral therapy plus community intervention strategies. One study found that when considering the most common intervention models, there was really no strong indication that one might be better than the other (Retrieved 23 April, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/violence-against-women/workshops/batterer-intervention.htm#bips). The Duluth Model and its many variations, when combined with other strategies, are the best way to manage and intervene in family violence cases. One emerging effort designed to encourage abused people to leave the relationship is called the Hope Card Project (see http://www.hopecardproject.com/faq.html). This will help people across municipal jurisdictions to transition away from abusers and into abuse free circumstances.
There is also a concern about the large numbers of elderly abused by younger family members. Family elder abuse is the maltreatment of older family members in emotional, sexual, physical, financial, neglect, and other ways, especially where trust was expected and violated (see http://helpguide.org/mental/elder_ab...al_neglect.htm).
Cooper et al. (2008) estimated that 1 in 4 elderly persons may be at risk for abuse in Western Nations (see Cooper C, Selwood A, Livingston G (March 2008). "The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review". Age Ageing 37 (2): 151-60. doi:10.1093/ageing/afm194. PMID 18349012. http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...pmid=18349012.).
The American Association of Retired Persons estimates that \$2.6 billion dollars is lost each year from younger persons abusing the finances of the elderly (retrieved 27 April, 2010 from http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/l...st_elder_abuse _during_a_down_economy_.html). The National Center on Elder Abuse reports that Care facilities also work diligently to prevent sexual, emotional, physical, and other forms of abuse by employees and family members. This Center estimates about 2 million elderly who've been abused, even though it admits that there is no uniform system in place to track the abuses (retrieved 27 April, 2010 from http://www.ncea.aoa.gov/ncearoot/Mai...tics050331.pdf).
Marital Stressors
Having a baby, getting a new job, and buying a home are all normative stressors.
Many married couples experience a noticeable decline in marital satisfaction which accompanies the birth of their first child. Judith Wallerstein is quoted as having said, “Each couple must embrace the daunting roles of parents and absorb the impact of her majesty the baby's dramatic entrance while protecting the couples' own privacy” (see The Good Marriage By Wallerstein, J. S. & Blakeslee, S. 1995, Houghton Mifflin: NY).
Many researchers have established a decline in marital satisfaction after the birth of a child, especially the first child. The better the couple are as friends, the less the impact the first child has on their marriage. To transition to the role of parents, it was found that couples who work closely and in a mutually supportive manner make the best adjustments (retrieved 26 April, 2010 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan01/parenthood.aspx).
When we bought our first home, we purchased it through friends who were eager to sell and move. They lowered the price for us. Because we got along so well, things went easier for all of us. But, it was by far the most stressful experience of our married lives.
We spent 2 weeks arranging our finances, getting all the legal paper work in order, helping them by keeping appointments with inspectors and closing agents, and beginning to pack our belongings. We simultaneously put our mobile home on the market. The day of the closing, minute details threatened the paperwork so much so that we truly reached the point of believing it through. We eventually signed and succeeded in buying the house. The next day, our home sold and the process of appointments and inspections began from the seller's point of view-then came the move. Our friends moved out. We helped them clean. Then we moved in. We got all of our belongings into the house by about 11:30 at night. The first night in our house we slept on the floor, exhausted to the core of our souls. Buying this house was a huge boon to us. But, even though it was a normal thing for a US family to do, it was very stressful.
Middle families tend to be in their 30-50s, their children are teens or young adults, they are in mid-career, and financially established with a home and cars. Middle families launch children into college, military, and jobs while maintaining steady earnings. They typically have retirement investments and are paying off mortgages and other loans. As they age into their 50s they find that some of their married children return home for a short season because of marital or financial hardships. Parents begin to witness the death of their own parents and siblings and are made much more aware of their pending move into the ranks of the elderly. These families have fewer normative stressors than the younger families.
Elderly families have more freedoms from childrearing than the younger families have.
They are 60 plus and are often grandparents, have their homes paid off, and are looking forward to retirement. Their grandchildren graduate college and become parents in their own right. They have experienced the passing of their grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, and siblings. They also have begun to face the sober realities of their biological health declines. These families have far fewer normative stressors than younger families.
Acute stressors are typically unexpected, sudden, and demand tremendous resources to cope with them. Bankruptcies, illnesses, crime victimization, loss, and natural hazards are just a few of the acute stressors that could impact a family. Wallerstein and Blakesly (1995) also reported that happily married couples had “confronted and mastered the inevitable crises of life, maintaining the strength of the bond in the face of adversity.”
Stuff happens and some of it is truly acute and stressful.
In the 1970s, two psychiatrists named Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe developed a scale that measured life stressor that could have impacted an individual or his or her family over the last 3 years (see Holmes, T.H. and Rahe, R.H.: The social readjustments rating scales, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11:213-218, 1967, also see another approach from Brown, G.W. and Harris, T.O.: Social origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. London: Tavistock, 1978). For families in the young family stage, getting married, having a baby, buying a home, or having a parent die ranked as the most stressful events. For middle and older families, having your spouse die, divorce or separating, moving, and being married were among the most stressful events. In this paradigm one of these events can be coped with fairly well if the family members can gather enough resources to meet the challenge. Two or more acute stressors can pile up into your normative stressors and overwhelm you to the point of illness. This happened to me recently. My father died of cancer, we nearly lost an investment that would have financially ruined us, our married son and his wife moved back home with us then had a baby (they both lost their jobs), I had a car wreck, and I was promoted to Assistant Department Chair. This is on top of all the normal life events we have as parents of three teenagers and employees. As Homes and Rahe predicted, I had surgery.
My life is not that bad compared to our friends. Our best friends from junior college suffered an accident in 1991 when one of their 18 month old twins ran underneath a truck and was instantly killed. This tragic loss impacted them, us, friends, and family. To this day, this has proven to be the most intense stressor they have faced. They survived the loss, but if you were to ask them, it still exists as a tender part of their feelings. How families respond to stresses make a huge difference in their quality of life. Researchers have established that stress can strengthen you or destroy you, depending on how you cope with stressors as individuals or families.
When a series of normal and less significant stressors accumulate it can have the same effect as a major acute stressor. If both happen together, stress can pile up. Stressor pile up occurs when stressful events accumulate in such a manner that resolution has not happened with existing stressors before new stressors are added. Stressor pile up can be detrimental if adequate resources are not obtained to meet the demands of the stressors (search Hill and McCubbin's ABCX Models).
This generation of families does not share the same conservative financial tendencies as did the generation of our grandparents. In the US, many desire to have what they desire now, even if debt has to be incurred to get it. Now-time gratification (also called present time) is the individual perspective that seeks immediate satisfaction of their needs, wants, and desires. Delayed gratification is the individual perspective that has patience, the ability to invest time and efforts now in hopes of a payoff down the road. Delayed gratification is very common among college students who are willing to put in 4-6 years for the promise of a life-long career of better earnings and life experiences.
Bankruptcy often occurs among those who are now-time oriented and fail to wisely manage their resources. A bankruptcy is a federally authorized procedure that allows families (businesses too) to be relieved from liability from its debts and to arrange partial repayments through court ordered relief strategies. The American Bankruptcy Institute keeps track of bankruptcies in the US and report hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies each year (http://www.abiworld.org/AM//Template.cfm?Section=Home). The majority of those are non-business consumer bankruptcies. Chapter 7 (quickest and easiest for business and individuals) and Chapter 13 ( has a built-in repayment plan) are the two most common forms in the US. Bankruptcy does not allow persons to walk away without repercussion.
The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act mandates partial repayments and an 8 year waiting period before refilling (see "Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Bankruptcy Reform", 109th Cong. February 10, 2005. Retrieved 27 April, 2010). Consumer misspending and mismanagement of funds contribute to a great deal of bankruptcies, but medical bills are often reported as being the cause for half of all bankruptcies in the US (see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...nkruptcy/4683/).
Medical expenses cost billions to US consumers and can easily bankrupt under-insured and non-insured people. One of these medical concerns includes problematic childbirths.
Over 4 million babies are born in the US each year and only 1 percent were born away from a hospital in 2006 (retrieved 27 April, 2010 from http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2...20100329a.html). In 2005 it is estimated that \$32 billion was spent on childbirth expenses in the US ( retrieved 27 April 2010 from Big Money: Cost of 10 Most Expensive health conditions Near \$500 billion http://www.ahrq.gov/news/nn/nn012308.htm).
Pregnancy and Delivery
After the 37th week childbirth can happen at any time. There are three distinct stages of childbirth. In the first stage, the cervix in the lowest portion of the uterus (see Chapter 7) begins to dilate and efface. Dilation is the opening of the cervix which stretches the membranes in such a way that effacement or the thinning of the cervix occurs. For the most part, because of contractions of the uterus and muscles surrounding the cervix, the cervix stretches and opens to an undetectable level before the newborn delivers. In the second stage, the baby is pushed down and out, hopefully with its nose facing toward the mother's buttocks and in the head first position. The top back (crown) of the baby's head typically presents first and this is called crowning when it can be seen in the opening of the birth canal. The shoulders deliver first one then the other by lifting then lowering them in such a way as to get one shoulder past the tail bone and the other past the pubic bone. The baby completely exits the mother's body after the shoulders deliver. Once delivered, the baby takes a first breath.
In the third stage, the placenta delivers. If the baby delivers foot or hand first, buttock first, or in any other presentation different from head down and face down toward buttocks, the odds of complications and death increase. The mother also is at risk of complications and death. Some mothers die due to bleeding complications from childbirth (although very rare). The CDC reported that in 2005 12.4 women per 100,000 who gave birth died (retrieved 27 April, 2010 from Health, United States 2009; Table 39 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus09.pdf). Caesarian sections (C-sections), or the surgical removal of the fetus form the mother through her abdomen, are common when complications are detected. They are much more intensive in terms of healing for the mother, yet far less risky to mother and baby (see http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/240_1031.asp for more details on C-sections).
During pregnancy a woman will either deliver the baby alive, deliver a baby that died in the womb (still birth), abort the fetus, or miscarry. About 1 in 5 US pregnancies ended in abortion in 2005, or 1.2 million abortions (retrieved 27 April, 2010 from Table 101
Abortions-Number and Rate by State of Occurrence, 2000 and 2005, and Residence, 2005 http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0101.pdf). Miscarriage (also called spontaneous abortion) is the involuntary ending of the pregnancy by the mother's body, typically considered a default process when or if something is abnormal about the fetus or pregnancy. A woman cannot will her pregnancy into miscarriage, nor can she stop a miscarriage simply by changing her attitude.
Table 1 shows the top causes of death for 2006 for the US. The older a person is the closer their age-specific risks of dying match the top 10 cause in Table 1. Please note that smoking/tobacco use is associated with the top 4 causes of disease. The known strategies that can be used to minimize your risk of dying from these diseases are as follows: no tobacco (ever), moderate use of alcohol (or none), regular exercise, healthy diet, sleeping 7-9 hours, manage stress, and plan to be healthy so that the end of your life is less troubled with chronic disorders.
The cause of death most associated with college-aged students (15-34) is as follows: accidents, suicide/murder, cancer, heart disease, and AIDS (HIV). AIDS stands for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. In the US, AIDS is transmitted mostly from males to males via unsafe sex, but is increasingly transmitted heterosexually between males and females (retrieved 27 April, 2010 from http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite? page=kb-01-03#S1.5X). World-wide most cases are found in Africa and by far the most common form of transmission is heterosexual unprotected sex and mother-to-child via pregnancy and breastfeeding. Worldwide, AIDS was diagnosed in 33.4 million people in 2008 and about 1,000 children get AIDS each day from their mothers (retrieved from World Health Organization 27 April, 2010 from http://www.who.int/hiv/en/). About 2 million die from AIDS each year, especially in Africa and Asia where most cases are found.
Table 1: Top Causes of Death in the United States: 2006
1. Heart Disease at 631,636
2. Cancer at 559,888
3. Cerebrovascular diseases at 137,119
4. Chronic Lower Lung Diseases 124,583
5. Accidents 121,599
6. Diabetes Mellitus (adult onset) 72,449
7. Alzheimer's Disease 72,432
8. Flu/Pneumonia 56,326
9. Kidney Problems 45,344
10. Septicemia (infection of body) 34,234
Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs, now referred to as STIs or sexually transmitted infections) are common among young people. Figure 9 shows the rates of three of the US's most common STDs. In the US, Chlamydia is increasingly occurring and is also the most common STD followed by Gonorrhea then Syphilis (retrieved 27 April, 2010 from http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm). Chlamydia is bacteriological and can be cured with antibiotics if detected. The problem is Chlamydia is often asymptomatic (no or very few symptoms). Young women can be permanently damaged in their reproductive system if this disease is untreated.
Gonorrhea and Syphilis can also be treated successfully with antibiotic if treated sooner than later. But, a few resistant strains have been identified which can't be cured with antibiotics at this date. The truly difficult STDs are the viral ones: Hepatitis, Herpes, Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and AIDS. Once contracted, they remain with the patient for life and are sometimes transmitted to partners and children. Some success has been found in treating symptoms and managing pain, but so far there is no cure. Human Papilloma Virus is also associated with cancers and AIDS because they are often transmitted simultaneously or because people who get one are often having lots of unprotected sex and easily contract another. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.16%3A_Violence_and_Tragedies.txt |
Chapter 17: Family Strengths and the Future
The good news for fans of family relationships is that the family is here to stay. The family is by far the most enduring and central institution in society and has been throughout all human history. The family, in all its varieties and forms, is extremely salient to the United States as political, economic, religious, educational, and societal institutions that demands consideration by all members of society in the larger social and personal levels of family experience. Family homogeneity is a thing of the past. Family diversity is the theme of the future. The formation, maintenance, and perpetuation of the family will, I predict, continue as it has for thousands of years. It will adapt itself to changing technologies and economies. It will adapt itself to religious and political influences. And it will adapt itself to scientific discovery. Most importantly, and I repeat myself, it will persist as long as humans persist.
World surveys of human values continue to document the selection of family issues as the most important value to people worldwide (see http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/library/index.html). Billions continue on with traditions of tribal, monogamous, polygamous, matriarchal, and patriarchal family forms.
Lesbian and gay couples continue to carve their niche into the mainstream of the various societies in which they live. Poor families, average families, and wealthy families continue to perform the core family functions and create another generation of adult children who will likely do the same by socially reproducing the next generation of fathers and mothers, husbands and wives.
The General Social Surveys are a national survey of US persons have been conducted from 1972 to present (see www.norc.org, General Social Surveys). When asked if a girl's or boy's chances for a happy family life were better than yours, about the same, or worse than yours, thousands of respondents reported that 19 percent for girls and 17 percent for boys said better, 45 percent and 48 percent said about the same, and 36 and 35 percent said worse (retrieved 13 may, 2010 from http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Brow...Subject+Index/). Most see continuity and hope for the family of the future. In this complex society, over 1/3 responding with worry is understandable, especially for those who feel their preferred family form is threatened.
In the US families are a source of satisfaction. When asked another question about how much satisfaction they get from their family life, 43 percent said a very great deal, 34 percent said a great deal, and 11 percent said quite a bit (retrieved 13 May, 2010 from http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Brow...Subject+Index/). That was with 24,070 respondents combine in the summary. When asked in general how satisfied they were with their family 90 percent indicated satisfaction at some level (24% Completely Sat., 42% Very Sat., and 24% Fairly Sat., retrieved 13 May, 2010 from http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/Brow...Subject+Index/). In the US, most are hopeful and most find family to be a satisfying aspect of their lives.
You, like many others will chose a lifestyle that includes a family in one form or another.
If so, what can be done to strengthen the family in your own home? Figure 1 lists research-based efforts you and your family members can put forth to strengthen your family in coming years. Let's discuss these points in detail. Ever wonder why grandma or Mom keeps asking you to attend the family picnic or reunion? What might they know that you don't know? Even though it feels annoying at times, when you do attend, why are you glad you did? Perhaps your Mom and Grandma know that family rituals, traditions, and holidays are the way to build a connection between generations, to create new memories, and to keep family traditions alive.
Nuclear and extended families have in the past, and should in the future celebrate together. Scientists have found that reunions and celebrations tend to promote cohesion and adaptability in family systems while offering mutual support between nuclear and extended family members. Rituals are very important to the family. These can be as simple as eating three meals a day together, holding weekly movie parties, buying fresh doughnuts on Saturday morning or reading to small children at bedtime. Rituals when practiced come to be expected. The ritual of taking Driver's education and obtaining a driver's license is a common experience. For many family members it marks a rite of passage or an event that signifies the transition of a person from one stage in life to another (e.g., non-driver to driver).
Religion and Spirituality
When a new driver emerges among the teen children, a new taxi driver emerges as well.
Siblings can transport family members around town and provide the entire family with much needed support. A first date, high school or college graduation, and even marriage are also rituals that serve as rites of passage. There are rituals that take place outside of the family institution which are also important. Religious rituals are found among the world's major religions. Religion is a unified system of beliefs, rituals, and practices that typically involve a broader community of believers who share common definitions of the sacred and the profane. Religions provide meaning to us about what is sacred and what is profane. Sacred is the supernatural, divine, awe inspiring, and spiritually significant aspects of our existence. Profane is that which is part of the regular everyday life experience. These definitions originated from Durkheim's studies of religion (see 1947 The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Glencoe Press reprint of 1912). For you religion might be a personal definition of how you feel about your place in the universe.
It may also reflect how you understand categories of people who share a common system of beliefs that differ from your own (Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.).
For sociologists religion is studied in two typical approaches first, a cultural approach that evaluates the religious aspects of the culture shared by followers of a certain religion, and second, the theoretical approach to religion including its symbols, functions, exchange-based interactions, and power issues. Religion has always been an important issue at both levels of society personal and larger social. Figure 2 shows a pie chart of the CIA's 2007 estimate of the world's composition of religious followers. By far, Muslims collectively comprise the largest single religious belief system in the world in 2007. Over the last century birthrates among Muslims have remained high. By sheer numbers alone, a high birthrate among an estimated 1,300,000,000 people makes birth become a significant factor in the Muslim world growth rate. A less common factor is that in many Muslim nations polygamy continues to be the norm with 1-4 wives being acceptable. Next is the Roman Catholic Church which has strong membership in Western Europe, Latin America, the United States and other Countries and regions. Hindus which are primarily located in India come in a close third. Jews which are daily discussed in the news because of international issues pertaining to Israel are ranked 12th most common in the world.
Figure 3 shows the CIA estimated US religions for 2007. The collective category of US Protestants is the largest collection of religious belief systems. These include Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and various non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christian denominations. Second in percentage is the Roman Catholic Church. In contrast to the Protestant classification which is comprised of many diverse denominations, the Roman Catholic Christian Church is comprised of only one denomination headquartered in Rome, Italy.
The Roman Catholic population in the US has grown for two primary reasons, first, Roman Catholics continue to have higher birthrates than others (yet about the same for Mormons and Catholics), and second, many of our US immigrants since the 1980s come from Mexico and bring their Catholicism with them to the US. Also from the CIA data is the fact that about 12 percent were unaffiliated, 4 percent reported none, and 3 percent chose not to specify their religion. After that Mormons were next with nearly 2 percent.
Mormons have a very high birthrate and a strong force of proselytizing missionaries throughout the US and the World.
In fact, religion does shape the attitudes and values of individuals. Gallup polling corporation collected US religiosity data during 2008. Religiosity is the measurable importance of religion to a person's life. Religiosity can be measured by considering how active someone feels in their religion, how often someone attends formal services, how much money they donate, how often they privately worship in their home, and other factors.
Gallup in January 28, 2009 reported that after interviewing 350,000 US individuals, there were some collective religiosity patterns which emerged. The top 10 most religious states were all in the South Eastern US. The bottom 10 least religious states were North Eastern (7), North Western (2), and Nevada in the West. They also reported that 65 percent of people in the US said “Yes religion is an important part of their daily life” (taken form Internet 26 March 2009 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/St...-Religion.aspx).
The history of religions in the world and the US cannot be overstated in terms of the influence that formal religions exert of family systems. There are numerous religious rituals that include circumcision, blessing a newborn, baptism, rites of passage into womanhood or manhood, ancestral ceremonies, religious holiday observances, marriage, a solo quest of self-discovery, new years, festivals and commemorations of religious founders and gods, public reading of scripture or other forms of worship, and many other practices. Statistically, the most celebrated world holiday is Christmas then Ramadan.
Christmas is the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth (About 2+ billion). Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and worship adhered to my Muslims worldwide (About 1.4 billion). Jews celebrate Pesach or the Feast of the Passover (About 100+ million). Hindus celebrate Hana Matsuri or the birth of Gautama the Buddha (About 700+ million).
There are many more religious holidays, but suffice it to say that religiously-based family rituals are often a source of strength to families which use them for tradition and family cohesion. Many families also have spiritual rituals independent of formal religion. There are family fasts, family prayers in behalf of others, family offerings made in hopes of receiving blessings, and family outings designed to get family members in touch with nature and the forces of peace and creation.
Family History
One tradition utilized by many families is that of oral histories. My family, when together for a reunion, will tell stories as a form of entertainment and bonding (Jeff Foxworthy started out in his family doing the same thing). I have many stories about my parents when they were children and about my own childhood and young adult experiences. What surprised me was how interested my own children were in them. As a young father, I was certain my children would roll their eyes if ever I shared one. One day, my wife asked me a question about growing up in Georgia. I shared a few humorous stories. She enjoyed them (one of the reasons I married her is that she thinks I'm funny as a comedian). I never dreamed my children would, but I have been a hit with my own children who repeat my stories to their friends at times. I want to share one story with you to illustrate this point.
Just before cancer took my grandfather, Frank, I found myself in his backyard helping him with his chores. He was showing me his hybrid corn that had 16 rows of kernels on extremely large cobs. We shucked the corn as the sun set behind us and the cool evening breeze blew in. Grandpa knew I loved to fish so he asked me if I'd ever heard about the world record catfish he caught when he was a young man. When I told him I hadn't heard about that one, he sent my Granny into the house to get the photo album while he began to tell me his story.
“When I was 17 I heard tell of the monster catfish that swam the bayous of Louisiana. My two buddies and me went down there to see if there was any truth to the tales. We drove for nearly a day, with three hours of it being on the dirt roads between swamps, with snakes and alligators in every ditch. When we got to the bait and tackle store it was the end of the road, we rented a flat bottom wooden boat with deep sea fishing rigs mounted to it. At about midnight, we started out into the bayou. The store owner had told us the way back into the deep waters of the swamp. We spent most of that night swattin' mosquito's and shewin' bats. Not one bite all night long. Just as dawn broke a thud vibrated through the entire boat that woke up my buddies. My pole bent over so far I thought it'd break for sure. We pulled up anchor and reeled in the other two lines. We'd caught a fish! That monster drug our boat all over the swamp, scratchin' us into thorn bushes and trying to break the line around tree stumps. Five hours passed before we got that catfish alongside the boat. I wore him out, but he made me pay for it. I still got scars in my hands from the blisters. I could never have done it alone. It was the three of us working together like a team that beat him. Well, anyway, he was too big to pull into the boat so we shot him in the head until he quit flippin' around so much. We took the anchor chain from the boat and run it through his gills, makkin' sure he didn't somehow fall off our boat and disappear into the swamp. We wanted to show everybody what we'd caught. At six that night we rowed back up to that bait and tackle shop and they'd been waitin' for us to see if they needed to go call the Sherriff for a rescue. They all pitched in and we finally got that catfish up on a tow line and hoisted him up on a deep sea fish scale. He was a new world record fish.”
Of course at this point I asked, “How much did it weigh, Grandpa?” He grinned and said,
“I ain't sure anymore with my memory bein' bad and all. But, he was so big that the picture they took of him came in at a weight of 32 pounds.” I do hope you enjoyed that tale. “'Twasn't true" my Grandpa would say after everyone stopped laughing. My Granny was in on this too. She would go into the house to pretend to get a picture of it to help with building the suspense. Two weeks after we shucked, boiled, and ate that corn on the cob, Grandpa passed. This story was my last experience with him and it seemed to be just what he and I needed to say our goodbyes to one another. As of this writing my Granny is still alive. She was 96 in 2010, legally blind and mostly deaf, but clear in her mind and thinking as anyone my age.
She has challenged me to outlive her someday and I'm planning on doing it. My Granny was a factory mill, working with her hands, laborer who toiled for decades in a mill that no longer exists. She was a World War I widow. One of my favorite stories she ever told was about how her grandfather hid a family of “Black folk” who were former slaves in his own wagon and drove a team of horse clear up into Tennessee where sympathetic people would help them escape the KKK. My Granny was the matriarch of the family and the glue that held three generations of family together during wars, divorces, premature deaths, and lost jobs, and many other challenges. She has lived long enough to experience what in her words is “the hardest thing life has to offer,” the death of all but one of her children. Her stories are the stories I tell.
Telling stories has become a lost art in some families. Professionals tell stories and there are even story telling festivals around the US if you'd like to go. But, for your family, you would be the best story teller because your children and grandchildren would feel connected to the characters since they were part of their own ancestral heritage. By the way, if you are one of the last survivors of the generation the story is told about, who will know if you embellished a bit for entertainment purposes? I get away with that all the time.
All of us have an ancestral heritage. Family history is the process of documenting and cataloging one's own ancestral heritage. Millions of family members worldwide have begun personal family histories to pass down to their children and grandchildren. It is easy to start. You simply write down your birth date and place and your parents' names, birthdates, and places. Then, right down your mother's parent's birthdates and death dates if they apply. Ask your parents to provide you with names, dates, and places of your grandparents. Got any photographs or newspaper clippings? It tells a better story and means a bit more if you can visualize your ancestors and what they looked like.
Years ago, I read that Spike Lee and Oprah Winfrey had a DNA test performed to discover their genealogical heritage at the biological level. I saved my money and went to the same Website and ordered a DNA test of my own (See http://www.ancestrybydna.com/). All it took was a cheek swap (no needles) that I mailed back into the company. Within six weeks I discovered the geographic origin of my particular ancestral line. Most of my genes came from the people who lived in the British Isles (British, Scottish, and Irish). About 20 percent came from the Middle East and about 12 percent came from South East Asia. I was very surprised to know about the Middle East and the Asia connection (this test is 95 percent accurate and can be submitted as legal evidence if needed).
I had heard from my parents that I was one-thirty-second Cherokee Indian which was a source of great pride for me. But, my results indicated that in fact there were no Native American genetic markers in my DNA. My son was 7 at the time of my test. He nearly cried when he discovered he was not even a part American Indian. The next day, he came back from school excited because when he told his teacher he was part Asian, she informed him that China was part of Asia. He loved China and knowing that he might be related to the Chinese helped him to feel cool again. Parents who share stories with their children help them to form their developing identities.
On the Internet, genealogy and family history searches account for the second most common Internet search topics today (retrieved 18 May 2010 from http://www.google.com/trends). Family history buffs can trace their ancestors back to the 1500s before records become sparse. After the 1500s, only European royalty have such records. There are a number of family history Websites to help you get started if you decided to do so (http://www.ancestry.com/ for one of the largest and most comprehensive sites). Many who study and write down their family history share it with their children and grandchildren, creating bonds of unity that span the generations. If you have absolutely no family records or photos, start a shoe box for your own family with newspaper clippings, photos, and dates and places. Who knows, someday this might bond your own descendants to you?
Quality Family Time
Another key strategy is spending quality time together as a family. Work, school, friends, recreation, and entertainment exact a tremendous toll on family cohesion and adaptability because it distracts them from taking time to simply be together. Family members need time together, not just doing electronic stuff, but being bored, doing chores, cleaning, or even cooking together. When we get bored we get talkative and start opening up to one another. We then get an idea of what's going on in each other's life and become aware of the details that make us who we are. We know each other's hopes and fears, concerns, and aspirations. Watching TV together is time spent together.
Sometimes, that works perfectly for certain family members. Other times, conversation and interaction is needed to reinforce loyalties and affirmations of one another.
As mentioned before, doing mundane household task is a practical way to create a socially interactive moment. During the 1980s and 90s, as more and more women entered college and the labor force, a great deal of literature focused on which was best, quality or quantity time in the family. In other words, was it better to have truly meaningful and briefer time or was it better to have average meaning and more time? The answer was simple, yes to both. Husbands and wives, partners, parents and children all need time together and in today's busy lifestyles in will not happen unless you are purposeful about it. It simply takes time to experience family relationships.
All of the rituals, traditions, holidays, and spiritual approaches mentioned above are valuable because of the intimate bond that persists between family members. Work diligently to nurture and reestablish that bond throughout your life. The concept of marital entropy was presented in an earlier chapter wherein couples have to work diligently against the forces of decay and chaos that wear down their marital bond. Here, I want to mention that family system entropy is the process of decay within a nuclear family system that is facilitated by the diverse roles and demands placed on family members as they travel their life courses together. Children are very close to their parents before their teen years. It is essential to connect with children and establish a strong bond before they hit age 13.
Around the time of puberty, rational thinking processes mature, self-consciousness increases, and the importance of peer-acceptance increases. All this happens while teens prefer their friends over their family, especially over their parents. That is not to say that teens hate their parents, typically the opposite is true, they need their parents, but crave peer-acceptance and interaction. After your children hit this point in their maturation, it is crucial to become friends with their friends, to know their friends' names, feed them (I know), and host them in your home. Accepting your teen's friends increases your bond to your teens.
Of course you wouldn't accept a destructive friend who might influence your child in self-destructive ways. Most teens are not like that anyway. Here's a suggestion that my wife and I did that may help you. Just before your children turn 12, take them on a special parent-child trip. It doesn't matter where, but it works great if it's a place they'd really like to visit. Get sitters for the other children and make this a special getaway, where your child gets a special time where they bond and make memories with their parents. In our family, it became a big deal with each child looking forward to their turn.
We went to Alaska to pan gold, San Diego to Sea World, Washington DC to the National Mall, San Jose to watch whales out in the bay, Seattle to see the city and drive to Mount St. Helens, and Jacksonville to attend sporting events and spend time on the beach. Yes, we have six children (5 boys and 1 girl). As a parent I truly enjoyed this quality time and it established patterns of being close to each child that pay great dividends now that the youngest three are all teenagers. Throughout the life course it requires efforts on every family member's part to renew and nurture the bond of connectedness.
Make sure and control your technology and don't let it control you. Remember that technology demands attention. While you use it, your attention is distracted from people.
Experts have even found that driving while talking on the cell phone impairs your judgment because you are distracted mentally from the details of driving. The same is true for being distracted by TV, video games, texting, GPS, Blue Tooth, MP3 & IPod, and the computer. It is safe to assume that all our electronic gadgets are a distraction to us and they have the potential to undermine our relationships if not managed. Some families declare a techno-free day where all the electronic gadgets are turned off for 24 hours and family together time is shared.
Resist Family Entropy
By far and with few exceptions, the marital bond is the core of a nuclear family system.
Married couples are decidedly better off than singles in a number of key quality of life areas. Table 1 shows the benefits to marrieds (same as in Chapter 9). Couples may not be aware of how much their quality of life is enhanced by being married. Awareness in this case hopefully will bring a strong commitment to resist marital entropy (couples have to work diligently against the forces of decay and chaos that wear down their marital bond). Family system functions much better when the married heads of the family have strength and unity in their marriage.
Table 1: Ten Benefits of Being Married in Contrast to Being Single
1. Better physical and emotional health
2. More wealth and income
3. Positive social status
4. More and safer sex
5. Life-long continuity of intimate relationships
6. Safer circumstances for children
7. Longer life expectancy
8. Lower odds of being crime victims
9. Enhanced legal and insurance rights and benefits (tax, medical, and inheritance)
10. Higher self-reported happiness
Figure 4 shows the metaphor of “the escalator” as it relates to marriage. I will discuss the remainder of the efforts that strengthen the family as I focus specifically on how to strengthen the marriage. The forces that work against marriage in our complicated daily lives are like an escalator that is always descending. As a couple we walk upward, united against these forces. At the top of the escalator is marital strength. At the bottom is marital chaos and decay. If we don't purposefully work to improve our marriage and to resist the downward and decaying forces that work against it being resilient, adaptable, strong, and pleasurable, then we may find ourselves sadly disappointed at our marriage's final destination. When couples decide to end a marriage, they could if so desired, chose to get back on the escalator and try to rescue their relationship (search Divorce Busters on Internet). But, it is the small daily supportive and preventative efforts that work better, long before things have fallen apart for the couple. A marriage is never truly lost if each spouse is sincerely making a go at staying together and improving things. The best literature on marital permanence and quality indicates that it must be intentional, concerted, and purposeful.
Look to the right side of Figure 4 and notice the stressors that come with being parents, employed, and related to extended family. Couples in their 40-50s face tremendous burdens from these areas. They have teens and young adults, expenses and startup cost for their children, and their own middle lives. The burdens are very heavy during this stage of parenting, even though things may lighten in a matter of months once children start leaving home and forming their own families. If couples were prudent with their finances and refused to spend the equity in their homes and cars, they could easily find themselves relatively free to do many things they'd like to do.
But many couples spend a bit more than they make and sometimes pin themselves down with debts that came with a more luxurious lifestyle than the couple could afford. We work hard for our money, but work has become more and more stressful. During recent recession-based efforts to reduce expenses, many companies fired or laid of employees and never replaced them. They simply shifted the fired person's duties to others who were still working. Thus, more work is expected with the same or less pay.
If a couple does not strategize diligently against it, the numerous demands on their time and energies can land them in a long-term fatigued state. Once exhausted, they find it very difficult to nurture their marriage, because they are running on an individual deficit.
Add to this the fact that in the middle years, health declines settle in on the husband and wife. These declines could be met in a united effort and adjusted to the same way, so that they strengthen rather than undermine the relationship.
Extended family may be a blessing or a curse. Or, most of the extended family may be a blessing while a relatively small portion of the family may be the curse. I know an elderly couple with a daughter in prison. They are in their 80s and are raising their grandchild, more like the grandchild's parents than her grandparents. I also know of a friend my age whose father is disabled and mother suffers dementia. He and his wife are moving closer to his parent's home to assume the role as caregivers, even though they still have children at home. Some of these extended family matters can be ignored or refused as far as an added burden. Others make the couple seriously consider their values and eventually lead to more responsibility for one or both spouses (typically the wife).
Electronic distractions can be avoided if that is the couple's desire. If family members are not careful these can interfere with resolving critical issues or renewing bonds. Some couples who have issues about their sexual relationship may use TV or other electronic distractions as a tool in the effort to avoid dealing with those issues. I remember when Johnny Carson did the Late Show, a psychologist studied how couples who stayed up late to watch him felt too tired for sex by the end of the show. The article claimed that Johnny was interfering with married couple's sex lives. Outside the bedroom, video games, online entertainment, movies, Texting, and other electronic distractions can keep us apart by demanding our undivided attention.
For husbands and wives, the concept of parallel lives may be a crucial factor to understand. You see, when newlyweds marry and go through college they set a goal to get a good job, have children and raise them, buy a house, and get a retirement going.
For many couples this takes place as planned. But for some, they get lost once the plans are in motion. He is the main breadwinner and is absorbed in his work. She works for pay as well and is the mother, focusing her energies in those two arenas of life. Yeah, they sleep in the same bed, but begin to live lives that are heading in the same direction, but are on different tracks-his work versus her work and home life. They travel parallel lives in the same direction and for the same long-term goals. If not careful, they begin to grow apart and feel like strangers-like they were driving on the West and East frontage roads that parallel the freeway. Strange as it may appear, some couple set out on a life long journey to reach a destination, yet fail to remain a team and sometimes deciding not to continue on together or even to the original destination.
Marriages and families can be neglected and we don't even realize it. Have you ever walked into your garage and found that years of careless storage and unfinished projects had piled up to create an unmanageable mess? I have. Our modern family lives are often like a cluttered garage. Sometimes when we get into the motion of daily life activities and goals we fail to realize that we as a family are overscheduled and are putting money, time, and effort into things that may not be worth it. Sometimes, it is wise to sit down and assess what all the family is doing and if it really is in sync with the goals and aspirations of individuals and the family as a whole. One of the criticisms of the generation of children born after 1984 is that they have to many diverse experience and opportunities (e.g., karate, soccer, Glee Club, Little League Coaching, etc.).
This has yielded an entire generation of young adults who are fairly talented at most things while being the master of few or no things. Some of our family member's activities are pursued with little thought to the family down-time needs and the marital renewal needs. Much of this clutter could be cancelled, allowing those valuable family resources to be allocated to a slower-paced yet more connected nuclear family. It is easier than one might think to reduce the complexity of our family schedules to a more reasonable level. Distractions that may or may not contribute to the long-term goals of individuals and the family as a whole can be eliminated, or reduced with thoughtful planning. I know of a family that bought a new truck, boat and trailer because sometimes the family ended up camping and boating together. Eventually the father and mother decided that with the maintenance, licensing, payments, and storage, that it was easier in the long-term to rent the boat for a day or two than to own it. They decluttered their yard and their lives and saved money.
Family life is prone to crises because we deeply care about our family and what hurts one family m ember may be felt by all family members. Each of us has faced crises and will again. A crisis can unite a family if they have the capacity to adapt and remain cohesive.
So many families struggle to do that because their lives are weighed down by superfluous activities. As mentioned in previous chapters, the family has to rally resources and garner support when a crisis happens. For some, the crisis will force them to simplify their family demands in order to make it. For others, the crisis may render the family system fragile and easily damaged by other life stressors.
Grudge holding can be very destructive to relationships. Truly forgiving another family member or friend relieves the victim who was wronged from the burden of being a victim. I heard a man talk about his younger brother who fell asleep at the wheel and the car rolling off the road and killing his father. It took nearly a decade for all the family to forgive and forget when truly this was a case of misjudgment and carelessness rather than a criminal act. The impact the grudge holding had on the brother is still haunting him to this day. Sometimes, even when mean intention was part of the offense, growth will only come after the grudge is let go. When a grudge is held, the perpetrator is still the perpetrator and the victim is in the victim role. Many survivors find freedom in releasing the offender from the role of being the offender by forgiving him or her and by choosing to move on with life.
Ultimately the family that sits down together and annually creates a goal that is written and posted for everyone to see on a regular basis has the direction needed to eliminate unnecessary burdens on the family. For example, the family that sets a goal to spend every other weekend in an activity that will allow them to spend time together, building bonds that endure, may decide to forgo the season tickets to a professional team in exchange for more quality down-time together. Conversely, the family who anticipates the departure of a high school senior to college may purchase the season tickets if it meets the family goal of experiencing the joy of supporting the team one last season together. Extraneous activities can be kept or dismissed. Careful planning can keep them from continuing without notice or consideration for their impact on the family system.
Third party distractions occur when unexpected intruders crash the family routines. It could be as simple as a telemarketer or survey taker calling during meal time. It can be a friend of one of the family members who regularly drops by to “hang out.” It can be family, coworkers, other associates who might do just as well at your house or somewhere else. It is acceptable to set boundaries for limiting interrupters so that they don't undermine the efforts at meeting family member's needs of the family. There are those who interrupt who feel entitled to do so and could care less of the impact their presence may have on the family. Again, it is acceptable to set clear boundaries, even if it takes a stronger effort to do so.
In the US and other societies, there are persons who feel that if they want something they have the right to get it regardless of the impact it may have on family members. At the extreme, abusers are this way. For most, the issue of entitlement is less sinister than abuse. A family member may want to make purchases he or she cannot afford and thereby strap the family with debt. A person may want to portray a status that is pretended more than real and may sacrifice family stability to do so. For example, the country club member who can't pay the bills because he or she is living on the salary of a doctor when they have only the income of a school teacher. Family members as individual consumers are nurtured in their entitlement by eager marketers who lure them into financially unsustainable circumstances. Entitlement values continuously land family members into trouble, because accountability eventually catches up in one form or another.
Now let's look at the positive efforts a couple can do to resist the decay of their marriage (Left side of Figure 4). Couples should date regularly. Plan dates together and sacrifice less important activities so that there is ample time to go out and enjoy each other as friends. Some suggest a weekly date while for others a bi-weekly or monthly date is more meaningful. I urge any of my students with children to at least get an overnighter date in once every 3-4 months. Getting away to be a couple can be extremely rejuvenating. Courtship does not have to end after the wedding. True when you were single you courted with the eventual goal to “catch someone” and settle down. Courting for marrieds is more of a “keeping someone” and enjoy life effort that makes the journey together more meaningful. A self-help book such as the 5 Love Languages (Gary Chapman) can be valuable tools in helping you know how best to speak the language of love as you try to most efficiently continue a courtship with your spouse.
Daily couple time is crucial. It is acceptable to go to bed even while others are awake in the house. Once there, pillow talk, next-day planning, and do-nothing time can be very supportive of the relationship. This is one effort you can use to protect and nurture your sex life. With all the forces of entropy and stress bearing down on the couple, it is easy to put sex and the renewal that accompanies it to the side. Many have documented the value of protecting that time and expression together, even as though it is sacred time.
Whatever distracts fatigues, annoys, or interferes with needed sexual expression should be evaluated and managed so that needs and wants can be met and bonds can be reestablished. Part of this is the ongoing romance of one another. Couples who are committed to sex and romance find ways to show and speak their love far away from the marriage bed and beyond the sexual interactions they enjoy.
One might do the tasks of the other during the week in order to express love and support.
Another might bring home a flower or treat. Still another might cancel plans to just spend time together when needed. Romance burns as bright and hot as we want it to burn. It can be kindled and renewed and for some couples can lead to healing from deep issues and wounds. Sexual intimacy is simultaneously healing and bonding spiritually, socially, emotionally, and physically. Family and work stressor can minimize or eliminate this marital benefit if left unchecked.
It may perhaps be the best advice one could ever give to newlyweds-learn how to forgive and forget This ties directly back to refusing to continue as a victim and move on with life). Every spouse has their mortal flaws. Every spouse will suffer to one degree or another because of the inconsideration and/or misbehavior of the other. Forgiveness makes it possible to work through these issues together, learn from them, and move on with renewed cohesion. Forgiveness is an act of grace wherein the offender is held harmless by the offended spouse in matters of the offense. Forgiveness is not pretending that an offense never occurred. Forgiveness works best after the offense is considered and resolved to the satisfaction of both spouses.
Tracking is not forgiveness. There are some who claim to forgive, yet keep a mental record of current and past offenses. Tracking the offenses of a spouse means that you document and remember the offensive behavior and others like it and regularly bring past “forgiven” issues back up as though they just occurred and were never dealt with.
Tracking can build an entire “case” against a spouse so that he or she feels overwhelmed and hopeless about working through the problem. To hold the grudge or refuse to let the memory of an offense fade is to interfere with recovery efforts in the marriage.
One who is offended may chose to remain a victim and by so doing create a long-term perpetrator out of the other spouse. Victims can assume some of the blame or none of it at all. In other words he can say, like one of my students said in a class, “My wife cheated on me with my brother. I had nothing to do with it.” When confronted by another student about some of the comments he made about women being untrustworthy, he also confessed that he and his wife and brother were using Heroine at the time and were addicts. “But, my wife left me and is now married to my brother.” He argued.
“You can't grow if you can't learn from your own mistakes,” added a single mother of three. She explained, “My ex-husband beat me down every day in one form or another. I finally got up the courage to leave him and the police had to keep him from killing me. After I was finally divorced and safe, I learned in therapy that I'm not responsible for his violence. But I had to acknowledge the fact that I chose him as my spouse and I chose to stay with him for a long time after his violence became known to me. Once I owned up to that much, I could change how and who I chose for an intimate relationship.”
“Wow!” I sat listening to her as she instructed him. I felt amazed for her wisdom at such an early age in life. She told him to quit being a victim, forgive, and move on. She is correct in saying that he has to decide what if anything he can do to avoid repeating such a scenario in the future.
As I've mentioned in other chapters, I am a huge fan of written goals, of taking good ideas and turning them into tangible expectations. “A goal unwritten is just a good idea.”
One of my very successful college buddies told me when I asked him how he came to make so many millions of dollars in his twenties. When he and his wife sat a goal they put it on the fridge and in the bathrooms and the entire family worked together to attain them.
Seeking consensus and finding common goals is a unity-building activity that yields direction to the family as a whole and to the individual family members. For example, a family may consult together and set a goal to save their money by cutting back on the extras. Once enough money is saved they would then take a high canopy rainforest tour in Costa Rica. To remind everyone of the goal and to inform them of the progress, they might put a sheet of paper on the fridge that keeps an ongoing record of their money saved and the remaining funds needed. Such a goal and effort would create a wonderful and uniting family outing even as the family escaped some of the stresses of everyday life.
Stress is very common in US families today. Stress has a deadly physiological influence on individuals and families. The economic standards we set for our lifestyles require tremendous sacrifice and effort to attain. Parents and spouses have to exert leadership in minimizing unnecessary stressors and in coping with unavoidable ones. Stress can render the flexibility and adaptability of a family into dysfunctional levels. Many families eliminate the nonessentials. Others ensure that the family gets renewal time at the individual and family systems levels. Like a goal, a family can discuss stress, family values, and stress management strategies. These too, can be written and displayed to remind family members about strategies.
Once stress levels are too high, conflict and tension levels go up. This often leads to hurt feelings and heartache. John Gottman (2004) wrote of accepting bids. To Gottman a bid is an effort and repair or reinforcing the spousal relationship that is extended in good will from one spouse to another. Accepting a spouse's bid is highly associated with strong marriages (See John Gottman http://www.gottman.com/ and “The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work,” Three Rivers Press, NY).
Judith Wallerstein also wrote about the ability strong married couple has to support and nurture one another and to manage the daily wear and tear on the marriage and family (“Thee Good Marriage” 1995, Warner Books, with Sandra Blakeslee). Rescuing one another is one of the duties and benefits that come with marriage. Today the husband may help her get through difficult times. In a few years she may reciprocate and support him. The key is to take the time, sacrifice the needed resources, and be your spouse's number one support, especially when the chips are down. This, when done consistently is part of the explanation about the 10 marital benefits mentioned above in Table 1.
Wallerstein (1995) also talked about using humor and having fun with and without your children. When a couple discovers one another, they establish a relationship filled with fun, romance, and togetherness. Once married and pursuing their goals, married life bears down so heavily at times that it becomes easy to forget those early attractions that made courting and marrying so much fun. Fun can be free or it can cost millions. Make sure and enjoy the bounty that is available to all of us in this country, our states, and the community in which we reside. When fun gets pushed out of our lives adapt your family to cope with the demands and eliminate the disposable demands.
There are persons who are alone, bored, and intrusive who would intrude into your marital time. Work at keeping them at bay and managing the intrusive influence they have. My wife and I once took a Thanksgiving Holiday 5 minutes down the road, where we stayed in a hotel with the children. We ate out, swam in the pool, stayed up to the late hours watching cartoons, and toured fun places in town. Our children remember this as one of their favorite holidays ever. We came home to 63 phone messages and over 100 emails from people who just wanted to touch base. Interestingly, some of them were angry because they didn't know where we were. Once we told them their anger subsided.
My wife and I also have pattern of escaping together. She and I attend professional conferences together. We escape to another county or state. We even get away if we really need to disagree and want to be uninterrupted.
When couples disagree they should remove distractions such as electronics and newspapers, isolate themselves so that they can finish a thought or a sentence and think more clearly. It may take concerted efforts, but persist even if it takes one or more consultations together to get the issue resolved. I will always remember my six little children standing with noses pressed against the sliding glass door while my wife and I sat in the car out in a rainstorm. We had tried to talk in our bedroom, but the interruptions were incessant form children and telephones. We talked for nearly an hour until we felt good about our strategy. The issue was one of the most important we ever discussed together. The children were so happy when we returned into the home. For parents with preschool and elementary aged children an early bedtime is advisable so that the couple can have a daily time to talk and relax together.
Why not seek help when you need it? Studies have shown that some people will never go see a dentist, doctor, or therapist. They are treatment-avoidant and refuse to seek these professional services. Couples often seek professional help after things have gotten to a critical point in the relationship. Although many couples can work out most of their issues together, it is advisable to learn to recognize early those issues that might be a deep threat to the stability of the relationship. If the issue is persistent and keeps coming up, if the issue deals with one or both spouse's commitment to the relationship, if the issue has to do with the core role of husband or wife or the core agreements on what each should be or do in those roles, and/or if the issue is very important to one spouse and feels that professional help may be needed then professional assistance should be considered. It is not a failure to seek professional medical, dental, therapeutic, accounting, mechanical, or other services. A student of mine was in a divorce and was ordered to go through pre-divorce mediation because of the children. He told me that during mediation with his ex they learned valuable communication skills and decided to postpone the divorce. He told me that the state should order mediation or counseling when things can be fixed not once the divorce starts. Of course states would not order such a thing, but spouses can voluntarily seek the help.
I have taught in higher education for over 20 years now. I can name 5 colleagues who worked until their retirement and once retired died within 3-18 months. It became a joke among us here at UVU that somebody needed to change that pattern-to retire and live another 30 years. We work so long to secure our later years with the necessities we desire. What a waist to die so soon after reaching that point. In marriages, similar things happen, but in a slightly different way. The young couple sets valiant long-term goals so that they can raise children, establish assets, and eventually retire together. But, many couples forget that marriage requires constant attention and upkeep. In the pursuit of these goals they grow apart, lose intimacy, and get lost in child-rearing. After the last child launches into their own adult roles, some couples find themselves waking up to a person they barely know or get along with.
I also know of 4 elderly couples who divorced after retirement. In each case, one of the spouses told me that they just grew apart over the years. To them it was as though they started a journey, progressed well together, and lost interests in one another along the way. The husband and wife relationship are the engine that drives the married family system forward. Nurturing, protecting, and enhancing the maintenance of the marriage benefits the couple and the family.
Finally, families can be the most fun, most meaningful, and most rewarding social groups we belong to in our lives. Many elderly rate their family relationships as being among the most satisfying aspects of their golden years. The family experience can be valued or endured, cherished or loathed, essential or distracting. Regardless of the circumstances we face in life, our efforts to build and enjoy the family as individuals, couples, and other family members will most likely be rewarding to us throughout our entire lives. If neglected, just the opposite could prove to be true. As a final thought, I wrote this book as a service to my UVU students at UVU and other students everywhere. It has decades of teaching experience and mountains of research built into each chapter. My goal is to inform, not modify values. I hope that if this text was too liberal for your taste or too conservative that it was still of use to you. I find joy in being a life-long student of families and how to make them work better. I hope you found a bit of that joy for yourself. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.17%3A_Family_Strengths_and_the_Future.txt |
Chapter 18: Rape and Sexual Assault
Rape is not the same as sex
Rape is violence, motivated by men with power, anger, selfish, and sadistic issues. Rape is dangerous and destructive and more likely to happen in the United States than in most other countries of the world. There are 195 countries in the world today. The US typically is among the worst in terms of rape (yes, that means that most of the world's countries are safer for women than the US). Consecutive studies performed by the United Nations Surveys on crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems confirm that South Africa is the most dangerous, crime-ridden nation on the planet in all crimes including rape (see http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a...e-Systems.html).
The FBI typically keeps statistics on violent crimes committed and reported to local police (unreported crimes cannot be counted in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports). It summarizes all the local and state crimes into reports made available on various government Websites. From these data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics provides specific rape rates per 100,000 for the years 1960 to 2006 (See Figure 1 below). Alaska is by far the most dangerous state as far as rape rates are concerned.
West Virginia is an example of one of the safest states. The United states in general (being in the worst 5 percent of all the world's countries) has seen a slight decline in rape rates since the early 1990s, but the danger and risks to the average woman is unacceptably too high. It is estimated that 1 in 6 US women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes and college-aged women are 4 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than other US women (see http://www.rainn.org/statistics ). The Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, an online Web page and the largest US's anti-sexual assault organization provides tremendous insight into rape. They also provide support for those impacted by rape (1-800-656-HOPE and an online hotline at http://www.rainn.org ).
Their definition of rape and sexual assault is so concise that the US Office on Violence against Women quotes them:
Sexual assault can be defined as any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient of the unwanted sexual activity. Falling under the definition of sexual assault is sexual activity such as forced sexual intercourse, sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. Some more specific examples of sexual assault include:
• Unwanted vaginal, anal, or oral penetration with any object
• Forcing an individual to perform or receive oral sex
• Forcing an individual to masturbate, or to masturbate someone else
• Forcing an individual to look at sexually explicit material pose for sexually explicit pictures
• Touching, fondling, kissing, and any other unwanted sexual contact with an individual's body
• Exposure and/or flashing of sexual body parts
In general, state law assumes that a person does not consent to sexual activity if he or she is forced, threatened, unconscious, drugged, a minor, developmentally disabled, chronically mentally ill, or believe they are undergoing a medical procedure.
Perpetrators of sexual assault can be strangers, friends, acquaintances, or family members. Often, perpetrators commit sexual assault by way of violence, threats, coercion, manipulation, pressure, or tricks. In extreme cases, sexual assault may involve the use of force which may include, but is not limited to:
• Physical violence
• Use or display of a weapon
• Immobilization of victim
More often, however, sexual assault involves psychological coercion and taking advantage of an individual who is incapacitated or under duress and, therefore, is incapable of making a decision on his or her own.
The Personal and Larger Social Levels of Rape's Impact on Society
In this discussion we will use C. Wright Mills' Sociological Imagination and study rape from both the personal and larger sociological levels. Because of the way I context it here, this section may sound much like an advice column with specific suggestions and strategies for you to consider. Trust me that, many research-based principles guided this discussion and you can place a high degree of confidence in this argument.
The Personal Level: Whose Fault Is It?
The fault lies squarely on the rapist and his personal choices. Rape, by the definition given above is not consensual. Many throughout the history of the world have defined rape as a form of sex. Look at this statement carefully: Rape ≠ Sex.
Rape has no consent. Sex has mutual Consent. Typically, force or threats are used to coerce compliance. I often have students ask me, “what if she agrees at night, then changes her mind in the morning and says she was raped?” My response is that in this case mutual consent occurred and a lie was told afterward. I then ask the student why he or she asked this hypothetical question (I assume they have a hard time believing the victim's claim). Often they've heard that “almost” all rape allegations are false. The truth is that about 1 in 10 rape allegations prove to be unfounded (see FBI report, 1996 at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf).
The significant question here is why aren't rapes reported more often? The Bureau of Justice Statistics does a survey of crime victimization in the US. In it, respondents are asked to report if they had been the victims of various crimes. If they were, then they are asked more detailed questions about the crime. With rape, they often find that most rape victims do not report them to the police. These results are reported for 2003 in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Percentages of Violent Crimes that Were Reported to the Police by Victims
Categories Percent Reported to Police, 2006 Percent Reported to Police, 2004 Percent Reported to Police, 2002
Robbery 56.9% 35.8% 71.2%
Aggravated assault 59.2% 64.2% 56.6%
Simple assault 44.3% 44.9% 42.7%
Rape/sexual assault 41.1% 35.8% 53.7%
So, what might you say if you hear from someone that they were raped? At the personal level, with your friends and families who might or ever have been raped, there is one crucial question you must ask, “How are you doing now?” Whatever it takes, avoid the common mistake of asking, “What were you doing when this happened?” For many of us, we feel that our own safety is threatened when we ourselves know the victim and we often ask “what happened?” in an attempt to protect ourselves in the future. The point is to ask how a rape survivor is doing now, because it keeps them in the now. Their answer to how they are doing might provide insight into how you might be of support of them.
The question of what happened puts them emotionally back in the time and place of the attack and reopens the wound again.
The Oil and Water Paradigm
I've taught a paradigm for years to my students which has helped them to distinguish the 2 core issues in the case of rape: first, we live in a dangerous world which requires women to be vigilant in defending and protecting themselves, and second, it is never the victim's fault. I call this the “Oil and Water Paradigm.” In Figures 2, 3, and 4 below, you see two exclusive and unmixable sides of the same issue. Here's the metaphor in a nutshell-no matter how hard you try, the fundamental structure of oil and water make them impossible to ever mix. Think of your bottle of Italian salad dressing. You shake it vigorously and have to quickly pour it on your salad before it separates again. Oil repels water. In this paradigm, I use oil and water as metaphors for understanding these ideas that should not be mixed (because they really don't mix).
In Figure 2, you see the self-defense component of the dangerous society we live in today. Women have to protect themselves from attacks. True, most men would never attack a woman. But, women can't discern which men are safe and which are not, simply because rapists are very predatory and deceptive. Don't get me wrong women are quite capable of living under these dangerous circumstances, but morally shouldn't have to. I heard a friend of mine say, “It's just sad that one-half of the population (women) has to live in fear of the other half (men), because some of the other half might attack them.” In the US, about 3 out of 4 rape victims knew their assailant before the attack.
Women spend time, money, resources, and emotional energy being vigilant against a potential attack. The burden of protection falls mostly on them and their close friends and family. My students carry their keys so they can use them as weapons, carry pepper mace, take Karate, travel only with friends at night, and some even have a safety plan for their apartment. But, you have to know, there is no single preventative measure that can universally prevent rape. I interviewed a former FBI profiler, Greg Cooper. When I interviewed him he indicated that the FBI puts all the blame for the rape on the perpetrator, not the victim.
“Often times rape victims blame themselves, trying to figure out what exactly they did to cause the attack. From a law enforcement point of view, victims have no responsibility.
There is nothing that the FBI can tell a woman to wear, to do, or to say that will decrease her likelihood of being attacked. The perpetrator bears all the blame and it's him that we focus on. (From documentary called “Oil and Water: The Truth About Rape” by Hammond available at Insight Media at http://www.insight-media.com/IMHome.asp).
Women know from their childhood that certain men can be dangerous and that they have to become diligent in protection themselves. In Figure 3 you see the clear and simple truth that rape is never a victim's fault (remember that sex has consent rape does not).
There is not one case, ever where a rape victim is at fault. I've heard many argue with me on that point. They say, “what if she dressed in sexy clothes, went into the bar looking for some action, invited him up to her place, agreed to go on the date…” This type of thinking seeks to shake the oil and water together by erasing that line that separates them (oil and water don't mix, no matter how hard you shake the Italian dressing, it eventually separates back into oil and water). If we ask them to explain the details, then carelessly say something like, “why'd you go on a date with him anyway?” then we've just blamed the victim.
Figure 4 shows both the ideas in the same diagram. It's like the woman standing on the sidewalk and a man drives up on the sidewalk and runs her over. And an eye witness rushes to her aid and says, “Why were you standing on that sidewalk when you knew a truck could run you over? Were you trying to get attacked?”
Think about what a rape victim has been through: bruises, cuts, gun & stab wounds, STDs, and pregnancies, internal injuries, chronic pain, persistent headaches, facial pain, sleep disorders, depression, PTSD, attachment problems, trust challenges, and flashbacks, anxiety, panic attacks, difficulty turning to closest support system (family, Friends, others). On www.rainn.org one rape survivor compared her attack to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. She explained that just like we often refer to the pre 9- 11 era of this country, she refers to the pre-rape era of her life. “The party was over, my life utterly and permanently altered. In an instant I fell from grace, moving through feelings of invincibility to vulnerability.”
Not only do rapists hurt their victims, they often blame them verbally before they leave.
This makes recovery even more difficult since most rape victims already blame themselves (see Ullman et al 2007 about the construct of self-blame and a model for assisting survivors in their recovery at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=12&sid=fc79a530-e9be-4ea8-b7fe-2d8685c8e3fc%40sessionmgr2 and in Murnen, et al. 1989 a study of college student established that most victims blamed themselves at http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?v...0sessionmgr108 ).
Yes, it is true that most victims erase the line and blame themselves. “I should have…” is the most common lamentation. Hind sight gets confounded by grief and recovery.
Yet, the last thing a rape victim needs is for you or anyone else in their support network to add to that grief by adding your intentional or unintentional blame. Keep oil and water apart. Defense attorneys often blame victims in the courtroom, media reports often imply or convey to blame to victims, and since rape victim's family and friends grieve too, they often blame self and the victims. You wouldn't slap a mugging victim for walking down the street alone. They've already been through enough. But, sometimes we believe that only good things happen to good people (Google “Just World Syndrome” for more insight to this myth). Violence happens to both morally good and bad people. It always has.
Helping Survivors To Avoid Blaming Themselves
Consider the comments made by two rape victims I personally interviewed (their names have been changed to protect their privacy). Nella had been raped in Colorado five years prior to our interview. The rapist trapped her and assaulted her over the course of three hours. Nella escaped and ran to get help from a friend. They called the police. The police put out an APB on the assailant's car and arrested him within the hour while he casually shopped for groceries in the local supermarket.
Nella told me that during the trial her attacker and his attorney turned the entire attack back against her.
“I sat stunned on the witness stand,” Nella explained. “Trying to figure out why I had to defend myself when I was the one who was so brutally attacked.” “I feel peace right now, but I live in constant fear that when he gets out, he'll somehow find me. Any way, he threatened my life while he attacked me, saying if I went to police he'd find me and kill me.” Nella explained through tear filled eyes. “I went to police anyway.”
Nella, like many other rape victims was emotionally victimized again during the trial.
Nella's attacker was sent to prison and is already out on parole.
Jana's assailant was a coworker. He asked her out to dinner and attacked her in a secluded area near the restaurant. Afterwards, he showed no remorse, no guilt, not even an acknowledgment that he'd just done something terrible to her.
“He was such a nice man to me until we were alone.” Jana reported. “Then his countenance change. I saw evil in his eyes, but couldn't get away because he had planned the entire thing in advance.” Jana shook her head as she gently held the locket hanging on the chain around her neck. “This is a picture of my son.” She opened the locket. “He was the only good thing that came from the whole experience.”
Jana reported the rape to police. The rapist served time in jail and was under suspicion for other rapes in the area but nothing ever came of that. The rapist is out of prison now.
Jana moved and tries to move on with her life, much like the countless other survivors throughout the state and country are forced to do.
In summary, on the personal level you can be a great asset to a survivor of rape. You might find yourself someday on a jury where other jurors blame her for not protecting herself. Look at Figure 5 and explain to them why the perpetrator is at fault.
Larger Social Explanations
At the larger social level rape can be understood through scientific studies, analysis of crime data, and interviews with rapists. We can understand trends about rapists and why they do what they do. We can also understand national social facts that can indicate how best to handle the problem from every level of social intervention. What are some of the possible explanations for high rape rates in the United States? A few trends emerge from my studies:
• An increase in rape prevention programs and rape crisis centers so that unlike in the past where a rape victim had a very difficult time in reporting rape, we now have a structure in place where victims can go for assistance. This may indicate that rape happened more in the past, but was reported less because of the absence of a legitimate place to go report it and get help.
• An increase in substance use among perpetrators and victims which is highly correlated with decreased inhibitions by men who might not otherwise act violently toward women.
• 1960s, 1970's, and 1980's shift from abstinence to sexual promiscuity where men are more likely to feel entitled to whatever sexual desire they have. This may have also coincided with male value shifts in expectations of self, women, and sexual predation (see Figure 6 below).
Figure 6. Value Shift Among Males (Especially Among Rapists) Over the Last 35 Years Many men in our day have abdicated the protector, nurturer, and community-minded roles common among men in the past. Rapists have specifically become scam artists where the confidence scam of establishing trust among women then violating that trust has become all too common. Many rapists report feeling victimized when they are arrested and held accountable (over 6 out of 10 US rapist are not held accountable in terms of prison or guilty verdicts). Let me restate this crucial fact, rapists are the core of the problem (See Figure 7).
Changed Values Among Men
As mentioned before, I interviewed Greg M. Cooper, a former FBI profiler. To the FBI, rape is not about sex. It is about power, domination, anger, and the ability to control and destroy another person's life. A rapist expresses his need power, domination, and anger in a sexual way. I must say this confuses many students. They ask, “How can rape not be sexual if the vagina and penis and other sexual parts of the body are involved?” My answer follows the statement made by a Nun who was teaching a group of survivors. I can't remember her name, but her point makes clear sense.
“A man can use his hand with a number of different motivations. He could caress the hair of his loved one, massage a back, or simply hold another-motivated by love and concern. He could also strangle, beat, and otherwise inflict pain upon another. It's not that the hand is a body part exclusively designed for nurturance or violence-it's the motivation behind how the hand is used that makes the hand what it is.”
The same can be said about our body's sexual parts. In a mutually consenting relationship between people of legal age of consent, sexual parts of the body can be used out of a motivation of intimacy. For rapists the sexual parts are used out of power, domination, anger, and control.
Greg Cooper utilized a model with 4 types rapists based on their risk of harm to the victim and their level of confidence in their violence. A power-reassurance rapist is the most common type of rapist, he uses little to no violence, has a very weak sense of self and of lacking “manliness,” and rape is his outlet of power, domination, anger, and control (see Figure 8). This rapist is inadequate in general and rapes in a futile attempt to feel adequate. The power-assertive rapist has a very low self-concept, he attempts to reassure himself on his manhood, and uses very little force or violence. His deep-seated shame drives him to offend often and not feel long-term satisfaction from the assaults.
The next two types of rapists are more dangerous. They tend to have a better self-image and will use violence. The Anger-Retaliatory Rapist has plenty of self-confidence (perhaps to the point of too much), he tends to demean, degrade, humiliate, and punish his victim for things she did not do (for example his bad day at work might be taken out on her), and he tends to be brutal, blitzing his victims so that they offer little resistance.
This rapist is making the victim pay for things gone badly in his own life.
The Anger-Excitation Rapist is the least common type, yet the most evil: he will torture, kidnap, and even kill his victim out of pleasure-seeking at the cost of another's pain, he is sadistic and predatory, and he uses his intelligence to plot and prey upon unsuspecting victims. Greg Cooper also referred to him as “evil” and “the dark side of humanity.”
How can a man ascribe to such low values toward another individual? I borrow my answer from a Ugandan born man who lived in South Africa for a decade. David Ssjeinja said, in our interview about the enormously high rape rates in South Africa, that:
“Real men don't rape. Raping is really against the character of a good man and all that is necessary for good behavior in a civilized world.”
Perhaps this will be the legacy of the first decade of the new millennium, where social reform programs focus on efforts to transform values of men toward a more respectful view of women. Such an organization can be found today online, http://www.mencanstoprape.org/ . Men Can Stop Rape is an organization that allies male youths to women in preventing rape and other acts of violence toward women. One hopes that some of society's potential rapists get exposure to such a program, experience a shift in values toward respecting women, and ultimately lower the incidence of rape in Utah and The United States.
Useful Internet Resources About Rape and Rape Prevention
• www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nforciblerape04.html
• www.Rainn.org
• www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html
• www.search.utah.gov/retina/public/suggest.do?title=Prevalence%2C+Incidence%2C+and+Consequences+of+Violen...&id=&links=%5BRAPE%5D&reference=http
• %3A%2%2Fhealth.utah.gov%2Fvipp%2Fpdf%2Fviolenceagainstwomensurvey.pdf www.mencanstoprape.com
• www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/172837.htm
• www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Marriage_and_Family/Sociology_of_the_Family_(Hammond)/1.18%3A_Rape_and_Sexual_Assault.txt |
In most parts of the world, screen media workers—actors, directors, gaffers, and makeup artists—consider Hollywood to be glamorous and aspirational. If given the opportunity to work on a major studio lot, many would make the move, believing the standards of professionalism are high and the history of accomplishment is renowned. Moreover, as a global leader, Hollywood offers the chance to rub shoulders with talented counterparts and network with an elite labor force that earns top-tier pay and benefits. Yet despite this reputation, veterans say the view from inside isn’t so rosy, that working conditions have been deteriorating since...
01: Precarious Creativity Global Media Local Labor
In most parts of the world, screen media workers—actors, directors, gaffers, and makeup artists—consider Hollywood to be glamorous and aspirational. If given the opportunity to work on a major studio lot, many would make the move, believing the standards of professionalism are high and the history of accomplishment is renowned. Moreover, as a global leader, Hollywood offers the chance to rub shoulders with talented counterparts and network with an elite labor force that earns top-tier pay and benefits. Yet despite this reputation, veterans say the view from inside isn’t so rosy, that working conditions have been deteriorating since the 1990s if not earlier. This grim outlook is supported by industry statistics that show the number of good jobs has been shrinking as studios outsource production to Atlanta, London, and Budapest, among others.
No longer is Hollywood the default setting for major film and television productions. California faces stiff competition from both domestic and international locations. New York, Georgia, and Louisiana have all emerged as major production centers, often jostling with Canada and the United Kingdom for the top spots on yearly production reports. In fact, the most recent study from FilmL.A. concludes (somewhat hastily): “While these jurisdictions may trade yearly rank positions for total project count, budget value and production spending, there are no jurisdictions immediately poised to dethrone them.”1 Yet studio bosses and producers have made it clear that they intend to keep scouring the globe for lower labor rates and less regulated environs. Right-to-work states are especially attractive, as are overseas locations where unions have little or no clout. In many places, governments offer tax breaks and subsidies as further inducements, sending a message to rivals that no single production center enjoys uncontestable pre-eminence.
Consequently, producers have grown ever more fleet footed, playing off one place against another in a never-ending quest to secure the most favorable conditions for their bottom lines. Today’s increasingly mobile and globally dispersed mode of production thrives (indeed, depends) on interregional competition, driving down pay rates, benefits, and job satisfaction for media workers around the world. Producers say corporate financial imperatives compel them to contain costs, especially labor costs. Consequently, workdays are growing longer, productivity pressures are more intense, and creative autonomy is diminishing. Overall, this has put severe financial, physical, and emotional strain on workers and their families and further threatens the many independent businesses that service the major studios.
At the 2013 Academy Awards, evidence of this trend gained wider currency when the Oscar-winning visual effects team from Life of Pi used part of its acceptance speech to express solidarity with demonstrators outside the Dolby Theater who were protesting Hollywood’s “race to the bottom.” Like most studio features, the film earned widespread critical acclaim and more than \$600 million at the global box office by relying heavily on visual effects. Yet the very artists who created those effects were outraged by the fact that their Oscar-winning company, Rhythm & Hues, had been driven into bankruptcy only days before the awards ceremony. The news sent ripples of outrage through the effects community, since it was seen as a telling indicator of the precarious conditions under which even the best companies and their employees currently operate.2 Fierce global competition for studio contracts forces shops into an aggressive bidding process that ultimately undermines the welfare of employees. Throughout the VFX sector as a whole, workers suffer from low pay, long hours, and uncertain job security. Much of this is attributable to the fact that digital effects artists lack union representation, but unionized workers are also feeling the crunch.
In 2007, the Writers Guild of America went on strike against the Hollywood studios to claim their share of the growing revenue stream from digital media, such as Blu-ray, Netflix, and Hulu. Although royalties and benefits were at the core of the dispute, writers also complained about growing pressure to produce ancillary content for websites and social media in addition to the work they put into film and television scripts. This unpaid “second shift” is part of a growing pattern of employers using worker concerns over job security to raise productivity.3 Sometimes producers specifically demand additional off-the-clock labor. Other times these expectations are conveyed more subtly as logical extensions of, for example, a TV showrunner’s marketing and promotional obligations. Successful shows now require supplemental multiplatform publicity, such as personal tweets, blogs, and behind-the-scenes footage exclusively produced for online distribution. WGA members also expressed frustration about the encroachment of corporate sponsors into sacred spaces like the writers’ room.4 These concerns fueled a bitter three-month showdown between the guild’s 12,000 members and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, representing the major studios. With support from other craft and talent unions, the WGA strike brought Hollywood to a standstill but in the end made only modest progress on key issues. Furthermore, in a cruel epilogue, writers now find studios using the (questionable) financial losses associated with the work stoppage as justification for offering less-thanfavorable compensation packages in the poststrike era.5
Hollywood has a tradition of labor activism that stretches back to the 1930s, with unions and guilds today representing a wide spectrum of artistic, craft, and industrial employees. Although the history of labor representation has been fraught with tensions and controversies, screen workers have at times been capable of mounting campaigns to resist managerial pressures and agitate for better conditions. By comparison, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida—all now seen as viable locations for motion picture production—are right-to-work states where local laws undermine the prospect of unionization, making the workforce more pliable. Moreover, outside the United States, in cities like Prague, where there are no creative or craft unions, day rates for talent and crew are a small fraction of what U.S. and U.K. crew members earn. In other locations, such as Vancouver and London, unions have offered significant concessions to attract Hollywood productions, cutting wages and revising work rules to satisfy U.S. producers. And in China, the world’s second-largest theatrical market and therefore a desirable partner for coproductions like Transformers 4, unions are an arm of the Communist Party, representing the interests of ruling elites rather than workers.
When Hollywood producers select a distant locale, they are often welcomed as a fresh source of skilled jobs in a glamorous industry, but the jobs they create tend to be temporary, and the workplace pressures are often more intense than in Southern California. Safety issues are perhaps indicative. On February 20, 2014, tragedy struck on a railroad bridge in rural Georgia where a film crew had set up a hospital bed in order to shoot a dream sequence for Midnight Rider, an independent, low-budget picture about the Allman Brothers rock band. Working outside the bounds of the regular production schedule and hoping to “steal” a memorable shot, the crew, which included Oscar-winning actor William Hurt, suddenly found itself in the path of a fast-moving freight train. As they frantically scattered, twenty-seven-year-old Sarah Jones, the second assistant camera operator and the youngest crew member, tenaciously adhered to the protocol of her craft by struggling to protect the equipment, a fatal misjudgment that cost her life. Her death sent shock waves through the industry. Web sites and social media lit up with expressions of outrage. T-shirts, umbrellas, and improvised signage on motion picture sets around the globe enunciated a sentiment widely shared in the world’s most glamorous industry: “We are all Sarah Jones.”
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, at least ten other on-set fatalities occurred in the United States during the decade leading up to Jones’s death. Although no reliable figures exist for accidents outside the States, workers were quick to recall fatalities during the filming of The Dark Knight Rises in the United Kingdom in 2008,6 The Expendables 2 in Bulgaria in 2011,7 and XXX in the Czech Republic in 2012.8 Said one camera operator, “You can probably ask any film production technician who’s been on the job ten years, and they can probably give you half a dozen incidences where they should have been killed or injured, and just by the grace of God they weren’t.”9 Another noted that most crew members, especially young and inexperienced ones, are afraid to speak up about safety concerns for fear of jeopardizing their chances at future jobs.
Mobile production outside the purview of strong union oversight isn’t the only factor inciting concern about the increasing personal risk. In 2006, Oscar-winning cinematographer Haskell Wexler produced Who Needs Sleep?, a searing documentary inspired by the death of an assistant camera operator in a car crash after falling asleep at the wheel on his way home from an eighteen-hour workday. For Wexler, then in his early eighties, the tragedy was representative of a growing trend toward excessively long work shifts, which are often scheduled back-to-back with little turnaround time. The film documents personal and family stress engendered by early calls, late nights, and long weeks. As part of a broader movement called “12on12off,” the documentary advocates industry-wide reform to rein in such abuses. Although supported by a wide spectrum of craft workers, talent, and even producers, many were unwilling to speak on camera for fear of being quietly blacklisted in a town where jobs are growing ever more scarce. Even union leaders were skittish about the campaign, many of them afraid to antagonize studio bosses and spur the ongoing migration of production jobs out of California. With so many individuals resigned to suffering in silence, it undermines the potential for collective action and institutional reform.
And yet what is perhaps most remarkable about these precarious labor conditions is that the pattern repeats itself in many parts of the world. In October 2008, the Federation of Western India Cine Employees, an alliance of twenty-two unions representing below-the-line workers ranging from dancers and extras to editors and carpenters, called a citywide strike in Mumbai, the entertainment capital of South Asia. More than 147,000 workers participated in the labor action, and topline talent, including Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan, walked out in sympathy, shutting down film and TV production on the eve of a busy holiday season.
At the time, the average filmworker was making \$9.75 a day, and the average television employee a little more than \$8 a day. Unions representing craft workers and service employees began agitating for higher wages around 2005, pointing to the burgeoning prosperity of Bollywood, which was then generating over \$3 billion a year in revenues and paying its marquee talent more than a million dollars for each film. In 2007, unions and producers signed a memorandum of understanding that would raise wages by as much as 15 percent. Eighteen months later, workers walked out after extended haggling about broken promises, claiming more than \$10 million in unpaid wages, with many workers saying they hadn’t seen a paycheck in months. In addition to wages, the strike raised concerns about long work hours that in some cases involved thirty-hour shifts. On-the-job safety and meal breaks were other points of contention.
Facing a massive labor action that drew public support from Bollywood’s biggest stars, producers quickly relented, agreeing to raise wages in line with the original memorandum, arbitrate claims for unpaid wages, and establish a twelve-hour cap on work shifts.10 Despite this quick victory, union leaders expressed deeper concerns about what they say are concerted attempts to undermine organized labor by hiring nonunion workers and relocating production outside of Mumbai, especially to overseas locations like Scotland and Australia. Closer to home, officials criticized a system of subcontracting that helps producers circumvent union agreements. Most notoriously, some subcontractors delayed paychecks for months or even refused to pay at all. Union leaders have complained that workers are more vulnerable than ever and that hard-earned gains from the past are being challenged at every turn.
The Bombay motion picture industry was until recently renowned as a familial system of employment that was at turns discreetly exploitative and touchingly paternalistic. Since the 1990s, the commercialization of television and the corporatization of the movie business have transformed a national media economy into a multimedia global juggernaut with skyrocketing revenues and blockbuster production budgets. Consequently, the relations of production have grown more formal and contractual. They have also been transformed by management logics that are remarkably reminiscent of those being practiced by the major Hollywood media conglomerates.
Of course very significant differences remain, and as we will see in the chapters that follow, similarities in labor trends around the world are marked by enduring and profound differences as well. Chapters about the radical alterity of the Nigerian videofilm industry and tumultuous conditions of creativity in the Arab world make this point only too well. Yet our essays converge around the issue of precarity, a term that points to a broader set of concerns about relations of production and the quality of social life worldwide. Andrew Ross drew these connections in Nice Work If You Can Get It, arguing that “no one, not even those in the traditional professions, can any longer expect a fixed pattern of employment in the course of their lifetime, and they are under more and more pressure to anticipate, and prepare for, a future in which they still will be able to compete in a changing marketplace.”11 Ross characterizes precariousness as a common condition for workers all over the world, from the low-end service sector in developing nations to white-collar elites in centers of capital. No longer can individual workers expect a single career; instead they must ready themselves for iterative change and persistent contingency as standard employment and its associated entitlements become artifacts of a bygone industrial era. Precarious livelihoods are indicative of a new world order of social and economic instability.
Although film and television workers are often characterized as highly trained industrial elites, they share similar concerns, which have been fueled by the growth of media conglomerates and the globalization of production. Beginning in the 1980s, deregulation and privatization rippled around the world, transforming national economies and profoundly affecting media industries. Pressed by commercial interests, most governments relinquished long-standing public service policies, opening the door to transnational investment and unleashing a torrent of technological innovation that spurred the development of new media delivery services through satellite, cable, Internet, and mobile communication channels.
Some effects have been positive, but others have proven quite troubling. Today, both private and public media systems around the world are driven by market imperatives that foster intense competition between transnational services and local providers. Media sovereignty, previously a foundational principle of national regulation, has been trumped by discourses of consumer sovereignty and market competition. With national borders eroding and services multiplying, media companies have responded by merging into vast multiplatform global conglomerates, including Hollywood’s Time Warner, Bollywood’s Reliance Media, Brazil’s Grupo Globo, and the pan-Arab Rotana Group.
Leading media companies today are larger and more complicated than ever before. They are also more closely attuned to financial imperatives than they are to the subtleties of creative endeavor or the nuances of audience taste. Media CEOs spend most of their time wooing investors and crafting quarterly reports rather than thinking about content or creativity. This in turn insulates corporate decision makers from creative practice, privileging content that is relentlessly market-tested at all stages of production, resulting in a creative process that begins and ends with competitive positioning. In the fields of narrative film and television, this has encouraged a fixation on marquee talent and presold brands that can be parlayed into blockbuster media franchises. In the minds of many executives, marketable content is king, which means they are willing to bid astronomical sums for the services of Shah Rukh Khan or the rights to Harry Potter.
Pressed by the rising costs of franchise rights and top talent, conglomerates seek to contain production expenses by trimming budgets in other areas, especially below-the-line labor. As suggested above, this logic is manifested in new power plays aimed at increasing productivity and diminishing the wages of craft and service workers. Moreover, producers and executives outsource jobs to independent contractors, resist input from union officials, and undermine the creative authority of skilled artisans. New technologies have furthermore allowed employers to knit together transnational production teams so that workers often find themselves collaborating or competing with lower-paid counterparts in such places as Hengdian and Hyderabad. This respatialization of media labor exerts persistent pressure on workers and labor organizations, offering employers novel forms of leverage.
Yet the shifting geographies of media production have also opened the door to opportunities for screen media workers. Government policymakers in many parts of the world initially expressed reservations about deregulation and globalization, but they ultimately welcomed the chance to collaborate with transnational media conglomerates, embracing a set of commercial practices that have increasingly become the norm. During the 1990s, policymakers began to position their countries as hotspots of the “creative economy,” reasoning that intellectual and cultural output had become distinguishing features of the world’s wealthiest societies. Sophisticated financial services and biotech research are emblematic of this global postindustrial hierarchy, but the most charismatic sector is popular culture, which many believe is the signature component of creative economies. An oft-repeated anecdote of the era pointed to a 1994 presidential advisory report in South Korea that compared the total revenues from Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park to the export earnings from 1.5 million Hyundai automobiles. This striking comparison instigated a greater allocation of government resources to the media sector, contributing to the renowned “Korean Wave” of pop cultural exports that subsequently swept across East Asia.12
The policy discourse on creative economies has fueled competition among such cities as London, Vancouver, Beijing, and Dubai, all aspiring to become media capitals renowned for their talented workforces. Many governments offer subsidized facilities, tax incentives, and labor concessions that are designed to nurture local capacity and lure producers away from other locales, especially Hollywood, where real estate and labor costs are substantially higher. Yet these cities now face competition as well, fueling a race to the bottom as conglomerates hopscotch the globe, playing each place against the others, in large part by exacting concessions from workers.
Arresting this race to the bottom will require greater awareness by all parties. Public policy research has explored ways to nurture a creative economy, but little has been written about the declining labor conditions within those economies. Much has been made of the challenges posed by media conglomeration, but little of it addresses the impact on creative employees and workplace practices. And while researchers have detailed the causes and effects of “runaway production,” little of this work is framed by a global perspective, nor does it examine possibilities for building transnational labor alliances or regulatory frameworks that will be essential if conditions are to improve.
Shortcomings in current research are largely caused by institutional constraints. Executives generally focus on market research and cost containment strategies that have the potential to improve their quarterly reports.13 Government leaders seek policy recommendations that will help them grow their economies.14 University administrators privilege media management studies to further embed their institutions within prevailing funding structures. And labor organizations support research that has immediate relevance to their existing members.15 No organization has the motivation to build a balanced and comprehensive portrayal of the trends, conditions, and concerns of screen media workers during an era of unprecedented challenges and opportunities.
As for scholarly research, media globalization has garnered significant attention, but there remains a relative paucity of research on labor issues.16 A notable exception is Global Hollywood, which provides a critical framework for understanding the play of power between major media conglomerates and their increasingly globalized workforce.17 Like many political economies of media, the authors argue that Hollywood uses both commercial and political strategies to ensure its cultural dominance around the world.18 Uniquely, however, the authors also analyze the changing conditions of creative labor in the film and television industries, contending that studio operations have become increasingly mobile, allowing producers to pursue cost advantages and government subsidies worldwide. Moreover, by threatening to move their operations to the most amenable location, studios exploit the advantages of a global labor market and exact concessions from Hollywood unions at home. In a groundbreaking argument, the authors show how the New International Division of Cultural Labor (NICL) is driving down wages and working conditions globally. Yet the analysis operates largely at the level of metatheory and talks little about conditions on the ground or the specific middle-range dynamics of this race to the bottom.19 Susan Christopherson offers a similarly expansive perspective on runaway production in the film and television industries, noting that government incentive programs and flexible modes of production have made it easier for transnational media firms to outsource labor.20
Among the forces driving these changes are local and national economic development policies that are informed by the work of scholars such as Richard Florida, who contends that globalization has unleashed a growing competition among cities to attract creative talent in order to enhance their service and information industries, which he considers the most prosperous sectors of the global economy.21 Likewise, John Howkins suggests that mature industrialized countries must invest in the “creative economy” if they are to cope with challenges posed by the flight of manufacturing overseas. Howkins contends that deindustrialization can best be addressed by enhancing the human capital that a country has to offer. This approach has been embraced by policymakers in many parts of the world as a justification for subsidies, infrastructural investments, and training programs in media, computer, and design industries, among others.22 Although these policies are often controversial,23 some scholars have nevertheless embraced them, realizing that failure to take action could doom the prospects of local media institutions and further strengthen Hollywood’s global grip. At the same time, though, they are attentive to the challenges and compromises that such policies entail.24
Interestingly both the political economy and economic development approaches tend to gloss over localized effects of globalization on the actual labor practices at cultural and creative work sites. By comparison, researchers in the sociology of work tradition offer empirically rich inquiries into the personal and professional lives of creative workers in advertising, fashion, design, music, new media, and the arts.25 Their work reveals recurrent concerns about a largely flexible, itinerant workforce. Hired on a contractual basis, these workers suffer intensifying productivity demands that intrude on their personal and family lives. They furthermore confront creative and compensatory risks that make them vulnerable to swings in demand and in turn make them willing to accept less than desirable assignments. This scholarship also examines gender, racial, and global inequalities. Such issues resonate with many of our own preoccupations with the quality of screen media labor, especially in an era when digital technologies are reshaping the contours of work and industry organization. Yet we worry that literature on the sociology of work tends to find latent creative potential anywhere, in anyone, and from anything. This diffuse conception of cultural work does not do justice to the specificities of screen media’s industrial mode of production and pays scant attention to the particular qualities of its highly specialized and detailed division of labor.
A more nuanced and richly textured approach can be found in the work of John Caldwell and his colleagues, who explore both the stylistic implications of screen media labor routines and the ways workers understand, represent, and theorize their labor.26 Inspired by ethnographic and discourse analysis, “production studies” use specific instances to analyze broader trends and relations of power, but they tend to stop short of linking their analysis to a global political economy, preferring instead to offer specific claims about the internal dynamics of media industries and workplaces. They also tend to be suspicious of totalizing frameworks, preferring to see power as multivalent and capillary rather than centrally anchored by the logic of capital. Again, this scholarship is path-breaking and highly innovative, but it rarely—with the exception of Mayer27—extends its frame of analysis to account for global dynamics.
The approaches outlined above are sometimes pitted against each other, but recent developments suggest the necessity of adopting an integrative approach to address the relentless and pervasive class warfare being waged against creative workers around the world. We are deeply concerned by the rapid transformation of screen media, noting the growing convergence of visual and narrative styles, the ascendancy of commercial values at all levels of practice, and the increasing interconnection of media institutions within a global regime of accumulation. We do not see these trends as indicative of a “once-and-for-all victory” by a capitalist cabal but rather as specific aspects of an ongoing war of position distinguished at once by adversity and opportunity for the labor movement. In fact, this tension—between adversity and opportunity, between gains and losses, between hope and despair—remains a structuring concern across the collection as a whole. In what follows, we invited contributors from around the world to offer insight into the changing nature of film, television, and digital media work in diverse locations: Hyderabad, Lagos, Prague, New Orleans, Miami, the Middle East, and of course, Hollywood. Case studies address the growing pressures on creative workers in these cities and regions as well as the opportunities made available by the increasingly global nature of media production. Debates also touch on issues of advocacy and negotiation—identifying what resources are (or are not) available to address some of the challenges that confront workers in the screen media industries. The collection therefore maps out what we see as a significant terrain of scholarly inquiry into the multiple and specific ways that local labor practices engage with and contest processes of media globalization. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/01%3A_Precarious_Creativity__Global_Media_Local_Labor/1.01%3A_Precarious_Creativity__Global_Media_Local_Labor.txt |
1 FilmL.A., Feature Film Report (Los Angeles: FilmL.A. Research, 2014), 13.
2 Michael Curtin and John Vanderhoef, “A Vanishing Piece of the Pi: The Globalization of Visual Effects Labor,” Television and New Media 16.3 (2015): 219–239.
3 Michael Curtin, Jennifer Holt, and Kevin Sanson, eds, Distribution Revolution: Conversations about the Digital Future of Film and Television (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014), 159–163.
4 Curtin, Holt, and Sanson, Distribution Revolution, 191–192.
5 Felicia D. Henderson, “It’s Our Own Fault: How Post-strike Hollywood Continues to Punish Writers for Striking,” Popular Communication 8.3 (2010): 232–239.
6 “The Curse of Batman: Special Effects Expert Killed while Shooting Stunt Scene on Set of Latest Film,” Mail Online, November 4, 2008, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082689/The-CurseBatman-Special-effects-expert-killed-shooting-stunt-scene-set-latest-film.html.
7 Nellie Andreeva, “UPDATE: Stuntmen in ‘Expendables 2’ Fatal Accident Identified,” Deadline, October 31, 2011, http://deadline.com/2011/10/stuntman-dies-during-the-filming-of-the-expendables2-188158/
8 “Stuntmen Harry O’Connor Dies during Aerial Stunts for TripleX,” Aint It Cool News, April 7, 2002, www.aintitcool.com/node/11928
9 David S. Cohen and Ted Johnson, “‘Midnight Rider’ and the Fatal Flaws of Hollywood Safety,” Variety, March 11, 2014, http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/midnight-rider-accident-leaves-theindustry-pondering-the-fatal-flaws-in-on-set-safety-1201129615/.
10 Madhur Singh, “The Bollywood Strike Hits Festival Season,” Time, October 2, 2008, http:// content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1846497,00.html; “1.5 Lakh Bollywood Workers Strike: Demand Regulated Working Hours,” October 1, 2008, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes. com/2008–10–01/news/27725277_1_film-shooting-western-india-cine-employees-indefinite-strike; Randeep Ramesh, “Strike by 100,000 Film Workers Brings Bollywood to a Standstill,” Guardian, October 2, 2008, www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/02/4; “Bollywood Workers Strike ‘Over,’” BBC, October 3, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7651586.stm.
11 Andrew Ross, Nice Work If You Can Get It: Life and Labor in Precarious Times (New York: New York University Press, 2009), 2. Also see a special issue of Theory, Culture and Society edited by Rosalind Gil and Andy Pratt, 2008.
12 Doobo Shim, “South Korean Media Industry in the 1990s and the Economic Crisis,” Prometheus 20.4 (2002): 337–350; Chi-Yun Shin and Julian Stringer, New Korean Cinema (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Beng-Huat Chua and Koichi Iwabuchi, East Asian Pop Culture: Analysing the Korean Wave (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2008).
13 Media companies generate a lot of internal research that they don’t make public for competitive reasons. They also contract proprietary studies from market research firms and management consultants and subscribe to independent market research services, such as Nielsen, NRG, Rentrak, as well as getting research input from talent agencies, MPA, and so on.
14 E&B Data, The Effects of Foreign Location Shooting on Canadian Film and Television Industry (Toronto: Department of Canadian Heritage, 2010); BaxStarr Consulting Group, Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Louisiana’s Entertainment Incentives (New Orleans: Louisiana Economic Development Office, 2011); Screen Australia, Playing for Keeps: Enhancing Sustainability in Australia’s Interactive Entertainment Industry (Sydney: Screen Australia, 2011); Film Policy Review Panel, A Future for British Film (London: Department of Culture, Media and Sport, 2012).
15 Labor unions and guilds do not disclose research they commission to protect its value during contract negotiations. The most prominent exceptions are studies on employment practices and diversity. For example, “2014 DGA Episodic Television Diversity Hiring Report,” September 17, 2014, www. dga.org/News/PressReleases/2014/140917-Episodic-Director-Diversity-Report.aspx; Darnell Hunt, Turning Missed Opportunities Into Realized Ones: 2014 Hollywood Writers Report (Los Angeles: WGA, 2014), www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/who_we_are/HWR14.pdf; SAG-AFTRA, “2007 and 2008 Casting Data Reports,” www.sagaftra.org/files/sag/documents/2007–2008_CastingDataReports.pdf.
16 David Morley and Kevin Robins, Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries (New York: Routledge, 1995); Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996); John Tomlinson, Globalization and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Michael Curtin, “Media Capitals: Toward the Study of Spatial Flows,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 6.2 (2003): 202–228; Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (New York: Routledge, 2004); Marwan Kraidy, Hybridity: The Cultural Logic of Globalization (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2005); Terhi Rantanen, The Media and Globalization (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005); Nederveen Pieterse, Globalization and Culture: Global Melange, 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009).
17 Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell, and Ting Wang, Global Hollywood 2 (London: British Film Institute, 2005).
18 Thomas H. Guback, The International Film Industry: Western Europe and America Since 1945 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969); Herbert I. Schiller, Mass Communication and American Empire, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1969).
19 Miller et al., Global Hollywood 2.
20 Susan Christopherson, “Behind the Scenes: How Transnational Firms Are Constructing a New International Division of Labor in Media Work,” Geoforum 37 (2006): 739–751.
21 Richard Florida, Cities and the Creative Class (New York: Routledge, 2005).
22 John Howkins, The Creative Economy (New York: Penguin, 2001).
23 Louis Story, “Michigan Town Woos Hollywood, but Ends Up with a Big Part,” New York Times, December 3, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/us/when-hollywood-comes-to-town.html.
24 Ben Goldsmith and Tom O’Regan, The Film Studio: Film Production in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005); Terry Flew and Stuart Cunningham, “Creative Industries after the First Decade of Debate,” Information Society 26.2 (2010); Ben Goldsmith, Susan Ward, and Tom O’Regan, Local Hollywood: Global Film Production and the Gold Coast (Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 2010); Doris Baltruschat, Global Media Ecologies: Networked Production in Film and Television (New York: Routledge, 2010); Terry Flew, The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy (London: Sage, 2012).
25 Angela McRobbie, British Fashion Design: Rag Trade or Image Industry? (New York: Routledge, 1998); Rosalind Gil, “Cool Creative and Egalitarian? Exploring Gender in Project-based New Media Work in Europe,” Information, Communication and Society 5.1 (2002): 70–89; Angela McRobbie, “From Holloway to Hollywood: Happiness at Work in the New Cultural Economy,” in Cultural Economy, edited by Paul du Gay and Michael Pryke (New York: Sage, 2002); Andy C. Pratt, “Hot Jobs in Cool Places: The Material Cultures of New Media Production Spaces: The Case of the South of Market, San Francisco,” Information, Communication, and Society 5.1 (2002): 27–50; Kate Oakley, “Include Us Out—Economic Development and Social Policy in the Creative Industries,” Cultural Trends 15 (2006): 255–273; Mark Banks, The Politics of Cultural Work (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007); 97–114; Mark Banks, Rosalind Gil, Stephanie Taylor, eds., Theorizing Cultural Work: Labour, Continuity, and Change in the Cultural and Creative Industries (London: Routledge, 2013).
26 John Caldwell, Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008); Vicki Mayer, Miranda J. Banks, and John Caldwell, Production Studies: Cultural Studies of Media Industries (New York: Routledge, 2009); David Hesmondhalgh and Sarah Baker, Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries (New York: Routledge, 2011).
27 Vicki Mayer, Below the Line: Producers and Production Studies in the New Television Economy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011).
28 Michael Curtin and Kevin Sanson, “The Division of Labor in Television,” in The Sage Handbook of Television Studies, edited by Manuel Alvarado, Milly Buonanno, Herman Gray, and Toby Miller (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2015), 133–143.
29 Antonio Negri, The Politics of Subversion: A Manifesto for the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Polity, 1989), 79. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/01%3A_Precarious_Creativity__Global_Media_Local_Labor/1.02%3A_Notes.txt |
The prevailing media credo, in domains that matter both a lot (popular, capitalist, and state discourse and action) and a little (communication, cultural, and media studies), is upheaval. The litany goes something like this: Corporate power is challenged. State authority is compromised. Avant-garde art and politics are centered. The young are masters, not victims. Technologies represent freedom, not domination. Revolutions are fomented by Twitter, not theory; by memes, not memos; by Facebook, not Foucault; by phone, not protest.
• 2.1: Introduction
The technophilic vision of old and middle-aged media being replaced by new media, as espoused by corporations, governments, and civil society. The role in this vision of Alvin Toffler's concept of the prosumer, or the simultaneous cultural consumer and producer, and the individualist fantasy.
• 2.2: Television and the Environment
Investigating popular claims related to the downfall of television and the green qualities of new media technologies.
• 2.3: Cogenitariat
Introduction to Toffler's concept of the "cogenitariat": well-educated workers who take part in casualized cultural work. The contrast between Toffler's original conception of the cogenitariat as less vulnerable to economic exploitation than the proletariat, and the employment instability and income insecurity faced by the actual modern cogenitariat.
• 2.4: Conclusion
Breaking free of the flawed cybertarian mythology and praise for the cognitariat.
• 2.5: Notes
02: Cybertarian FlexibilityWhen Prosumers Join the Cognitariat All That Is Scholarship Melts into Air
The prevailing media credo, in domains that matter both a lot (popular, capitalist, and state discourse and action) and a little (communication, cultural, and media studies), is upheaval. The litany goes something like this: Corporate power is challenged. State authority is compromised. Avant-garde art and politics are centered. The young are masters, not victims. Technologies represent freedom, not domination. Revolutions are fomented by Twitter, not theory; by memes, not memos; by Facebook, not Foucault; by phone, not protest.
Political participation is just a click away. Tweets are the new streets and online friends the new vanguard, as 140ism displaces Maoism. Cadres are created and destroyed via BlackBerry. Teens tease technocrats. Hackers undermine hierarchy. Leakers dowse the fire of spies and illuminate the shady world of diplomats.
The endless iterations offered by digital reproduction and the immediate exchanges promised by the Internet have turned the world on its head. We are advised that the media in particular are being transformed. Tradition is rent asunder. Newspapers are metaphorically tossed aside. What was once their fate in a literal sense (when we dispensed with print in poubelles) is now a figure of speech that refers to their financial decline. Journalists are recycled as public relations people, and readers become the new journalists. Cinema is irrelevant, TV is on the way out, gaming is the future, telephony is timeless, and the entire panoply of scholarship on the political economy of ownership and control is of archaeological interest at best.
This technophilic vision of old and middle-aged media being shunted aside by new media is espoused by a wide variety of actors. The corporate world is signed up: Netflix proudly proclaims that “Internet TV is replacing linear TV. Apps are replacing channels, remote controls are disappearing, and screens are proliferating.”1 IBM disparages “Massive Passives . . . in the living room . . . a ‘lean back’ mode in which consumers do little more than flip on the remote and scan programming.” By contrast, it valorizes and desires “Gadgetiers and Kool Kids” who “force radical change” because they demand “anywhere, anytime content.”2 I wish someone would pay me to come up with lines like those.
The state loves this new world too, despite the risks allegedly posed to its own essence. Let’s drop in on a Pentagon web site to see it share the joy: “Take the world’s most powerful sea, air and land force with you wherever you go with the new America’s Navy iPhone app. Read the latest articles. See the newest pics and videos. And learn more about the Navy—from its vessels and weapons to its global activities. You can do it all right on your iPhone—and then share what you like with friends via your favorite social media venues.”3
Civil society is also excited. The wonderfully named Progress & Freedom Foundation’s “Magna Carta for the Information Age” proposes that the political-economic gains made through democratic action since the thirteenth century have been eclipsed by technological ones: “The central event of the 20th century is the overthrow of matter. In technology, economics, and the politics of nations, wealth—in the form of physical resources—has been losing value and significance. The powers of mind are everywhere ascendant over the brute force of things.”4
The foundation has closed its doors, no doubt overtaken by pesky progress, but its discourse of liberty still rings loudly in our ears. Meanwhile, a prominent international environmental organization surveys me about its methods and appeal, asking whether I am prepared to sign petitions and embark on actions under its direction that might lead to my arrest. I prefer cozily comfortable middle-aged clicking to infantile attention-seeking incarceration, but either way, twinning the two is a telling sign of the times—as is doing so via corporate marketing techniques.
Even the bourgeois media take a certain pride in pronouncing their end of days. On the liberal left, the Guardian is prey to this beguiling magic: someone called “You” heads its 2013 list of the hundred most important folks in the media, with unknowns like Rupert Murdoch lagging far behind.5 Time magazine exemplified just such love of a seemingly immaterial world when it chose “You” as “Person of the Year” for 2006 because “You control the Information Age. Welcome to your world.”6 For its part, the New Statesman, a progressive British weekly, heralds the new epoch in a nationalistic way: “Our economic and political clout wanes,” but “when it comes to culture, we remain a superpower” because popular culture provides “critical tools through which Britain can market itself and its ideas to the world.”7
Many academics love this new age too, not least because it’s avowedly green: the Australian Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences informs the country’s Productivity Commission that we dwell in a “post-smokestack era”8 —a blessed world for workers, consumers, and residents, with residues of code rather than carbon.9
The illustrations gathered above—arbitrarily selected but emblematic of profound tendencies across theories, industries, and places—amount to a touching but maddening mythology: cybertarianism, the belief that new media technologies are obliterating geography, sovereignty, and hierarchy in an alchemy of truth and beauty. Cybertarianism promises libertarian ideals and forms of life made real and whole thanks to the innately individualistic and iconoclastic nature of the newer media.10
In this cybertarian world, corporate and governmental cultural gatekeepers and hegemons are allegedly undermined by innovative possibilities of creation and distribution. The comparatively cheap and easy access to making and circulating meaning afforded by Internet media and genres is thought to have eroded the one-way hold on culture that saw a small segment of the world as producers and the larger one as consumers, even as it makes for a cleaner economy that glides into an ever-greener postindustrialism. Cybertarians celebrate their belief that new technologies allow us all to become simultaneously cultural consumers and producers—no more factory conditions, no more factory emissions.11
Crucial to these fantasies is the idea of the prosumer. This concept was invented by Alvin Toffler, a lapsed leftist and Reaganite signatory to the Progress & Freedom Foundation’s “Magna Carta.” Toffler was one of a merry band of futurists who emerged in the 1970s. He coined the term prosumer in 1980 to describe the vanguard class of a technologized future. (Toffler had a nifty knack for knee-jerk neologisms, as we will see.)12
Rather than being entirely new, the prosumer partially represented a return to subsistence, to the period prior to the Industrial Revolution’s division of labor—a time when we ate what we grew, built our own shelters, and gave birth without medicine. The specialization of agriculture and manufacturing and the rise of cities put an end to such autarky: the emergence of capitalism distinguished production from consumption via markets. But Toffler discerned a paradoxical latter-day blend of the two seemingly opposed eras, symbolized by the French invention and marketing of home pregnancy tests in the 1970s. These kits relied on the formal knowledge, manufacture, and distribution that typified modern life but permitted customers to make their own diagnoses, cutting out the role of doctors as expert gatekeepers between applied science and the self.
Toffler called this “production for self-use.” He saw it at play elsewhere as well: in the vast array of civil society organizations that emerged at the time, the craze for “self-help,” the popularity of self-serve gas stations as franchises struggled to survive after the 1973–74 oil crisis, and the proliferation of automatic teller machines as banks sought to reduce their retail labor force.
The argument Toffler made thirty-five years ago—that we are simultaneously cultural consumers and producers, that is, prosumers—is an idea whose time has come, as his fellow reactionary Victor Hugo almost put it.13 Readers become authors. Listeners transform into speakers. Viewers emerge as stars. Fans are academics. Zine writers are screenwriters. Bloggers are copywriters. Children are columnists. Bus riders are journalists. Coca-Cola hires African Americans to drive through the inner city selling soda and playing hip-hop. AT&T pays San Francisco buskers to mention the company in their songs. Urban performance poets rhyme about Nissan cars for cash, simultaneously hawking, entertaining, and researching. Subway’s sandwich commercials are marketed as made by teenagers. Cultural studies majors turn into designers. Graduate students in New York and Los Angeles read scripts for producers, then pronounce on whether they tap into the zeitgeist. Internally divided—but happily so—each person is, as Foucault put it forty years ago, “a consumer on the one hand, but . . . also a producer.”14
Along the way, all that seemed scholarly has melted into the air. Bitcoin and Baudrillard, creativity and carnival, heteroglossia and heterotopia—they’re all present but simultaneously theorized and realized by screen-based activists rather than academics. Vapid victims of ideology are now credible creators of meaning, and active audiences are neither active nor audiences—their uses and gratifications come from sitting back and enjoying the career of their own content, not from viewing others’. They resist authority not via aberrant decoding of texts that have been generated by professionals, but by ignoring such things in favor of making and watching their own.
Whether scholars like to attach electrodes to peoples’ naughty bits to establish whether porn turns them on, or interview afternoon TV viewers to discern progressive political tendencies in their interpretation of courtroom shows, they’re yesterday’s people. It doesn’t matter if they purvey rats and stats and are consummate quantoids, or eschew that in favor of populist authenticity as acafans and credulous qualtoids. Their day has passed. “Media effects” describes what people do to the media, not the other way round.
People in all spheres of scholarship say “my children” enjoy this, that, or the other by way of media use. These choices are held up as predictions of the future. No one says the same about, for example, their children’s food preferences, as if abjuring vegetables at age seven will be a lifetime activity. But when it comes to the media, children are mini-Tofflers, forecasters of a world they are also bringing into being.
Like Toffler all those decades ago, cybertarian discourse buys into individualistic fantasies of reader, audience, consumer, and player autonomy—the neoliberal intellectual’s wet dream of music, movies, television, and everything else converging under the sign of empowered and creative fans. The New Right of communication and cultural studies invests with unparalleled gusto in Schumpeterian entrepreneurs, evolutionary economics, and creative industries. It’s never seen an “app” it didn’t like or a socialist idea it did. Faith in devolved media-making amounts to a secular religion, offering transcendence in the here and now via a “literature of the eighth day, the day after Genesis.”15 This is narcissography at work, with the critic’s persona a guarantor of assumed audience revelry and Dionysian joy. Welcome to “Readers’ Liberation Movement” media studies.16
So strong a utopian line about digital technologies and the Internet is appealing in its totality, its tonality, its claims, its cadres, its populism, its popularity, its happiness, and its hopefulness. But such utopianism has seen a comprehensive turn away from addressing unequal infrastructural and cultural exchange, toward an extended dalliance with new technology and its supposedly innate capacity to endow users with transcendence.17 In 2011, the cost of broadband in the Global South was 40.3 percent of the average individual gross national income (GNI). Across the Global North, by comparison, the price was less than 5 percent of GNI per capita.18 Within Latin America, for example, there are major disparities in pricing. One megabit a second in Mexico costs US\$9, or 1 percent of average monthly income; in Bolivia, it is US\$63, or 31 percent. Access is also structured unequally in terms of race, occupation, and region: indigenous people represent a third of rural workers in Latin America, and over half in some countries are essentially disconnected. The digital divide between indigenous people and the rest of the population in Mexico is 0.3, in Panama 0.7, and Venezuela 0.6.19 Rather than seeing new communications technologies as magical agents that can produce market equilibrium and hence individual and collective happiness, we should note their continued exclusivity.
It is also worth noting that there are anticybertarian skeptics aplenty in both public intellectual and cloistered worlds and the third sector. They offer ways of thinking that differ from the dominant ones. Consider Evgeny Morozov’s striking journalistic critiques, which have resonated powerfully in their refusal of technocentric claims for social change.20 On more scholarly tracks, many authors have done ethnographic and political-economic work on the labor conditions experienced by people in the prosumer world as well as policy explorations of digital capitalism and the state.21 Case studies of WikiLeaks, for instance, show the ambivalent and ambiguous sides to a phenomenon that has been uncritically welcomed by cybertarians, while we now know the extent of corporate surveillance enabled by their embrace of Facebook and friends.22 Beyond the Global North, thick descriptions of technocentric, cybertarian exploitation and mystification proliferate as the reality of successive liberatory “springs” supposedly unleashed by social media networks is exposed.23 And nongovernment organizations raise the flag against crass celebrations of new media technologies that damage workers and the environment.24 This array of work provides a sturdy counterdiscourse to the admittedly still dominant cybertarian position. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/02%3A_Cybertarian_FlexibilityWhen_Prosumers_Join_the_Cognitariat_All_That_Is_Scholarship_Melts_into_Air/2.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Drawing on that more skeptical outlook, let’s investigate in greater depth the claims made for these technologies with reference to television and the environment, before moving to discuss the world of work in greater depth. We’ll see that for now, at least, cybertarian rhetoric in these areas fails on its own terms.
Consider the bold assertions made above by Netflix and IBM. The evidence for television’s demise is as sparse and thin as the rhetoric about it is copious and thick. Historically, most new media have supplanted earlier ones as central organs of authority or pleasure: books versus speeches, films versus plays, singles versus sheet music. TV blended them. A warehouse of contemporary culture, it merged what had come before, and now it is merging with personal computers (which were modeled on it) to do the same.25 The New York Times presciently announced this tendency over thirty years ago with the headline “Television Marries Computer.”26
Television’s robust resilience is especially salient when it comes to current affairs: 94 percent of the U.S. population watches TV news, which has long been its principal resource for understanding both global events and council politics. During the 2004 U.S. presidential election, 78 percent of the population followed the campaign on television, up from 70 percent in 2000.27 Political operatives pay heed to this reality. Between the 2002 and 2006 midterm elections and across that 2004 campaign, TV expenditure on political advertising grew from \$995.5 million to \$1.7 billion—at a time of minimal inflation. That amounted to 80 percent of the growth in broadcasters’ revenue in 2003–2004. The 2002 election saw \$947 million spent on television advertising; 2004, \$1.55 billion; and 2006, \$1.72 billion. The correlative numbers for the Internet were \$5 million in 2002; \$29 million in 2004; and \$40 million in 2006. The vast majority of electronic electoral campaigning takes place on local TV—95 percent in 2007.28
We might examine the famous Barack Obama campaign of 2008 and its much-vaunted use of the Internet. Here’s the deal: Obama’s organization spent the vast bulk of its energy and money on television. The Internet was there to raise funds and communicate with supporters. The U.S. presidency cycles with the summer Olympics. Few candidates commit funds to commercials in prime time during this epic of capitalist excess, where the classic homologues of competition vie for screen time—athletic contests versus corporate hype. Obama, however, took a multimillion-dollar package across the stations then owned by General Electric: NBC (Anglo broadcast), CNBC (business-leech cable), MSNBC (news cable), USA (entertainment cable), Oxygen (women’s cable), and Telemundo (Spanish broadcast). TV was on the march, not in retreat: on election night 2008, CNN gained 109 percent more viewers than the equivalent evening four years earlier. The 2012 U.S. presidential election was again a televisual one. How many U.S. residents who watched the debates between Mitt Romney and Obama preferred the Internet to TV as their source? Three percent. How many watched on both TV and the Internet? Eleven percent. How many people shared their reactions online? Eight percent.29
In Europe as well as the United States, TV rules the roost by a long way when viewers seek news. Worldwide, owners of tablets like iPads are the keenest consumers of television news. These gadgets are adjuncts, partners, to the main source. If anything, they stimulate people to watch more television.30
The green qualities of new media technologies are as dubious as claims for their hegemony over TV. The Political Economy Research Institute’s 2013 “Misfortune 100: Top Corporate Air Polluters in the United States” placed half a dozen media owners in the first fifty.31 Cultural production relies on the exorbitant water use of computer technology, while making semiconductors requires hazardous chemicals, including carcinogens. At current levels, residential energy use of electronic equipment will rise to 30 percent of the overall global demand for power by 2022, and 45 percent by 2030, thanks to server farms and data centers and the increasing time people around the world spend watching and adding to screens.32 | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/02%3A_Cybertarian_FlexibilityWhen_Prosumers_Join_the_Cognitariat_All_That_Is_Scholarship_Melts_into_Air/2.02%3A_Television_and_the_Enviro.txt |
And labor? The Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association celebrates women and video games, ignoring women’s part in their manufacture and disposal. Britain’s report on harm to children from games neglects the children whose forced labor makes and deconstructs them. And a study prepared for capital and the state entitled Working in Australia’s Digital Games Industry does not refer to mining rare earth metals, making games, or handling electronic waste—all of which should fall under “working in Australia’s digital games industry.”33 Such research privileges the consciousness of play and the productivity of industry. Materiality is forgotten, as if it were not part of feelings, thoughts, experiences, careers—or money, oddly. By and large, the people who actually make media technologies are therefore excluded from the dominant discourses of high technology. It is as if telecommunications, cell phones, tablets, televisions, cameras, computers, and so on sprang magically from a green meritocracy of creativity.
Then there is the question of “you,” this dominant, imperialistic figure of prosumption. Audience members spy on fellow spectators in theaters to see how they respond to coming attractions. Opportunities to vote in the Eurovision Song Contest or a reality program disclose the profiles and practices of viewers, who can be monitored and wooed in the future. End-user licensing agreements ensure that online players of corporate games sign over their cultural moves and perspectives to the very companies they are paying to participate.34
More than that, Silicon Valley, Alley, Roundabout, and other hopeful variants speak mystically of “the Singularity.” If it comes—current messianic predictions estimate between 2030 and 2045—then “you” will be rendered very secondary indeed. For the Singularity is “the last machine.”35 It will allegedly permit us “in the fairly near future [to] create or become creatures of more than human intelligence . . . ushering in a posthuman epoch . . . beyond human ken . . . intrinsically unintelligible.”36 The “us” will no longer be the masters of our technological world, no longer all-powerful prosumers, but one more cog in a wheel that is not even capitalist or socialist—a fleshy cog of HAL, the totalitarian computer from 2001 (1968).37
Such proletarianization is already upon us. Back in 1980, Toffler acknowledged the crucial role of corporations in constructing prosumption—they were there from the first, cutting costs and relying on labor undertaken by customers to externalize costs through what he termed “willing seduction.” This was coeval with, and just as important as, the devolution of authority that would emerge from the new freedoms.38 And most of the exciting new activities I have mentioned involve getting customers to do unpaid work, even as they purchase goods and services.
Just as Toffler imagined prosumers emerging from technological changes to the nature and interaction of consumption and production, he anticipated that these transformations would forge new relationships between proletarians and more educated workers. At the same time as he coined the term prosumer, Toffler introduced the idea of the “cognitariat”: people undertaking casualized cultural work who have heady educational backgrounds yet live at the uncertain interstices of capital, qualifications, and government in a post-Fordist era of mass unemployment, chronic underemployment, zero-time contracts, limited-term work, interminable internships, and occupational insecurity. Drawing on his early childhood experiences with Marxism, Toffler welcomed this development as an end to alienation, reification, and exploitation, because the cognitariat held the means of production in its sinuous mind rather than its burly grasp. The former could not be owned and directed as per the latter’s industrial fate.39
Cognitarians are sometimes complicit with these circumstances, because their identities are shrouded in autotelic modes of being: work is pleasure and vice versa; labor becomes its own reward. Dreams of autonomous identity formation find them joining a gentried poor dedicated to the life of the mind that supposedly fulfills them and may one day deliver a labor market of plenty.40 But they also confront inevitable contradictions, “the glamour as well as the gloom of the working environment of the creative economy.”41
From jazz musicians to street artists, cultural workers have long labored without regular compensation and security. That models the expectations we are all supposed to have today, rather than our parents’ or grandparents’ assumptions about lifelong—or at least steady—employment. Cultural production shows that all workers can move from security to insecurity, certainty to uncertainty, salary to wage, firm to project, and profession to precarity—and with smiles on their faces.42 Contemporary business leeches love it because they crave flexibility in the people they employ, the technologies they use, the places where they do business, and the amounts they pay—and inflexibility of ownership and control.43
When I migrated to New York City in 1993, interviewers for broadcast stations’ news shows would come to my apartment as a team: a full complement of sound recordist, camera operator, lighting technician, and journalist. Now they are rolled into one person. More content must be produced from fewer resources, and more and more multiskilling and multitasking are required. In my example, the journalist has taken over the other tasks. The job of the editor is also being scooped up into the new concept of the “preditor,” who must perform the functions of producer and editor. And if journalists work for companies like NBC, they often write copy for several web sites and provide different edited versions of the original story for MSNBC, CNBC, CNBC Africa, CNBC Europe, and CNBC Asia.
This precariousness also sees new entrants to such labor markets undermining established workers’ wages and conditions. Consider the advertising agency Poptent, which undercuts big competitors in sales to major clients by exploiting prosumers’ labor in the name of “empowerment.” That empowerment takes the following form: Poptent pays the creators of homemade commercials \$7,500; it receives a management fee of \$40,000; and the buyer saves about \$300,000 on the usual price.44
Because this volume is concerned more with fictional than factual screen genres, it’s worth recalling that such examples also apply wherever labor is not organized in strong unions (the cable versus broadcast TV labor process is a notorious instance). For example, thousands of small firms with unorganized workforces are dotted across the hinterland of California. They produce DVD film commentaries, music for electronic games, and reality TV shows 45 and are increasingly looking for opportunities in visual effects, animation, and video game development.46 They might also be making programs for YouTube’s hundred new channels, the fruit of Google’s hundred-million-dollar production (and two-hundred-million-dollar marketing) wager that five-minute online shows will kill off TV. Explosions were routinely filmed for these channels near my late lamented loft in downtown Los Angeles. The workers blowing things up were paid \$15 an hour.47
Clearly, cultural labor incarnates this latter-day loss of lifelong employment and relative income security among the Global North’s industrial proletarian and professional-managerial classes. A rarefied if exploitative mode of work—that of the artist and artisan in the field of culture—has become a shadow-setter for conditions of labor elsewhere in the economy. Even reactionary bodies like the U.S. National Governors Association recognize the reality: “Routine tasks that once characterized middle class work have either been eliminated by technological change or are now conducted by low-wage but highly skilled workers.”48
This new division of labor is becoming as global as the manufacturing one that preceded it. For alongside a casualization of middle-class jobs within the Global North, there is also a New International Division of Cultural Labor. By the 1980s, as culture became increasingly commodified and governmentalized and drew closer to the center of the world economy, it fell subject to the same pressures as secondary industries. Hence the success of Mindworks Global Media, a company outside New Delhi that provides Indian-based journalists and copy editors to newspapers whose reporters are supposedly in the United States and Europe. It promises 35–40 percent cost savings by contrast with workers at the outlets in question.49
2.04: Conclusion
Cybertarian mythology not only rests on a flawed, albeit touching, account of the person as a ratiocinative, atomistic individual who can exist outside politics and society. It equally assumes that the Internet—which in reality was born of warfare consultancies and “big science,” has spread through large institutions, and is rapidly moving toward comprehensive corporate control—can be claimed for the wild children of geekdom. In place of this sweet-natured technophilic dreaming, activists, citizens, and scholars alike need fewer smiley faces; they must be displaced by quizzical ones that will turn their and our heads in the direction of our real material conditions of existence.
Despite the technocentric projections of both Cold War futurists and contemporary web dreamers, the wider culture industries largely remain controlled by media and communications conglomerates, which frequently seek to impose artist-like conditions on their workforces. They gobble up smaller companies that invent products and services, “recycling audio-visual cultural material created by the grassroots genius, exploiting their intellectual property and generating a standardized business sector that excludes, and even distorts, its very source of business,” to quote the Hindu.50 In other words, the cognitariat—interns, volunteers, contestants, and so on—creates “cool stuff” whose primary beneficiaries are corporations.51
There is some very competent research into the lived conditions of folks setting up alternative forms of collaborative work inside the cognitariat that have the potential for a more exciting way forward than the tired cybertarian rhetoric that so unthinkingly repeats and repeats and repeats ideas that belong to Reaganite dreamers.52 When linked to the political-economic and ethnographic work outlined earlier, and the equally path-breaking research undertaken by nongovernment organizations, the future can be reinterpreted and remade by a realistic analytic frame that takes its inspiration from lived experience, in opposition to futuristic fantasy. Then the scholarship melting into air will have served its cybertarian time. Good riddance. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/02%3A_Cybertarian_FlexibilityWhen_Prosumers_Join_the_Cognitariat_All_That_Is_Scholarship_Melts_into_Air/2.03%3A_Cogenitariat.txt |
Thanks to the editors for their helpful comments.
1 Netflix, “Netflix’s View: Internate TV Is Replacing Linear TV,” July 15, 2015, http://ir.netflix.com/long-term-view.cfm.
2 IBM Institute for Business Value, “The End of Television as We Know It,” www-935.ibm.com/services/us/imc/pdf/ge510–6248-end-of-tv-full.pdf.
3 U.S. Navy homepage, www.navy.com.
4 Esther Dyson, George Gilder, George Keyworth, and Alvin Toffler, “Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Information Age,” version 1.2 (Progress and Freedom Foundation, 1994), www.pff.org/issues-pubs/futureinsights/fi1.2magnacarta.html.
5 “1. You,” Guardian, September 1, 2013, www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/01/you-them-mediaguardian-100–2013; “MediaGuardian 100,” Guardian, September 1, 2013, www.theguardian.com/media/series/mediaguardian-100–2013–1–100.
6 Lev Grossman, “Time’s Person of the Year: You,” Time, December 13, 2006, http://content.time.com/time/magazin...570810,00.html.
7 “Exporting the Doctor,” New Statesman, August 22–28, 2014, 7.
8 CHASS, “Innovation in a Post-Smokestack Industry Era: Productivity Commission’s Study on Science and Innovation,” 2006, www.chass.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SUB20060807TG.pdf.
9 An astonishing claim from a country that survives on per capita dirty-power exports that make it among the greatest polluters in history—but why spoil a good story? Simon Lauder, “Australians the ‘World’s Worst Polluters,’” World Today, September 11, 2009, www.abc.net.au/news/2009–09–11/australians-the-worlds-worst-polluters/1425986.
10 The first reference I have found to this is Toby Miller, “No More Cybertarians, Please—More Citizens, Thank You,” Television & New Media 1.2 (2000): 131–134. But then I would say that.
11 Mark Graham, “Warped Geographies of Development: The Internet and Theories of Economic Development,” Geography Compass 2.3 (2008): 771–789.
12 Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: William Morrow, 1980); George Ritzer and Nathan Jurgenson, “Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of the Digital ‘Prosumer,’” Journal of Consumer Culture 10.1 (2010): 13–36.
13 Hugo wrote, “On resiste à l’invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l’invasion des idées,” in Histoire d’un crime: Déposition d’un témoin (Paris: Nelson, 1907), 554, which is often rendered in English as the cliché I have just used. The next sentence is “La gloire des barbares est d’être conquis par l’humanité; la gloire des sauvages est d’être conquis par la civilization,” which translates as “The glory of barbarians is to be conquered by humanity; the glory of savages is to be conquered by civilization.” Thanks for sharing, Vic.
14 Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79, trans. Graham Burchell, ed. Michel Senellart (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 226.
15 James W. Carey, “Historical Pragmatism and the Internet,” New Media & Society 7.4 (2005): 443–455.
16 Meaghan Morris, “The Banality of Cultural Studies,” in Logics of Television: Essays in Cultural Criticism, ed. Patricia Mellencamp (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 14–43; Terry Eagleton, “The Revolt of the Reader,” New Literary History 13.3 (1982): 449–452.
17 Christine L. Ogan, Manaf Bashir, Lindita Camaj, Yunjuan Luo, Brian Gaddie, Rosemary Pennington, Sonia Rana, and Mohammed Salih, “Development Communication: The State of Research in an Era of ICTs and Globalization,” Gazette 71.8 (2009): 655–670.
18 International Telecommunication Union, Measuring the Information Society: Executive Summary (Geneva: International Telecommunication Union, 2012), 4.
19 Matías Bianchi, “Digital Age Inequality in Latin America,” Democracia Abierta, June 24, 2015, www.opendemocracy.net/democraciaabierta/mat%C3%ADas-bianchi/digital-age-inequality-in-latin-america.
20 Evgeny Morozov, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011); and To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism (New York: PublicAffairs, 2013).
21 Andrew Ross, Nice Work If You Can Get It: Life and Labor in Precarious Times (New York: New York University Press, 2009); Mark Banks, Rosalind Gill, and Stephanie Taylor, eds., Theorising Cultural Work: Labour, Continuity and Change in the Cultural and Creative Industries (London: Routledge, 2013); Marisol Sandoval, From Corporate to Social Media: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in Media and Communication Industries (London: Routledge, 2014); Christian Fuchs, Social Media: A Critical Introduction (Los Angeles: Sage, 2014); Geert Lovink and Miriam Rasch, eds., Unlike Us Reader: Social Media Monopolies and Their Alternatives (Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, 2013); Dan Schiller, Digital Depression: Information Technology and Economic Crisis (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2014).
22 Christian Christensen, ed., “WikiLeaks: From Popular Culture to Political Economy,” International Journal of Communication 8 (2014), http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/issue/view/10#more4; André Jansson and Miyase Christensen, eds., Media, Surveillance and Identity: Social Perspectives (New York: Peter Lang, 2014).
23 Néstor García Canclini, El mundo entero como lugar extraño (Buenos Aires: Gedisa, 2014); Walter Armbrust, “The Revolution against Neoliberalism,” Jadaliyya, February 2011, https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/23...-Neoliberalism; Rami Zurayk, Food, Farming and Freedom: Sowing the Arab Spring (Charlottesville, VA: Just World Books, 2011); Mukadder Çakir, ed. Yeni Medyaya Eleştirel Yaklaşimlar (İstanbul: Doğu Kitabevi, 2014).
24 Basel Action Network and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia (Seattle: Basel Action Network, 2002); Greenpeace, How Clean Is Your Cloud? (2012), https://www.greenpeace.org/internati...is-your-cloud/; Centro de Reflexión y Acción Laboral, New Technology Workers: Report on Working Conditions in the Mexican Electronics Industry (2006), http://sjsocial.org/fomento/proyecto...texto=cereal_m.
25 Tom Standage, “Your Television Is Ringing,” Economist, October 12, 2006, www.economist.com/node/7995312.
26 Howard Gardner, “When Television Marries Computer,” New York Times, March 27, 1983, www.nytimes.com/1983/03/27/books/when-television-marries-computer-by-howard-gardner.html.
27 Lydia Saad, “TV Is Americans’ Main Source of News,” Gallup, July 8, 2013, www.gallup.com/poll/163412/americans-main-source-news.aspx; “The State of the News Media 2005,” Journalism.org, http://stateofthemedia.org/2005/; “Trends 2005,” Pew Research Center, January 20, 2005, www.pewresearch.org/2005/01/20/trends-2005/.
28 Katrina vanden Heuvel, “America Needs Electoral Reform,” Nation, July 1, 2008, www.thenation.com/article/america-needs-electoral-reform; “Voters, MySpace, and YouTube,” Social Science Computer Review 26 (Fall 2008): 288–300, http://ssc.sagepub.com/content/26/3/288.full.pdf+html; “An Analysis of 2007 and 2008 Political, Issue and Advocacy Advertising (TNS),” Branson Agent, October 16, 2007, http://bransonagentnewsline.blogspot...political.html; www.adweek.com/?vnu_content_id=1003658398&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_ campaign=Feed%253A+Mediaweek-Tv-Radio-Stations-And-Outdoor+%2528Mediaweek+News+-+TV%252C+Radio+Stations+and+Outdoor%2529.
29 Ira Teinowitz, “Olympic Deal Sealed: Obama Makes \$5 Million Buy,” Advertising Age, July 23, 2008, http://adage.com/article/news/olympi...on-buy/129853/; Paul J. Gough, “In ’08, Big Headlines for Everybody,” Hollywood Reporter, December 31, 2008, www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/08-big-headlines-everybody-124988; “One-in-Ten ‘Dual-Screened’ the Presidential Debate,” Pew Research Center, October 11, 2012, /www.people-press.org/2012/10/11/one-inten-dual-screened-the-presidential-debate/.
30 John Eggerton, “Survey: TV Remains Top News Access Device,” Broadcasting and Cable, March 17, 2014, www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/survey-tv-remains-top-news-accessdevice/129847; Nic Newman and David A.L. Levy, Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2014 (Oxford: Reuters Institute, 2014), https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox...ort%202014.pdf; “BBC World News and BBC.com Release World’s Largest Global Study of News Consumption Habits across Multiple Devices,” BBC News, March 26, 2013, www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldnews/news-consumption.html.
31 Political Economy Research Institute, “Misfortune 100: Top Corporate Air Polluters in the United States” (2013), www.peri.umass.edu/toxicair_current/.
32 Jad Mouawad and Kate Galbraith, “Plugged in Age Feeds Hunger for Electricity,” New York Times, September 20, 2009, A1; International Energy Agency, Gadgets and Gigawatts: Policies for Energy Efficient Electronics—Executive Summary (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009), 5, 21; Climate Group, Smart2020: Enabling the Low Carbon Economy in the Information Age (London: Global Sustainability Initiative, 2008), 8–23; Simon Hancock, “Iceland New Home of Server Farms?” BBC News, October 10, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...ne/8297237.stm; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Greener and Smarter: ICTs, the Environment and Climate Change (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010), 19.
33 Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association, Chicks and Joysticks: An Exploration of Women and Gaming (London: Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association, 2004); Department for Children, Schools and Families and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Safer Children in a Digital World: The Report of the Byron Review (2008); Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, and Games Developers’ Association of Australia, Working in Australia’s Digital Games Industry: Consolidation Report (2011).
34 Richard Maxwell and Toby Miller, “‘Warm and Stuffy’: The Ecological Impact of Electronic Games,” in The Video Game Industry: Formation, Present State, and Future, ed. Peter Zackariasson and Timothy Wilson (London: Routledge, 2012), 179–197; Toby Miller, Cultural Citizenship: Cosmopolitanism, Consumerism, and Television in a Neoliberal Age (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2007).
35 Bryan Appleyard, “The New Luddites,” New Statesman, August 22–28, 2014, 35.
36 Vernor Vinge, “Signs of the Singularity,” IEEE Spectrum, June 1, 2008, http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/...he-singularity.
37 “The Singularity,” IEEE Spectrum, http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity.
38 Toffler, The Third Wave, 266, 269–270, 275.
39 Alvin Toffler, Previews and Premises (New York: William Morrow, 1983); and Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Bantam, 1990).
40 André Gorz, “Économie de la connaissance, exploitation des savoirs: Entretien réalizé par Yann Moulier Boutang and Carlo Vercellone,” Multitudes 15 (2004), http://multitudes.samizdat.net/Econo...a-connaissance; Ross, Nice Work If You Can Get It.
41 Laikwan Pang, “The Labor Factor in the Creative Economy: A Marxist Reading,” Social Text 99 (2009): 59.
42 Ross, Nice Work If You Can Get It.
43 Vincent Mosco, To the Cloud: Big Data in a Turbulent World (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2014), 155–174.
44 Dawn C. Chmielewski, “Poptent’s Amateurs Sell Cheap Commercials to Big Brands,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2012, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may...ptent-20120508; www.poptent.net/.
45 Miranda Banks and Ellen Seiter, “Spoilers at the Digital Utopia Party: The WGA and Students Now,” Flow 7.4 (2007), http://flowtv.org/2007/12/spoilers-a...-students-now/.
46 Michael Cieply, “For Film Graduates, an Altered Job Picture,” New York Times, July 4, 2011, C1.
47 Sam Thielman, “YouTube Commits \$200 Million in Marketing Support to Channels,” AdWeek, May 3, 2012, www.adweek.com/news/technology/youtube-commits-200-million-marketing-support-channels-140007.
48 Erin Sparks and Mary Jo Watts, Degrees for What Jobs? Raising Expectations for Universities and Colleges in a Global Economy (Washington: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2011), 6.
49 Nandini Lakshman, “Copyediting? Ship the Work Out to India,” Business Week, July 8, 2008, www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2008/gb2008078_678274.htm; Mindworks web site, www.mindworksglobal.com/.
50 Sharada Ramanathan, “The Creativity Mantra,” Hindu, October 29, 2006, www.hindu.com/mag/2006/10/29/stories/2006102900290700.htm.
51 Andrew Ross, “Nice Work If You Can Get It: The Mercurial Career of Creative Industries Policy,” Work Organisation, Labour & Globalisation 1.1 (2006–7): 1–19; Carmen Marcus, Future of Creative Industries: Implications for Research Policy (Brussels: European Commission Foresight Working Documents Series, 2005).
52 García Canclini, El mundo entero como lugar extraño. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/02%3A_Cybertarian_FlexibilityWhen_Prosumers_Join_the_Cognitariat_All_That_Is_Scholarship_Melts_into_Air/2.05%3A_Notes.txt |
In the heady air of an MIT Transmedia conference, the “aca-pro” audience voiced appreciation as the futurist digital media consultant bragged about how nonhierarchical innovation hot spots like the one he’d created in his boutique company were poised to make old, conservative approaches to film and television production obsolete. Like dinosaurs and “Detroit,” he argued, lazy, inefficient “old media” film/TV production professionals—who, like the auto industry, had lived long past their prime—could vanish and no tears would be shed. The unequivocal message: good riddance. Another panelist, an edgy new media branding consultant, sketched out some of his own...
• 3.1: Introduction
Underlying questions for the chapter: why TV labor matters in media studies, how we can study it given recent changes, and where and how to meaningfully locate TV production for research in the digital era.
• 3.2: Craft World, Brand World
Definitions of three warring labor regimes in media production: the craft, brand, and spec "worlds." Includes examples of each paradigm in action and analogies to processes of raw-material production.
• 3.3: Production Culture as Spec Work
Comparing and contrasting the cultural chatter, expressions, and habits/rituals of the craft world, brand world, and spec world.
• 3.4: Self-Defeating Labor Tactics
The problems that arise as a result of professionals, aspirants, and scholars of media production misperceiving the particular labor regimes in which they operate.
• 3.5: Spec Work, Prototypes, Pretesting, Pilots (Brand and Franchise Fodder)
The labor implications of the shift to IP-focused media, in which all film and TV material now functions as prototypes and pilots for a potential extended franchise.
• 3.6: Notes
03: Spec World Craft World Brand World
In the heady air of an MIT Transmedia conference, the “aca-pro” audience voiced appreciation as the futurist digital media consultant bragged about how nonhierarchical innovation hot spots like the one he’d created in his boutique company were poised to make old, conservative approaches to film and television production obsolete. Like dinosaurs and “Detroit,” he argued, lazy, inefficient “old media” film/TV production professionals—who, like the auto industry, had lived long past their prime—could vanish and no tears would be shed. The unequivocal message: good riddance. Another panelist, an edgy new media branding consultant, sketched out some of his own recent viral marketing and stealth stunts that had successfully created “buzz” while costing the client little money. One stealth stunt involved triggering the Los Angeles Police Department, law enforcement helicopters, and public first responders to hover around a fake emergency. News coverage of this fake “media event” indeed spilled onto the marketer’s covert goal: greater notoriety for a transmedia start-up in Hollywood. Again, the MIT audience knowingly giggled at the sophisticated ironies in tricking tax-supported public infrastructure to unknowingly provide the “free” heavy marketing muscle required to launch a bit of edgy new intellectual property (IP). No one, however, discussed the political-economic or ethical downsides that this stunt buzz-making involved. Who were these people, both the aca-pro panelists and conference attendees, I wondered? How were they paid, and by whom, and for what, exactly? Cultural geography might provide the answers. Most of the visionaries were from New York or Boston (not Detroit or Los Angeles), where creative workers apparently no longer need or want to be paid, or have benefits, like the dinosaur film/TV/auto workers out west, mired as they were in the outdated heavy-industry quagmires apparently entombing them.
And why was I at this conference, given that the celebrated viral marketing “innovations” and free labor being worshipfully gossiped about here would horrify the fieldwork informants that I had been talking to: professional cinematographers, editors, directors, and grips? Of course, like some of the panelists, I had been publishing on “convergence media,” “repurposing,” and programming though “content migration” for some time. But my understanding of these current new media practices now seemed—from the perspective of Cambridge—to have come from some distant planet rather than the clean, cost-free world being celebrated at MIT. Then it hit me. My conference trip to Cambridge involved time travel; I’d fallen back thirty years into art school, and these capitalist marketing executives had become the new avant-garde: conceptual artists, performance artists, street artists, and provocateurs. But unlike their 1960s and 70s predecessors from the art world, these new-media conceptual artists were now handsomely paid for their faux outsiderness, unruly marketing innovations, snark, and boundary-crossing provocations—while simultaneously being lauded for their bored and studied public disinterest in matters of wages, benefits, or job security. If transmedia and viral marketing and branding consultants were the new “conceptual artists” of the twenty-first century, then my research must be clinging to dying professional communities defined by something more archaic and suspect: “craft” (also known as the innovator’s “other”).
Based on this encounter, I’d like to begin with three simple and very basic questions, before taking on and unpacking the three terms in my chapter title. First, why does TV labor matter to media aesthetics or TV studies? Second, how can or should we study it, given widespread and disruptive recent changes? And finally, given those same disruptions, where does TV production actually exist anymore? That is, where and how do we meaningfully locate production for research in the digital era? These questions are particularly acute in the American media sectors within which I operate—where government regulation and funding have withered, where neoliberal economics dominates, where traditional producing arrangements have disintegrated, where online crowdsourcing (via Kickstarter or Indiegogo) has become a legitimate option even for the unapologetic high-level industry professionals who increasingly slum there.
The last of my three questions actually complicates the first two, so I’d like to start there. Two possible answers to the question of where production is located were offered by economic geographer Allen Scott, as well as political economist Toby Miller and his coauthors.1 Targeting Hollywood, both rebuffed the common clichés about production—that “it is a state of mind”—but did so in different ways. Scott’s research on material resource agglomeration undercut the ephemerality state-of-mind cliché. His account detailed why certain film/television nexus points survive as geographical centers despite the clear economic advantages that might be gained by moving somewhere else. Miller and his coauthors, by contrast, disrupt the lie that geographic inertia or exceptionalism anchors production in any way, arguing that the real subject for production research today can be found in what they term the New International Division of Cultural Labor (NICL), which can migrate or shape-shift in response to rapid economic change.
Whereas Scott examines the regional anchoring of production and Miller the global dispersion and splintering of production through runaway production, my research leads me to suggest a third alternative. That is, our current predicament may follow from our failure to recognize that a widely dispersed conceptualizing process may be as central to the core of television/media production today as the industrial and material production of series, formats, and network programming once was (features that once garnered the lion’s share of attention from critics and media scholars). I am suggesting here that hybrid forms of imaginative/economic speculation now systematically animate media production. Speculation—or “spec work,” as I will call it—has become a fundamental part of the complex economies of TV. Figuring out how to manage spec work from the deregulated creative labor “herd” helps provide rationality for TV industries as they seek to master (and eventually monetize) the unstable world of unruly fans, digital media, and remix and gift economies.
In saying this, I am not reverting to Scott’s and Miller’s target—media as “a state of mind” cliché—since the dispersed conceptualizing process I am targeting is as much a result and defining property of contemporary media labor as are the onscreen series that TV labor officially produces. TV is more than just the end product of TV production labor. I take television labor to be anticipatory as well—to include the endless prototyping, brainstorming, work shopping, ad hoc viral repackaging, and vocational spinning that precede and follow the shows for which TV companies officially take credit. Significantly, anticipatory spec work adds economic value to TV shows even if TV producers and executives ignore it. I am especially sensitive to Mayer and Stahl’s critiques of labor “erasures.”2 My books Televisuality and Production Culture were both premised on paying greater attention, even in aesthetic studies, to the cultural functions and institutional logics of physical production and creative workers—things that critical TV scholars had in many cases largely overlooked or dismissed.3 Over the past two decades, I’ve also found that an entirely different work activity infuses physical production, one based on recurrent cognitive speculation about imagined, experiential, onscreen worlds of one sort or another. To clarify: I am not talking about the construction of “imagined narrative worlds” driven by fans in “transmedia franchises” of the sort Henry Jenkins has postulated.4 I am, rather, talking about the commercial “labor” of habitual and calculated speculation now found in workaday, frequently unremarkable television job sites.
Significantly, spec work can be found in both below-the-line and above-the-line production sectors. Which means that conjecture about imagined worlds increasingly functions as part of lowly, run-of-the-mill trade practice. Anticipatory labor is not owned or triggered exclusively by the “creatives,” executives, and producers, and can be found as well in the lowly technical crafts. In rejecting the exceptionalism we normally assign or reserve for the creative higher-ups in TV—the showrunner, producer, director, or executive—I am only arguing that we need to augment what we research; that we take seriously the rich terrain of cultural conjecture and anticipatory expression that now makes up the below-the-line worker’s skill set. Such things now function as an integral part of the bigger system we think of as “television.” Spec work is both workmanlike and ubiquitous, rather than unique in any way, and thus challenges media studies to rethink the parameters and boundaries we assume in production labor research.
Before drilling down deeper to examine spec work as a practice, I must clarify that the shift toward habitualized speculation as craft/creative work on the micro level, which I have just described, is linked to bigger changes in the macroscopic market predicament and thus transnational goals of many production companies, studios, and networks today. Specifically, success in media markets today depends less and less on the fabrication of a durable distributable entertainment object—which historically was the basis for television’s core project of owning shows and syndicating series. In the old system, we thought that a production was over when we “locked” picture and soundtrack, then timed (or color-corrected) and archived a stable program master, and sold copies and versions in markets for distribution to buyers. Now the notion that our program masters are never done, always prone to change, goes well beyond the traditional alterations—remixing, recutting, dubbing—required for international distribution. Producers now know, upfront, that it is even possible (via corporate contracts as yet unknown) to completely recreate interior scenes through the digital imposition of new product placements, online links, and integrated sponsorship within preexisting narratives, onscreen. And this directly affects creative decisions creators make on the set. Digital renders masters completely malleable, reworkable, remakable, endlessly. These changes are not completely novel but a matter of degree, since we have always trimmed scenes for breaks to intercut ads, converted NTSC to PAL standards, panned-and-scanned or letter-boxed, and altered program masters for foreign languages when needed. What was once secondary is now primary, however, with masters now malleable not just at the level of plot or episode but at the level of the pixel, with effects layers “inside” fictional narratives and dramatic scenes as well. The growing presumption of an endlessly malleable program master means that the entire process of television production can now be imagined as an anticipatory function of postproduction, with the potential for (and goal of) an endless lucrative life on the “back end” of a project. Proliferating digital technologies mean that most forms of production can be understood as functions of postproduction—where the cognitive work of preproduction speculation on the “front end” has ramped up to keep pace with the reiterative work of digital repurposing on the “back end.”
Issues of intellectual property stimulate these changes. Rather than make the durable syndicatable object the company’s primary goal, spec work enterprises now obsess over the creation of potentially endless, malleable, and self-replicating IP. For clarity’s sake, we can further distinguish (especially within the same corporations) between “big” self-replicating IP (the blockbuster or high-concept), and “small” self-replicating IP (reality TV and the unexceptional online consumer interactions that go with it). As we will discover, there is now a necessary economic relationship between “big IP” and “small IP” in the transnational multimedia conglomerates. That is, diversified corporations now need vast amounts of the cheaper, reality-based small IP to pay for their expensive big-IP blockbuster and prestige cinematic needs. We need to think beyond specific tactics of content migration or repurposing to consider this broader intraconglomerate dynamic that embeds them. That is, spreadable speculation now animates and monetizes production well before—and well after—the series or episode in question.5 This temporal spreading of pre- and post-speculation is precisely why spec work has aligned so well with transmedia production, industry–fan interactions, and viral marketing, which mirror it.
I am arguing that spec work provides the broad conditions that facilitate linkages and synergies between the malleable digital “material” and technologies of TV production, on the one hand, and current corporate management strategies aimed at developing malleable and self-replicating IP (which ideally suits corporate reformatting, franchising, branding, and transmedia), on the other hand. Before mapping out the fuller range and logic of spec work, it is worth considering something more provisional—that is, how spec work fits within the rapidly changing industrial and economic landscape. This mediascape can be usefully understood within a three-part model of craft world, brand world, and spec world. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/03%3A_Spec_World_Craft_World_Brand_World/3.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
The studio, the TV network, the director—such neat, clean, expedient categories for cinema and media studies research. Yet these categories are not innate, self-evident, unproblematic, or clearly bounded. The question of labor complicates the place and utility of each category in media production’s para-industrial root system or “rhizome.”6 Rapid changes in how creative work is done and marketed provide one key to mapping the “nodes” of the studio, network, and director within a networked para-industrial system. Productive recent attempts to generalize about “digital labor” or “creative labor in the digital era” tend to overlook the fact that we are almost always dealing with blended labor systems in contemporary film and television—even within the same institutions (studio, network, director). Presuming that digital technologies have cleanly eliminated old-media labor in the new media overgeneralizes and disregards how old-media labor somehow keeps adapting to new-media technologies even as new-media entrants disrupt the resulting blended media labor field. As such, media scholars are stuck with the difficult task of explaining how the same current screen form or genre might result from very different or contradictory work arrangements or organizational partnerships. This predicament—one result, many causes—muddies the water for anyone hoping to systematically research or isolate causal industrial factors behind a cultural form.
Head-scratching by others over my previous production studies suggests that I may be researching from a largely craft-labor orientation, while others have leapt ahead to focus on narrow new creative entrant perspectives as somehow more symptomatic of contemporary media and culture as a whole. Many in the transmedia industry seem less interested in the physical work or labor economics of professional screen workers than in the conceptual artistry of the newcomers from marketing-and-art, who are currently displacing the old-style craft labor. Of course, this innovation/craft split may seem commonsensical. Corporate sponsorship and academic politics—when married—make innovation bias apparently the only goal worth pursuing in media studies (and digital corporations). At the same time the stability-seeking continuity practices I continue to run into on a wide scale in film and TV industries have been simplistically linked—by both scholarly transmedia theorists and corporate start-ups—to the culturally outdated, the technically obsolete, and the industrially dead. Critical theorists and entrepreneurs (once considered strange bedfellows) both tend to view continuities as leaden, as intellectual and economic cul-de-sacs. This erasure of craft is shortsighted. Instead, I suggest that blended labor systems—enmeshed in different economic conditions—might be best understood according to the three-part model that scholars, media students, investors, and producers alike must now constantly negotiate: the “craft world,” the “brand world,” and the “spec world.”
1. Craft World. Production studies must address one question before theorizing broadly about contemporary film and television in the digital era. To what extent does physical production matter anymore? As the first of the three dominant labor modes in the blended labor systems we now face, the craft world still generates considerable value via “quality” physical production. Yet many executives and producers disregard this, since physical production can always take place somewhere else, for less money—in their minds.
The characteristics of the traditional craft world are familiar. Production usually takes place in urban centers with dense agglomerations of skilled workers, physical resources, and para-industrial feeder organizations. As Allen Scott and Michael Curtin both demonstrate, this geographic resource massing (of infrastructure, finance, and creative labor) creates resilient media industrial synergies and helps keep film/TV corporations from decentralizing, from casually moving away.7 Craft workers use unions and guilds to negotiate hourly or daily wage labor and work collectively to build content in concentrated physical spaces rather than distribute work and harvest it from outsiders elsewhere. This labor scheme, associated with larger-budgeted studio films and national networks, still aims to produce film/TV as a durable artifact that can be controlled and monetized through sequential distribution windows. Media corporations persist in partnering with craft labor, since this guarantees a high level of quality and predictability in production. The key to this first labor regime, the craft world, is scarcity. Unions and guilds manage and police scarcities in labor (through high barriers to entry) on the input boundaries, at the same time as studios market and police scarcity by controlling access to screen content (via exclusive exhibition rights) on the output boundaries (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Three Warring Paraindustrial Labor Regimes
Craft World Brand World Spec World
Physical Production Agglomerated, centralized Outsourced, regionalized Disaggregated, dispersed
Labor Protocol Wage labor Licensing Virtual pay
Aesthetic Goal Durable artifact Flexible reformatting Brainstorming
Production Process Building content, plantation farming Concept-iteration, sharecropping Concept strip-mining, gleaning, scavenging
Key Engineering scarcity Marketing scarcity Excessive disclosure
Instigators, Enforcers Guilds and unions IP lawyers Film schools, online tech corporations
Examples Studio feature films, quality network TV Reality TV, high-concept feature UGC, Kickstarter, Vimeo, YouTube
2. Brand World. A second labor regime threatens but coexists with the first: the “brand world.” This world—obsessed as it is with engineering corporate psychological signatures capable of animating long-term “interpersonal” synergies with fans—now dominates the warring blended labor systems economically. This may be because the brand world allows for considerable flexibility transnationally on both production’s front end (the craft-world sector that feeds “high-concept” blockbuster films) and production’s back end (the spec-world sector that monetizes user-generated content to promote reality TV). An ecumenical, counterintuitive logic drives the brand world. That is, as blockbuster budgets go higher and higher for fewer and fewer feature films, considerably more cheap screen content must be produced within the same corporate conglomerate to sustain it, buffer the risks, prop it up, and cover the conglomerate’s high-stakes feature bets. Brand-world economics, that is, require fairly wide-ranging complementary screen practices, from expensive high-concept features, transnational coproductions, and franchises on the big stage to cheaper, ubiquitous forms like reality TV, licensing, reformatting, merchandizing, and product placement, scattered across endless, unremarkable side stages. This is why contemporary screen content is best understood within the mixed conglomerate economics that I have detailed elsewhere.8
Like the craft world, the brand world cultivates and manages scarcity. Crafts associations cultivate scarcity by establishing high barriers to professional entry and by standardizing proprietary high technologies. By contrast, branding executives largely ignore traditional, restrictive labor arrangements in favor of harvesting the results of effective (and effusive) conceptual R&D. That is, rather than limiting the physical supply of expert labor and high-end technologies, the brand world initiates, stimulates, and then manages the scarcity of the conceptual supply of screen ideas, which can be policed and monetized through affiliation, contract, and litigation. If the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) locals and studios agree to coexist in the craft world as “signatories,” then transnational conglomerates and regional broadcasters agree to coexist in the brand world as “licensor-licensees” through the haggling of IP lawyers. The craft world presupposes a win-win for labor and management by constricting content pipelines and monetizing costlier production values. The brand world, by contrast, presupposes a financial win-win for IP rights holders and IP rights licensees—but simply disregards (sometimes cynically) where the production labor for the system of exhibition/broadcast comes from. The craft world is about durable screen content; the brand world is about creating a regionalized, quasi-indigenized variant of a common IP experience. The brand world looks agnostic and open to all possible creative labor solutions, and this is why it is so threatening to organized creative, professional, production labor. The brand world does not just stand as an alternative to craft or technical expertise. It actively works—by deregulating scarcity—to change the relatively rigid conditions upon which production workers once maintained their value.
One of the dark accomplishments of nineteenth-century American agriculture was that the South shifted from slavery as a dominant mode of capitalist production to its shadow world, a profitable, more “user-friendly-looking” labor arrangement and replacement to achieve the same ends: sharecropping. If film and television’s craft world can be likened to a plantation system, where trained labor is kept on the farm but offered some level of protection, then the brand world can be likened to sharecropping, where employees give away protections in exchange for a small share of an unpredictable revenue stream and a life of permanent insecurity. Most creative labor in the transnational brand world today—including labor involved in reformatting—can be understood as profitable forms of sharecropping, arrangements that give film and television today a great deal of fluidity, insecurity, and impermanence. This follows from the fact that IP can travel quickly and replant itself in any country that wishes to partner in a format or high concept, while specialized craft labor is seen as inertial and leaden—a threat to quick profits.
3. Spec World. The third labor regime in the blended system is the spec world. From an agrarian design precedent, it can be understood not as an industrial plantation (like the craft world), or sharecropping (like the brand world), but as an agricultural process mimicking an early and late fall ritual that unfolds after the primary crops have been harvested: gleaning and scavenging. Some online practices today feel exactly like scavenging: the creation of incongruent mash-ups, filked music, and fan-vids in particular. The question arises, however, how this world of fans and free user-generated content can be viewed economically as a labor regime. Various scholars have noted how online users add value to corporations by inadvertently feeding rich marketing and demographic info to the proprietary corporations that give them “free” access; however, I am not focusing here on that form of “free” consumer labor. Rather, spec world refers to vast new cultural arenas in which professional participants and production aspirants alike are expected to produce creative works “on spec.” Screenwriters have known a fairly benign form of this term for decades. On spec in television meant writing and submitting entire screenplays as “calling cards” intended to win over executives or producers—even though spec scripts were never expected to generate near-term revenues.9 The real goal of the television spec script? To show producers and executives that writers seeking work have the chops and skills to write professionally—but on some show, series, film, or project of the studio or network other than the one listed in the title of the spec script. In television trade logic, spec scripts ideally open doors and get potential partners to start brainstorming imagined narratives, series, or relationships.
A diverse range of industrial habits now constitute the spec world. Consider the following examples:
• A vast underclass of low-paid “readers” writes up “script coverage” on every one of hundreds of screenplays submitted to the studio each month. This now obligatory narrative preanalysis essentially culls, preselects, and cognitively projects an idealized imagined narrative for quick comprehension in the minds of producers, agents, and network executives. Essentially the studio’s ultimate onscreen narratives and scenes are preimagined and thus preproduced by underlings (this ad hoc process of calculated imaginative projection makes features into collectively imagined narrative aggregates).
• A personal assistant to an overbooked executive habitually employs a cultural caste system to prioritize which agents or producers get development meetings, thus acting as an unintended, low-paid narrative element gatekeeper for the select stories eventually told in series episodes. As Erin Hill has recently shown, no one sees clerical staff gatekeepers as preemptive, de facto story editors, but industrially they function that way.10
• A filmmaker asks the crew on a low- or no-budget feature production to bring their own gear in exchange for “points” from distribution income. The newcomer-director implicitly “pays” his more experienced AC/recordist/gaffer with greater license to fill gaps and stylize scenes. The film gets a “festival release,” no crewmember gets distribution income, but the director leverages this quasi-improvisational first feature as calling card to raise real money for a second film.
• The star showrunner of a blockbuster TV series rarely sets foot in his “writers’ room,” where a dozen staffers and uncredited writers’ assistants all contribute story elements. Yet press and fans alike hail the narrative as the showrunner’s expression.
• Using the new Red digital camera and file-based recording, a director vastly overshoots each scene for his primetime episode. Unable to view all of his dailies due to this high shooting ratio, the director depends on his/her editor to pull the best takes, but there aren’t enough hours in the postproduction week to even view all of the footage. This forces the editor to defer to lowly assistant editors, minimum-wage loggers, and undermotivated production assistants to informally preselect (and thus preimagine) the eventual narrative world, just to meet deadlines.
• An American studio enjoins a cross-cultural negotiator to break down the proposed narrative of a planned feature film in China. This matchmaker/bureaucrat puts considerable effort into speculating, pretelling, and projecting the imagined story world to: 1) convince Chinese censors to imagine the scenes as benign; 2) convince Chinese governmental overseers that even the scenes with American actors are in some way authentically Chinese, thus justifying the claim that this should be “counted” not as an “American” coproduction but as a privileged “domestic” Chinese film (giving it huge advantages in theaters under the Chinese quota system); and 3) convince Chinese venture capitalists that the narrative will fill theater seats across China.11 At the same time, other producers from the same studio make the opposite arguments elsewhere, speculating that the unmade narrative will resonate with American audiences as an American film. The result: contradictory spec work, out of both sides of a studio’s mouth.
These examples underscore how deep, systematic, and sometimes splintered acts of narrative imagination are to unglamorous industrial work. All of these practices make speculation or brainstorming central, core tasks in media. The final example—the fragmented “imaginative work” needed to get a Chinese–U.S. transnational feature going—even shows how delegated imaginative speculators can align neatly with uneasy capitalist bedfellows: “economic speculators.”
Unfortunately, as these examples suggest, “on spec” ceased being the exception—limited to screenwriters—awhile back, and now arguably orients the industry as a whole. Vast amounts of creative work in film and television (outside of screenwriting, that is) are produced and circulated as unpaid speculative demonstrations of artistic competence or as blueprints of imagined worlds. As I have documented elsewhere, spec work includes many self-financed “festival films” (which “pretest” the value of indie directors and concepts before studios have to risk their own capital); short films (“calling-card films”); excessive serial pitching protocols at work; ceremonial public pitchfests staged at television trade gatherings; film production competitions, company “brainstorming” sessions, conference panels, how-to sessions, and “how’d they do that” demos and web sites. Spec work once applied only to the desperate and unqualified trying to break into the business—since who would be stupid enough to give their professional craftwork or writing away for free?
Given the extent of these practices, spec work arguably defines media production both outside and inside professional film production and network television. In effect, even pros now increasingly “give it away for free,” in hopes of stiffing the considerable competition and winning new work—their own “guaranteed” Writers Guild of America (WGA) and Directors Guild of America (DGA) rates be damned! Professionals who give their work away for free typically defend this practice based on heightened barriers to entry. To succeed, that is, you can’t just verbally pitch a new show idea to an executive anymore. You have to present additional prototyping materials—tape or video of sample scenes or a beta-tested web series—to demonstrate, dramatize, or pre-enact your proposed production. And of course, these ancillary media forms must be self-financed by the spec-artist. Much of moving image production therefore actually takes place well before the director calls “action” on day one of any shoot.
The spread of spec work feels inevitable to many fatalistic indies trying to produce within deregulated media markets. Such media sectors discourage long-term affiliations and deal entitlements. Yet while indies learn ever more sophisticated ways to “give it away for free,” the emerging companies of the brand world have learned increasingly to move away from internal development of IP, in order to master what I would term external “spec-work harvesting.”
In this corporate IP harvesting system, a screenwriter increasingly cannot expect to get paid the guild rate to write a treatment without facing considerable pressure to write successive screenplay drafts—without pay or acknowledgment. In essence, such writers are implicitly blackmailed and expected (or have learned how) to “sweeten the deal” with executives by agreeing to write up and submit full (and sometimes multiple) drafts for free—or for some hoped-for downstream payoff. In some ways TV series pilots have always been speculative, performing as a brief test run that allows producers, networks, and audience to interactively speculate on whether the pilot will be successful as a series. Yet even the practice of producing series pilots has shifted increasingly to the financeless logic of spec world. These days, you can’t just independently produce your own pilot, as desperate as that might seem; you increasingly have to agree to fully self-finance the first half-dozen or dozen episodes of the proposed season to get a network deal for the whole package.
The genius of industry’s blended labor systems comes in the ways industry deploys quasi-cultural institutions to allow the brand world to interface, harvest, and monetize the labor of the spec world. Such spaces function like refereed “contact zones,” and include nonprofits, NGOs, and advocates (such as the IFP/Film Independent, the Sundance Institute) that keep the film/TV precariat on life support through enabling exercises involving group speculation. Such interface sites also function as cost-effective (sometimes bargain basement) IP markets. The slippage here between career and economics works because such zones promote themselves as therapeutic sites for spec-worker career development.
If filmmakers and producers once risked little by sharing creative ideas with a few key, well-placed individuals, they did so just to solicit lucrative long-term relationships. Now they have to keep their necks out and exposed for months, willing to eat the considerable losses that come from making professional media with no real or immediate promise of outside revenue. Studios and networks once provided upfront money to close a deal with a creator. Yet the many lesser networks and basic cable channels now increasingly appear to green-light deals without actually paying even seasoned producers for them. This alternative allows studios and networks to wait on the sidelines to pick up only the films, pilots, and series that have survived preliminary or initial runs—that is, series that have not already crashed and burned. Spec world is a pathetic and ugly world indeed, and not just for the hopeful users and unpaid prosumers gifting videos across the globe via YouTube and Vimeo, hoping against extremely long odds that they will be discovered.12 In short, the spec world off-loads or, better, “preloads” more and more of the responsibility for actually producing and financing screen content onto the shoulders of the makers. Out of this process emerges an odd alignment: even film and TV professionals increasingly bear an uncanny resemblance to the younger, desperate aspirants who hope to take their jobs. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/03%3A_Spec_World_Craft_World_Brand_World/3.02%3A_Craft_World_Brand_World.txt |
A broader question remains: how do these three interpenetrating labor regimes—and the spec world in particular—spur media industries to build para-industrial buffers and cultural fronts to survive? What specific cultural practices (chatter, written and visual expression, artifact making, habits and rituals) do these competing labor arrangements ramp up in ways that the “old” industries did not? Moments of industrial contestation and change greatly accelerate para-industrial cultural expression, chatter, and spec work. In some ways, this is a pitched battle.
Table 3.2: Cultural Practices of Three Paraindustrial Labor Regimes
Craft World Brand World Spec World
Cultural Chatter Self-legitimation, boundary-policing, controlling entrants Cross-promotion, tradeincest, fake buzz, insider leaks Sharing, discovery, self-marketing, replicating industry
Cultural Expressions Professional/expert blogosphere, clip reels, WGC/snark The showrunner-Twitterverse, EPKS, value-added web site UGC, demo films, spec scripts, spec scenes, Facebook
Cultural Habits and Rituals Open houses, bake-offs, technical demos, migratory crew-org Summits, markets, trade conventions, TCAs, upfronts Pitchfests, shootouts, hailing-stunts, networking, bartering
As the model above suggests (see Table 3.2), each regime uses culture for different ends. The threatened craft world, for example, favors “self-legitimation” strategies, boundary policing of amateurs, and the rigid control of entrants via high barriers to entry. Its cultural expressions (online, offline, in-person) cultivate “professionalization” and the careful maintenance of socio-professional communities. Even so, preoccupation with technical “experts,” masters, and mentors keeps even the social media and trade rituals of the craft world to a quaint, almost predigital scale (open houses, bake-offs, how-to’s).
Brand world does not need to stage culture this way to sustain socio-professional craft communities. Yet it faces considerably more cultural work to bring sense or rationality to its worldwide licensing, reformatting, high-concept, and franchising schemes. Success in brand world means mastering cross-promotion among the conglomerate’s platforms, systematic leaking of “insider” info, development of incestuous relations with the “trade” media, and creation of fake buzz. While this cultural chatter once worked via the press junket and the electronic press kit (EPK), the showrunner “Twitterverse” is perhaps the most effective tangible expression of current brand-world chatter.
The cultural chatter strategies of spec world are well known from social media, Twitter, and Facebook: sharing, self-marketing, networking, and bartering. Socio-professional cultural expressions here include: worker-generated content (WGC) mirroring user-generated content (UGC); stealth stunts and staged online “scenes” aimed at “hailing” the attention of higher-ups; circulating demos to facilitate one’s “discovery”; “friending” for lateral movement across job classifications; and tweeting to build migratory crew networks. Professionals have learned spec-world postures—trade rationalizations, spin, hype, and dissembling—partly from online social media practices, then combining these with indigenous “sharing” traditions from their own craft histories.
3.04: Self-Defeating Labor Tactics
I undertook this research partly because so many frustrated individuals that I talk to misperceive the labor regimes they operate within. Film school students think they are mastering the craft world (unaware that it is maintained by creative labor’s scarcity practices), even though the same film students’ file sharing, mash-ups, and online UGC gifting destroy the very scarcity-policed craft conditions under which they might once have made incomes in film and television. My nineteen-year-old film students usually get depressed when I point this out. By contrast, marginal producers glibly invoke their supposed Hollywood IDs, even while pitching and self-financing pilots according to the new ways of the brand world. The aggregate downward budget spiral this creates spurs runaway production—thus destroying the high-end craft world the same producers will desperately need if they ever hope to achieve industry “insider” or big-screen distinction. Alternately, below-the-line IATSE editors and above-the-line WGA members justify their “off-the-books,” nonunion spec work as a way to get more work. This wistful posture is likely reinforced and legitimized by social media sharing practices that they’ve learned and adopted from the spec world. Sadly, this freely given surplus work undercuts peers, taking work (and thus screen time) away from others, further increasing craft-world precarity.
Finally, earnest unemployed and outsider aspirants (adept at social media from the spec world but living far from physical production centers) send upfront money, entrance fees, registration fees, and retainers to agents who are not agents, managers and talent scouts who are not managers and talent scouts, film festivals that are not film festivals, “master classes” that do not master anything, student loan mills posing as film schools, “industry insiders” who are not insiders of anything, and “exclusive” online short film “showcases” that no one from the industry ever bothers to watch. In large measure, this collective aspirational surge—the aggregated resources and capital from ubiquitous film/TV aspirational cultures so vast that the sun never sets on their worldwide borders—is what feeds the paraindustrial beast and the industry it presumes to support. In these final cases, misrecognition of the spec-world labor regime by those within it alters both of the other two regimes but in very different ways: first, it destroys craft-world scarcity even as it feeds huge amounts of new ideas into the brand world, which large corporate conglomerates efficiently strip-mine.
With so much to lose and so much at stake for these three competing labor regimes, professional workers, aspirants, and scholars alike face complex alternatives in the dense para-industrial buffer. Navigating the buffer—which is now inseparable from the industry proper—requires considerable awareness and adroitness. This predicament means that the culture and spec work of production are now as obligatory to a worker’s skill set as the physical competencies of production craft once were. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/03%3A_Spec_World_Craft_World_Brand_World/3.03%3A_Production_Culture_as_Spec_Work.txt |
I research speculation work because corporate/professional apologists for free/gifted labor provoke my long-standing interests in industrial aesthetics, production’s cultural politics, multimedia branding rationality, and industrial reflexivity.13 Those concerns resonate with many current labor practices: the spec script, the pitch aesthetic, the craft-worker’s Facebook network, the technician’s how-to demo, the underemployed editor’s clip reel, the disgruntled crew member’s theoretical deconstruction of executives, the creative producer’s fan-pandering Twitterverse, and the endless proliferation of reps, agents, middlemen, “contact men,” and handlers. Such mediators and facilitators complicate the para-industry. Yet they also provide scholars with many new opportunities for para-industrial research.
In some ways, the pilot is no longer just a preliminary artifact setting up more durable or primary forms of lasting screen content. Rather, the pilot now arguably defines all film and television production. Or, said differently, all film and television productions now ideally function as pilots, in the broad sense of the term. This is because most films and shows (even year-long series) merely stand in as prototypes that create the possibility of endless systematic iterations of the same concept. This posturing in turn heightens the prospects that a corporation can endlessly monetize its proprietary IP. For only through endless speculation, conceptual pretesting, work-shopping, and “piloting” can a brand or franchise succeed. Such is the spec world. The fact that much of both the material burden and the justification for spec, prototyping, pretesting, and piloting has been financially off-loaded onto workers means that labor will continue to persist as a nagging but important complication in media studies.
3.06: Notes
1 Allen Scott, On Hollywood (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005); and Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, and Richard Maxwell, Global Hollywood (London: British Film Institute, 2001).
2 Vicki Mayer, Below the Line (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011); and Matt Stahl, Unfree Masters (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013).
3 John Thornton Caldwell, Televisuality: Style, Crisis, and Authority in American Television (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995); and John Thornton Caldwell, Production Culture: Industrial Reflexivity and Critical Practice in Film and Television (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008).
4 Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2006).
5 This is a play on Henry Jenkins, Spreadable Media (New York: New York University Press, 2013).
6 John Caldwell, “Para-Industry,” Cinema Journal 52.3. (Spring 2013): 157–165.
7 Scott, On Hollywood; and Michael Curtin, Playing to the World’s Biggest Audience (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007).
8 John Caldwell, “Convergence Television: Aggregating Form and Repurposing Content in the Culture of Conglomeration,” in Television after TV, ed. Lynn Spigel (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004), 41–74.
9 By contrast, screenwriters still write spec scripts for film without promise of payment, yet continue maintaining “long-odds” hope that someone might buy script to make a movie.
10 See Erin Hill, “Women’s Work: Feminized Labor in Hollywood, 1930–1948” PhD diss., UCLA, 2014.
11 One of the best explorations of cross-cultural spec-mediation is Aynne Kokas, “Shot in Shanghai: Western Film Co-Production in Post-WTO Mainland China,” PhD diss., UCLA, 2012.
12 See example of crowd-sourced online-to-feature film project, Life in a Day. YouTube solicited thousands of user-shot videos to make its feature project. When the resulting aggregate project was screened online, then shown as a feature film in festivals, the project was boldly hyped as a “Ridley Scott Production,” clearly erasing its utopian collectivity.
13 See John Caldwell, Televisuality (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995); Anna Everett and John Caldwell, eds., New Media (New York: Routledge, 2003); and John Caldwell, Production Culture (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008) | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/03%3A_Spec_World_Craft_World_Brand_World/3.05%3A_Spec_Work_Prototypes_Pretesting_Pilots_%28Brand_and_Franchise_Fodder%29.txt |
In this chapter, I argue that Bollywood must be understood as a vital force of immaterial labor for the affective contagion of mass creativity in urban India. I focus on the some of the many reasons why politicians, policymakers, film stars, filmmakers, and business leaders in India are turning their attention to the infrastructure of cinema as a potential resource for attracting economic capital and creative labor in urban and semiurban areas. The fusion of cinematic infrastructure with urban architecture is most evident in Indian cities and towns that have, or are planning to have, a “film city” in their...
• 4.1: Introduction
Overview of Kumar's goals for the chapter: to examine how film cities in India are used to produce and manage mass creativity, using Nigel Thrift's concept of affective cities and Maurizio Lazzarato's concept of immaterial labor.
• 4.2: Bollywoodization, Immaterial Labor, and Mass Creativity
"Bollywoodization", or Bollywood's globalization and expansion into a range of non-film cultural activities, and its impact on the formerly hierarchical relationship between Bollywood film creators and consumers. The role of immaterial labor, in the form of informational and cultural labor, in this expanded range of activities. The role of affect in assorted aspects of India cinema and other creative media.
• 4.3: The Film City and/as the Immaterial Infrastructure of Urban Life
The role of Bollywood stars in government-sponsored public-private partnerships promoting Indian urban development, and the role of film cities in increasing the cultural and affective value of a region. The importance of brand identity in both of these areas.
• 4.4: Conclusion
Summary of the preceding sections. Future considerations regarding film cities as a new avenue of management and dissemination of creative labor, and the lack of government protection for creative labor that is increasingly taking the form of immaterial labor.
• 4.5: Notes
04: Film City- Cinema Affect and Immaterial Labor in Urban India
In this chapter, I argue that Bollywood must be understood as a vital force of immaterial labor for the affective contagion of mass creativity in urban India. I focus on the some of the many reasons why politicians, policymakers, film stars, filmmakers, and business leaders in India are turning their attention to the infrastructure of cinema as a potential resource for attracting economic capital and creative labor in urban and semiurban areas. The fusion of cinematic infrastructure with urban architecture is most evident in Indian cities and towns that have, or are planning to have, a “film city” in their master plans for urban development. Recent examples of this popular trend include the inauguration near Kolkata with much fanfare of Prayag Film City by the Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan in April 2012; the announcement in August 2012 by actor Jackie Shroff of his investment in a partnership to build a mini–film city in Ahmedabad; the proposal by the Bihar chief minister, Nitish Kumar, in November 2012 to build a Film City near Patna in response to intense lobbying by actors from the Hindi and Bhojpuri film industries; plans by the Uttar Pradesh chief minister, Akhilesh Yadav, in October 2012 to create an IT/Film City in Lucknow; and much-advertised plans by the corporate powerhouse Sahara India to build the Sahara Pariwar Film City in its Aambi Valley development project near Pune.
Figure 1: The inauguration of Prayag Film City by the Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan in 2012 represented the fusion of cinematic infrastructure with the urban environment. Khan is shown here at the Berlin Film Festival in 2008. Photo credit: Siebbi, via Wikimedia Commons.
The mobilization of the film industry and its infrastructure, including cinema halls, shooting locations, and production facilities, for generating economic development and sustaining growth in urban, semiurban, and rural areas is hardly new in India. For instance, these proposals for film cities take their inspiration from the pioneering efforts of Ramoji Film City, built near Hyderabad in 1996, and Innovative Film City near Bengaluru, which opened in 2008. Many academic studies have detailed the central role that cinema halls, film studios, cinematic narratives, and Bollywood-inspired consumer culture have played for many decades now in producing and sustaining India’s nationalist visions and developmental goals. However, what is new about the recent spate of proposals for film cities is the way the immaterial infrastructure of Bollywood is being integrated into to the future designs and architectures of urban life as a whole in India.
Drawing on Nigel Thrift’s concept of “affective cities,” I examine how film cities—and plans for film cities—are being used in several cities and towns in India to produce and manage mass creativity by transforming urban life into social factories of immaterial labor.1 As Maurizio Lazzarato defines it, “immaterial labor” is labor that produces the informational and cultural content of a commodity.2 The informational aspect of immaterial labor refers to the ways digital technologies, computer networks, and cybernetic controls are becoming integral to the labor practices that workers used traditionally to perform in spaces such as the factory floor. The cultural aspect of immaterial labor involves the affect value of the practices of social life in areas such as fashion, tastes, traditions, and norms, which are usually not deemed relevant to matters of labor in the workplace. As information technologies have become central to all sorts of workplaces in recent times, immaterial labor has become more integral to practices of work and social life at large, according to Lazzarato. The result is that labor is increasingly becoming more “intellectual” in society, and the commodities created through practices of immaterial labor are not only goods made in a factory but also the products of “mass intellect” or “mass creativity” in social life.
I argue that Thrift’s concept of “affective cities” is a powerful framework for analyzing how practices of immaterial labor in urban life are shifting the focus of work from capital–labor relations (in spaces such as the factory floor) to capital–life relations (in society at large). Using Thrift’s concept of affective cities in relation to Lazzarato’s theory of immaterial labor, I examine how cities in India are trying to tap into the immaterial labor of Bollywood by mobilizing film cities for the production and management of mass creativity in urban life as a whole. In this context, immaterial labor in Bollywood is not strictly limited to what is traditionally understood as the creative process of making a film. Instead, it is the workers and consumers at large who produce a range of immaterial goods and services through the constant exchange of communication, information, and knowledge about the film commodity in the political, economic, technological, cultural, and affective realms of social relations. The film city, I argue, is a concrete embodiment of the many ways in which the immaterial infrastructure of Bollywood is being fused with the traditional architectures of cities and towns in India to meet the growing demands of—and desires for—mediated mobilities in the twenty-first century | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/04%3A_Film_City-_Cinema_Affect_and_Immaterial_Labor_in_Urban_India/4.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
The term Bollywood was coined in the 1970s to capture—often pejoratively—the similarities between India’s national Hindi film industry based in Bombay (now Mumbai) and the globally dominant Hollywood film industry in the United States. However, as Ashish Rajadhyaksha argues, Bollywood in recent times has been used not just to describe Hindi films produced in Bombay but also to refer to “a more diffuse cultural conglomeration involving a range of distribution and consumption activities from websites to music cassettes, from cable to radio.”3 Therefore, Rajadhyaksha uses the term Bollywoodization to signify a very recent phenomenon in Indian cinema that has emerged since the 1990s as a result of the “synchronous developments of international capital and diasporic nationalism.”4
In the dominant “national” model of Indian cinema, the relationship between production and consumption has always been clearly demarcated, dividing those who make films (directors, producers, writers, actors, and other crew members or below-the-line workers) from those who watch films (moviegoers, fans, and consumers of film-based media, memorabilia, and culture). As Derek Bose argues in Brand Bollywood, when hundreds of formulaic Hindi films are being mass-produced in Bombay, the process of filmmaking often resembles the assembly-line mode of industrial production on a factory floor.5 Recounting a time in the 1990s when industry output had reached over 900 films per year and over 14,000 titles were registered with the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA), Bose writes, “Actors like Govinda and Anil Kapoor were doing as many as five shifts a day and Mahesh Bhatt acquired the distinction of being India’s first ‘director by remote control.’ At any given time, he had three or four projects on the floor and he would sit at home, instructing various assistants on telephone to can his shots. Films were thus directed by proxy, in keeping with the best traditions of assembly-line production.”6
Many of these films were major box office hits because the assembly-line mode of mass production was sustained by a national network of financier-distributors whose monopoly over clearly demarcated distribution territories could ensure that mass audiences would always throng into theaters to watch their favorite movie stars on the big screen. The fairly standardized model of formulaic filmmaking and the national system of financing and distribution did not allow for—or did not require—much input from the mass audiences in relations of production. In an industry driven by what Tejaswini Ganti calls “the ratio of hits to flops,” filmmakers considered the commercial success or failure of films “as an accurate barometer of social attitudes, norms, and sensibilities, thus providing the basis for knowledge about audiences.”7 Of course, the failure—or the fear of failure—of big-budget, big-star films was always a good reason for producers to incorporate audience feedback into the production process. But the creative power of the mass audiences to reframe cinematic narratives or to reshape filmmaking practices was limited in the national model of mass production, mass distribution and mass consumption in Indian cinema.
However, with the Bollywoodization of Indian cinema since the late 1990s and early 2000s, a more diffused, global model of cultural production has emerged where the relationship between film producers and consumers has, of necessity, become less hierarchical and more transversal. The changes in creative and industrial practices produced by the Bollywoodization of Indian cinema have been deftly analyzed by Aswin Punathambekar in From Bombay to Bollywood: The Making of a Global Media Industry. Contrasting the new Bollywoodized mode of production with the traditional model of filmmaking in Indian cinema, Punathambekar argues that the “ongoing changes in the domain of marketing and promotions are emblematic of broader reconfigurations of relations between capital, circuits of information and forms of knowledge . . . in Bombay’s media world.”8 For instance, discussing the growing centrality of paratexts such as trailers, posters, music videos of song and dance sequences, and media events such as the mahurat (ritual inauguration of a new production) and promotional tours by film stars and singers, Punathambekar examines how marketing and promotion have become new sites of decision making, communication, and knowledge about the film commodity even before a film is released or produced.
Since the paratexts and media events discussed by Punathambekar are not traditionally considered integral parts of the filmmaking process or the film commodity, the labor involved in their production (including advertising, marketing, promotion, spot films, web sites, online chat sessions with fans, and games and contests for mobile devices) is what Lazzarato would define as immaterial labor. To recall Lazzarato’s definition outlined earlier, immaterial labor consists of two types of work in the capitalist production of a commodity (such as a film): informational labor (such as the use of digital technologies, paratexts, media events, marketing, and promotion materials before, during, and after production) and cultural labor (the production of affective value through the circulation of the film commodity in social life—such the pleasures of producing and consuming the texts and paratexts of a film, the thrill of participating in media events, the social bonds of sharing and recommending “free” marketing and promotional materials about the film to online and offline friends, and so on). Taken together, the two types of immaterial labor—informational and cultural—produce affective value for the film commodity in all aspects of social life.
The affect of immaterial labor is, of course, difficult to track. As Thrift points out, there are many definitions of affect, and they are often “associated with words like emotion and feeling, and a consequent repertoire of terms like hatred, shame, envy, fear, disgust, anger, embarrassment, sorrow, grief, anguish, love, happiness, joy, hope, wonder.”9 However, Thrift finds that these words are not good translations of affect and therefore proposes to move away from definitions that focus on individualized emotions. Instead, Thrift favors approaches that define affect in terms of general tendencies and lines of forces. Of these approaches, Thrift highlights four: affect as embodied knowledge, affect theory associated with but differentiated from psychoanalytic conceptions of libidinal drives, the Spinozian-Deleuzian notion of affect as emergent capacities, and neo-Darwinian frameworks of affect as a universal expression of emotion. Summarizing his extensive review of the literature on these four approaches to affect, Thrift writes, “Four different notions of affect, then. Each of them depends on a sense of push in the world but the sense of push is subtly different in each case. In the case of embodied knowledge, that push is provided by the expressive armoury of the human body. In the case of affect theory it is provided by biologically differentiated positive and negative affects rather than the drives of Freudian theory. In the world of Spinoza and Deleuze, affect is the capacity of interaction that is akin to a natural force of emergence. In the neo-Darwinian universe, affect is a deep-seated physiological change involuntarily written on the face.”10
Although affect—as general tendencies and lines of force—is a widespread and crucial element of urban life, Thrift argues that the affective register has been largely neglected in the study of cities. Defining urban life through the concept of “affective cities,” Thrift argues that affects like anger, fear, joy, and hope manifest themselves in “the mundane emotional labor of the workplace, the frustrated shouts and gestures of road rage, the delighted laughter of children as they tour a theme park or the tears of a suspected felon undergoing police interrogation.”11 Equally, for Thrift, affect in urban life is evident in the “mass hysteria” surrounding major media events like the spectacular life or the death of a global superstar or the roar of a crowd celebrating a point scored by their team in a sports stadium. To Thrift’s descriptions of the affective registers in urban culture, one could add, in the Indian context, the many ways Bollywood culture permeates the everyday lives of Indians in terms of fashion, clothing, style, song and dance, rituals, and so on. One can also point to the affective domain of “mass worship” of Bollywood stars and Bollywood culture along with the “mass fanaticism” of fans who flock to see their favorite film star at a shooting location or in a film city, or the masses of cinemagoers who insist on catching a new release in a cinema hall on the first day in cities and towns across India.
As Amit Rai’s brilliant work on affect in India’s new media assemblage demonstrates, film (in the traditional sense of movie-making and movie-going) is now only one of the many elements in a highly diffuse agglomeration of material and immaterial practices of production, distribution, and consumption in Bollywood.12 Therefore, filmmakers have to make creative decisions about the filmmaking process in relation to a range of immaterial practices taking place—or which have already taken place—in diverse locations, such as malls, multiplexes, homes, and local marketplaces, and on multiple platforms, such as movie theaters, television channels, FM radio, online media, and cell phones. Foregrounding the affective connectivities between cinema and other media technologies along with the sensations generated among bodies, populations, and various graphical interfaces at locations such as the single-screen cinema hall, the multiplex, the mall, the television screen at home, and the mobile phone in public places, Rai redefines Bollywood as a new media assemblage that is “necessarily constellated, remediated and multiply overlapping.”13 Rai argues that through remediation of old and new media connectivities and sensations in and through Bollywood, affect plays a crucial role in the transformation of technologies, labor, and aesthetics in production and consumption practices of everyday life in India.
In many ways, affect has always been a central concern in Indian cinema and in the production of creativity in India more generally. In Bombay before Bollywood, Rosie Thomas argues that the spectator-subject of mainstream Hindi cinema has always been addressed and moved through film primarily by affect. Tracing the genealogy of Bollywood through the history of Bombay cinema, Thomas finds that in commercial Hindi films, the emphasis was—and still is—more on emotion and spectacle and less on the tightness of a linear narrative. Or, as Thomas puts it, the emphasis was more “on how things would happen rather than what would happen next, on a succession of modes rather than linear denouement, on familiarity and repeated viewings rather than ‘originality’ and novelty, on a moral disordering to be (temporarily) resolved rather than an enigma to be solved.”14 The pleasure value of repeat viewing, for instance, was recognized by filmmakers early on, and was built into film narratives by foregrounding the affective power of stars, music, spectacle, emotion, and dialogue. Thomas argues that affect was thus “structured and contained by narratives whose power and insistence derived from their very familiarity, coupled with the fact that they were deeply rooted (in the psyche and in traditional mythology).”15
Thomas claims that “all Indian classical drama, dance and music draw on this aesthetic,” and argues that the traditions of rasa theory deeply inform the production practices of Indian cinema. However, she also finds that most filmmakers do not make any conscious reference to this cultural heritage. Similarly, Thomas wonders whether or not the emergence of the spectator-subject of Indian cinema—who is primarily addressed and moved by aesthetic modes of affect (rasa) in film narratives—can be related in any useful way to a more general history of the evolution of the “social audience” in India. Arguing that traditions of Bollywood cannot be used to provide neat, causal explanations of contemporary Indian cinema and culture, Thomas suggests that traditions (such as rasa theory) must be seen “as a framework of terms of reference within which certain developments have been stifled, others allowed to evolve unproblematically, and which can be used to throw light on the different possibilities of forms of address which might be expected or tolerated by an Indian audience.”17
As Rajinder Dudrah and Amit Rai remind us, the role of affect (or rasa) in Indian cinema cannot be understood simply through critiques of the political economy of the Hindi film industry (to make money, filmmakers have to produce emotional melodramas with song and dance to reach a “mass audience”) or through cultural studies of the textual pleasures of moviegoing for spectator-subjects of Indian cinema (Indians like Bollywood films because emotional melodramas are part of their essential cultural traditions).18 Highlighting the risks of reading rasa as the “essence” of Indian culture and cautioning against the dangers of embracing elitist or high-brahminical ideologies of rasa as the pinnacle of Hindu philosophy or aesthetics, Dudrah and Rai examine rasa in Bollywood as a “contact zone” of affect. In this zone of affective contagion, Bollywood is a new media assemblage “through and in which bodies, sensations, capital, sexualities, races, technologies and desires rub up against each other, producing differing and differential rhythms, speeds, juices (or rasas), intensities, technologies, combinations, codes, possibilities, and even languages.”
Bollywood’s affect (or rasa) thus functions as “a framework of terms of reference” at the infrastructural level of cinema and urban life for the creation of new architectures of cities and film cities in India. In the next section, I discuss how the affective value of Bollywood circulates at the infrastructural level in the immaterial production and management of mass creativity through the concept of the film city in urban India. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/04%3A_Film_City-_Cinema_Affect_and_Immaterial_Labor_in_Urban_India/4.02%3A_Bollywoodization_Immaterial_Labor_and_Mass_Creativity.txt |
In Bihar—considered to be one of the least economically developed states in India—Chief Minister Nitish Kumar announced in November 2012 that his government was seriously considering plans to build a film city near the capital city of Patna. The announcement by the chief minister was in response to intense lobbying by actors, producers, and directors from the Mumbai-based Hindi film industry and the local Bhojpuri film industry, which has in recent years witnessed an amazing growth and rise in popularity in India.19 For more than a decade, major Bollywood stars from Bihar, including Shatrughan Sinha, Manoj Bajpai, director Prakash Jha, and Bohjpuri film star Ravi Kissen, have aggressively promoted proposals to set up a film city in their home state. A home-grown film city, they argue, would not only attract talent and resources from Bollywood and other regional film industries into Bihar but also stimulate the local Bhojpuri film industry. In 2013, the consultancy firm Grant Thornton submitted a feasibility report to the government of Bihar recommending the construction of a film city in the state. However, in 2014, the chief minister announced plans for building an IT city in Nalanda (his home district) in Bihar.20
Frustrated by lack of progress on a film city in Bihar, director Prakash Jha and actor Shatrughan Sinha are now trying to convince the government of Madhya Pradesh to set up a film city in Bhopal. The government of Madhya Pradesh has already set aside one thousand acres near Bhopal for a proposed film city complex. Bhopal, known as the “city of lakes,” has emerged as a recent favorite of many Bollywood filmmakers, who are drawn to the scenic locations and picturesque beauty of the city’s many lakes and gardens. Prakash Jha shot four films in Bhopal from 2010 to 2013. These films, Raajneeti (2010), Aarakshan (2011), Chakravyuh (2012), and Satyagrah (2013), are among some of the most popular Hindi films of the past few years.21
When Amitabh Bachchan—without any doubt the biggest film star in the history of Indian cinema—was in Bhopal to shoot for Jha’s film Aarakshan, he was warmly welcomed by fans and embraced by the city as its unofficial brand ambassador-in-law because Bachchan’s father-in-law had lived in Bhopal long ago (when Bachchan’s wife, Jaya, was a young girl). It is important to note that Bachchan has also served as the brand ambassador for the Department of Tourism in Gujarat since 2010, and was appointed the brand ambassador for the Health Department in Andhra Pradesh in 2015. Following Bachchan’s “Khushboo Gujarat Ki” (the fragrance of Gujarat) campaign for Gujarat tourism, it was reported that the number of hotel reservations in the state rose from 4,500 to 6,400 within two years. During that time, the number of tourists visiting Gujarat reportedly increased by 55 lakhs (one lakh is equal to 100,000). Vipul Mittra, secretary of tourism for the state of Gujarat, claimed that the state’s efforts to promote tourism with Bachchan as its brand ambassador helped because “he has great credibility and people take him seriously.”22 While it is practically impossible to posit a causal relationship between the growth of tourism in Gujarat and Bachchan’s position as the ambassador of the state’s Tourism Department, the affective value of his promotion of the “fragrance” (khushboo) of Gujarat is undeniable.
Such is the respect and popularity that Bollywood superstars like Bachchan enjoy among fans across India, and the branding of cities through identification with film stars shows how cinema and celebrity culture are considered crucial for generating a buzz for public-private partnerships in government-sanctioned plans for urban development in India today. Following Bachchan’s appointment as the brand ambassador of Gujarat, West Bengal roped in Shah Rukh Khan as its brand ambassador, and many other states soon followed suit. As Tanvi Trivedi of the Times of India reports, “Prachi Desai represents Goa tourism, Hema Malini is the face of Uttarakhand’s Sparsh [clean] Ganga campaign, Saina Nehwal, badminton champ is the brand ambassador for Andhra Pradesh since 2010. Interestingly Haryana (where she was born) also wanted her to be the face. Preity Zinta is the only celebrity representing Himachal Pradesh, Celina Jaitly is the brand ambassador for Egypt, Mountaineer Anshu Jamsenpa who conquered the Mt Everest in 2011 is set to become the brand ambassador of North East India Tourism campaign. Reportedly Arunachal Pradesh wants Aamir Khan, Madhya Pradesh is interested in Abhishek Bachchan (mom Jaya Bachchan is from the state) and Chhattisgarh has asked Sushmita Sen to be their brand ambassadors.”23 Trivedi quotes filmmaker Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury, who directed Shah Rukh Khan’s promotional films on West Bengal, as saying, “Even though a Bachchan or Shah Rukh don’t [sic] have any connect with Gujarat or Bengal, their global appeal does the magic.”24
As Nigel Thrift points out, in a crowded marketplace, the only way to make a commodity stand out from its competition is through “a series of ‘magical’ technologies of public intimacy.”25 Thrift argues that these “magical” technologies work through qualities such as the allure of glamour, style, and celebrity to produce intangible affective value for a commodity or a brand. For instance, describing how glamour works through and for commodities, Thrift writes, “For all its breathtaking qualities, glamour does not conjure up awe. It operates on a human scale, in the everyday, inviting just enough familiarity to engage the imagination, a glimpse of another life, utopia as tactile presence. . . . Glamour is about that special excitement and attractiveness that characterizes some objects and people. Glamour is a form of secular magic, conjured up by the commercial sphere.”26
Nowhere is this link among the “secular magic” of Bollywood, political considerations of governance, and commercial logics of the marketplace more clearly articulated in public policy than in the state of Uttar Pradesh in northern India. In October 2012, Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav declared a new master plan to create a TV/film city in Lucknow and an IT corridor in Agra (which will connect with the existing media and industrial enclaves of Noida near the nation’s capital, New Delhi). It is significant that plans for the Lucknow-Agra-Noida TV-film-IT corridor also map onto the chief minister’s proposal to extend the six- to eight-lane superhighway called Yamuna Expressway (which currently connects Noida to Agra) to the state’s capital, Lucknow. The chief minster’s plan to create the Lucknow-Agra-Noida corridor of media industries and superhighways is a clear indication of how media in general, and cinema in particular, are increasingly viewed by politicians and policymakers as keys to the rapid growth of urban infrastructure in India. In 2003, a report by Mckenzie, Crisil, and ICICI commissioned by the government of Uttar Pradesh recommended creating the “right mix of policies” to develop proper infrastructure to fast-track the state’s growth rate by 2020. Although the report was commissioned by a previous government, the current chief minister, Akhilesh Yadav, has embraced the 2020 vision to promote “brand UP” by integrating film policy with industrial policy and infrastructure policy. The plans for a film city in the Yamuna Expressway corridor are considered crucial to promoting “brand UP.”27
The merging of political and economic activities with the glamour of Bollywood celebrity and culture is engendering new forms of public intimacy in urban India. As Thrift reminds us, the aim of public intimacy in urban life is not simply to create new subjects for the global capitalist order (or other disciplinary regimes).28 Instead, Thrift argues that these spaces are also “new forms of body with the capacity to alter us to that which was previously unable to be sensed—with the corollary that certain objects can no longer be sensed—so producing the potential to generate new kinds of charms.”29
In addition to the above-mentioned state-supported plans for integrating the allure of Bollywood into the infrastructure of urban life, some corporate houses in India have embarked on creating private versions of public intimacy through the construction of film cities. The much-advertised plans by the corporate powerhouse Sahara India to build the Sahara Pariwar Film City in its Aambi Valley development project near Pune are indicative of this popular trend (www.saharaindiapariwar.org/filmcity.html). One of the largest media conglomerates in India, Sahara India owns TV channels, film theaters, sports teams, hotels, retail outlets, and financial services. The founder of Sahara Group, Subrata Roy, was jailed in March 2014 by the Supreme Court of India on charges of financial fraud.30 It is safe to assume that Sahara’s plans for a film city may be on back burner for a while.
In August 2012, Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff announced his partnership in a project to build a mini–film city near Nal Sarovar in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Initially, Shroff was promoted as the brand ambassador for Nal Sarovar Film City with industrialists Mihir Pandya and Kishansinh Solanki as the major financial backers. However, when Solanki decided to quit the project, Shroff joined Pandya as an investing partner in the project. According to Shroff, Solanki, and Pandya, what sets Nal Sarovar City apart from other film city projects in India is that the film city will be developed as part of an urban enclave with residential homes and resort areas.31 In the promotional material for Nal Sarovar City, the “film” part of the city is underdeveloped, and the residential plots and resort areas are more prominently displayed, revealing how the concept of a film city is being used to develop and sell real estate in urban and semiurban areas near major cities like Ahmedabad in India.
If Sahara Film City and Nal Sarovar City are stalled projects, a more successful corporate venture is Prayag Film City, also known as Chandrakone Film City or Midnapore Film City, located in Chandrakone, West Midnapore, near Kolkata in West Bengal. Prayag Film City is being built by the Prayag Group, which has business interests in diverse areas such as real estate, hotels and resorts, biscuits and cakes, cements, bricks and tiles, tea, fruit, fishery, poultry, farming, aviation, news, and electronic media (www.prayag.co.in/filmcity.html). The Prayag Group plans to build its film city in three phases: phase 1 is a film zone; phase 2 consists of an entertainment zone; and phase 3 will include a hospitality zone. Phase 1 of Prayag Film City opened with great fanfare on April 15, 2012, with Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan as its brand ambassador. It is important to note that Shah Rukh Khan is also brand ambassador for West Bengal, the state in which Prayag Film City is located.
In publicity brochures, Prayag Film City presents itself as a city unto itself: “Pesh hai ek city—Prayag Film City” (Presenting a city—Prayag Film City). The prominent status of Shah Rukh Khan as the brand ambassador—in the foreground with a caricatured model of the film city in the background—reminds readers of Prayag Film City’s close connection to the Mumbai-based Bollywood on the west coast, even if Kolkata is all the way on the other side of India. What makes this connection even stronger is the promise of “entertainment ka maha dose” (a big dose of entertainment) in Prayag Film City—delivered by none other than Shah Rukh Khan, arguably the biggest entertainer Bollywood has ever produced since Bachchan.
When all three phases are completed, Prayag Film City, according to publicity materials, will be the “world’s largest film city.” Currently, the title of the world’s largest film city currently belongs to Ramoji Film City (RFC) near Hyderabad, which began operations in 1997. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, RFC has surpassed Hollywood’s Universal Studios in both size and the range of media facilities offered. RFC is the dream project of Cherukuri Ramoji Rao, the owner of the Eenadu Media Group in Andhra Pradesh. The Eenadu Group is one of the largest media conglomerates in South India, and Ramoji Rao’s business empire consists of several English and Telugu-language periodicals, including the widely read newspaper Eenadu; a multilingual satellite television network, ETV; a film distribution banner, Ushakiron Movies; and a financial services group, Margadarshi.32
Following the success of RFC, Innovative Film City (IFC) was launched on January 18, 2008, in Bidadi, which is about fifty kilometers from Bengaluru. IFC is part of the Innovative Group, which runs a multiplex cinema business along with media production and entertainment and leisure activities in Karnataka. IFC has a much smaller portfolio of films made in Bidadi than RFC. However, some filmmakers from Kannada cinema and television and other regional media have used the production facilities at IFC in the past few years, and Innovative Group plans to promote the film city as a tourist destination and production center on a much larger scale in the coming years.
What makes film cities unique in Indian cinema is that for the first time, filmmakers from anywhere in the world can make an entire film from preproduction to postproduction in a one-stop studio that provides multiple outdoor locales and diverse indoor settings. In addition to being state-of-the-art media production centers, film cities are major tourist attractions that provide visitors access to a variety of picturesque gardens, entertainment parks, and tours of film sets and production studios.33
It is important to note that film cities are resource-intensive ventures and take a long time to complete (it took almost a decade each for RFC and IFC to get up and running). Given the intense competition within and across the major centers of film production in various Indian languages—including Mumbai for Hindi/Marathi cinemas, Chennai for Tamil cinema, Hyderabad for Telugu cinema, Bengaluru for Kannada cinema, and Kolkata for Bengali cinema—film cities are financially risky ventures.
In this regard, the value that a film city can generate for an urban center or a small town cannot be estimated in economic terms alone. Instead, it must be understood in terms of the affective value generated by a film city for an urban center seeking to expand its reach into regional, national, and global circuits of production and consumption. A growing number of cities in India are using proposals for film cities to generate a buzz and create a brand identity that sets them apart from similar cities. By embracing Bollywood stars as ambassadors and closely identifying with the latest Bollywood narratives, fashions, and trends, political and cultural elites in urban India are vying to brand their cities as the newest and best centers of creativity, innovation, and invention. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/04%3A_Film_City-_Cinema_Affect_and_Immaterial_Labor_in_Urban_India/4.03%3A_The_Film_City_and_as_the_Immaterial_Infrastructure_of_Urban_Li.txt |
In this chapter, I have argued that Nigel Thrift’s theory of “affective cities” can be a powerful tool for analyzing the rise and popularity of film cities in India. Drawing on Thrift’s theorizations of affect, I have examined how the buzz generated by the circulation of Bollywood’s glamour and star power is becoming integral to urban planning and development in India. I have tried to show how—beyond the economic value of creative clustering—the concept of a film city adds value to urban life in the affective realm due to Bollywood’s immense popularity as a cultural phenomenon.
With growing media capacity—from low-cost outsourcing to high-tech film cities—in peripheral locations of Bollywood, workers in midsize cities and small towns in India are finding more options for immaterial labor through telecommuting, freelancing, flex time, and so on. But this kind of work does not provide the guarantees of traditional forms of industrial labor with union contracts or state-sponsored employment. The rising precarity of labor relations produced through the immaterial exchanges of media, information, and communication has put pressure on state authorities to provide a semblance of stability and order in the everyday lives of their citizens.
However, due to the growing interconnectedness and rapid deterritorialization of the global economy, the traditional command-and-control structures of the Indian nation-state are no longer capable of exerting—or inclined to exert—their sovereign authority over their territories and populations. Moreover, since the global economy also enhances possibilities for producers across the world to be in direct contact with each other, labor-capital relations can be remotely managed in various locations, often without recourse to the central authority of the nation-state. As the task of regulating global-local relations shifts toward state governments and regional authorities, film cities—or plans for film cities—have emerged as the blueprints of a new architecture for the capture and control of capital and the management and dissemination of creative labor by mobilizing the immaterial productions of cinema in the social life of cities in India.
4.05: Notes
1 Nigel Thrift, Non-Representational Theory (New York: Routledge, 2008).
2 Maurizio Lazzarato, “Immaterial Labor,” in Radical Thought in Italy, ed. Paolo Virno and Michael Hardt (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 133–150.
3 Ashish Rajadhyaksha, “The Bollywoodization of the Indian Cinema: Cultural Nationalism in a Global Arena,” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 4.1 (2003): 6.
4 Ibid.
5 Derek Bose, Brand Bollywood: A New Global Entertainment Order (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2006).
6 Ibid., 21.
7 Tejaswini Ganti, Bollywood: A Guidebook to Popular Hindi Cinema (New York: Routledge, 2004), 62–63.
8 Aswin Punathambekar, From Bombay to Bollywood: The Making of a Global Media Industry (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 82.
9 Thrift, Non-Representational Theory, 175.
10 Ibid., 182.
11 Ibid., 171.
12 Amit S. Rai, Untimely Bollywood: India’s New Media Assemblage (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009).
13 Ibid., 70.
14 Rosie Thomas, Bombay before Bollywood: Film City Fantasies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2013), 239. Emphasis in the original.
15 Ibid., 240.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Rajinder Dudrah and Amit Rai, “The Haptic Codes of Bollywood Cinema in New York City,” New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film 3.3 (2005): 143–158.
19 Ravi Dayal, “Film City Feasibility Report Submitted,” Times of India, December 2, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/c...w/17445887.cms.
20 IANS, “Bihar to Build IT City near Nalanda: Nitish Kumar,” Times of India, February 20, 2014, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/t...w/30736559.cms.
21 “Bhopal Best Place in Country for Shooting of Hindi Films: Prakash Jha,” Daily Pioneer, April 10, 2013, www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/bhopal-best-place-in-country-for-shooting-of-hindi-films-prakash-jha.html.
22 Tanvi Trivedi, “After Big B-SRK, Other States Too Roped In Stars,” Times of India, November 22, 2012. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/e...w/17309052.cms.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Nigel Thrift, “Understanding the Material Practices of Glamor,” in The Affect Theory Reader, ed. Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 290–308.
26 Ibid., 297.
27 Manish Chandra Pandey, “Coming Up: A Film City in Uttar Pradesh,” Hindustan Times, June 29, 2013. http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx.
28 Ibid.
29 Thrift, “Understanding the Material Practices of Glamor,” 295.
30 Gardiner Harris, “Court Jails Indian Tycoon,” New York Times, March 13, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/business/international/subrata-roy-of-india-under-court-scrutiny.html?_r=0.
31 India Glitz, “Ahmedabad to Get Mini Film City, Courtesy Jackie Shroff,” India Glitz, August 13, 2012, www.indiaglitz.com/ahmedabad-to-get-mini-film-city-courtesy-jackie-shroff-hindi-news-84713.
32 Renji Kuriakose, “Down in the Clouds,” Week (India), October 19, 1997.
33 Shanti Kumar, “Mapping Tollywood: The Cultural Geography of Ramoji Film City in Hyderabad, India,” Quarterly Review of Film and Video 23 (2006): 129–138. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/04%3A_Film_City-_Cinema_Affect_and_Immaterial_Labor_in_Urban_India/4.04%3A_Conclusion.txt |
Over the past twenty years, regional governments around the world and global film industry corporations have collaborated, if not colluded, to provide a steady stream of workers for film location shooting through legislated incentives. Seeking to reduce labor costs in relation to other fixed expenses, industry executives have successfully used incentives to reduce budgets. Meanwhile, regional policymakers have looked to film and television production as a panacea for anemic economic growth and declining employment indices.¹ Together, governments and industry have made labor into one of the primary fault lines in the political economy of film production.
• 5.1: Introduction
Introduction to the focus of this chapter: the film industry strategy of creating a moral economy that calls for low-paying or unpaid jobs, as a form of boosterism for local economy and culture, through the case study of the production of the HBO drama Treme in post-Katrina New Orleans.
• 5.2: The Treme Moral Economy
The production of the HBO drama Treme in post-Katrina New Orleans. Includes discussion of the choice of the production to hire local residents as extras and media labor, as simultaneously an economically efficient and a moral choice; the application of this case to Mark Banks' concept of a moral economy.
• 5.3: A Little Extra Work for a Lot of Extras
The role played by wanting to be a part of something larger in attracting would-be extras to a production; contrasts between the low-paid extras of most major productions and the high standards set by Treme in a precarious local economy.
• 5.4: To Be (an) Extra
Discussion of some of the reasons why so many New Orleanians sought to be extras on Treme, even at the cost of giving up free time and working at the bottom of the production hierarchy: a sense of emotional solidarity with the show as a means of post-Katrina recovery, memorialization of personal experiences, or seeking to record themselves as belonging to the city. Contrasts between some extras' lived experiences and the sense of authenticity that the show sought to create.
• 5.5: Concluding Futures?
The broader labor implications of so many New Orleanians volunteering for low-paid or unpaid labor on Treme, including the exclusion of people who lack the free time or the social connections to work on the show, the undermining of improvement of public services, and the promotion of the idea that private companies are the best managers of the public good.
• 5.6: Notes
05: The Production of Extras in a Precarious Creative Economy
Over the past twenty years, regional governments around the world and global film industry corporations have collaborated, if not colluded, to provide a steady stream of workers for film location shooting through legislated incentives. Seeking to reduce labor costs in relation to other fixed expenses, industry executives have successfully used incentives to reduce budgets. Meanwhile, regional policymakers have looked to film and television production as a panacea for anemic economic growth and declining employment indices.1 Together, governments and industry have made labor into one of the primary fault lines in the political economy of film production.
For the former constituents, film employment may boost jobs numbers on annual reports but have not produced sustainable economic growth. As critics of film incentive policies point out, the vast majority of these film jobs have been transient, low-wage, or both.2 At the upper end of the employment spectrum, the highest-skilled workers moved with productions. They have had the same economic impact as business elites, taking their earnings with them as they move from one fancy hotel to another. The larger proportion of film location workers, however, has not been so mobile. These workers—mostly in trades and services—have seen wages driven down. The adoption of right-to-work laws in the United States has put film unions in competition with antishop labor, especially in states that lack sufficient members to meet demand. Economic development offices frequently count service jobs, such as hotel, catering, and transportation staff, as multiplier results of the film economy, knowing that voters will not see the vast quantity of these low-wage, high-turnover jobs as quality careers. To mitigate the political fallout that film incentive policy has caused since the 2009 recession, local boosters typically promise that film jobs will attract other kinds of financial investors in the future, espousing a kind of optimism that has made the policy itself as precarious as the jobs it has generated.
For the film industry, the downward pressures for more abundant reserves of cheaper laborers have not abated. Producers have faced the stress of raising money and cutting costs. They have to weigh the money saved by producing outside Southern California or another major center against the investment in transporting resources, particularly the highest-skilled workers, to the location. Production budgets for labor are stratified, with decreasing studio investment distributed disproportionately to a few workers with star or brand name recognition. The move to reality television has marked an increasing reliance on talent that is either unpaid or underpaid. Volunteers, in the guise of endless levels of interns and assistants, have become part of the production apparatus. Producers have begun to face difficulties in stimulating a labor pool motivated to work for free. Workers have become jaded, even litigious; they now know that these exploited forms of labor rarely lead to stable career paths, particularly outside a global media and entertainment industry hub. In the face of a potential policy upheaval, the uncertainty of finding workers has to be strategized in new ways.
Figure 1: Filming of the HBO television drama Treme in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo credit: Derek Bridges, via Wikimedia Commons).
This chapter examines one strategy in the face of this emerging uncertainty in the current film labor regime. Specifically, it looks at the New Orleans–based production of the quality HBO television drama Treme (2010–2013) and its ability to create a moral economy for low-paying or unpaid film jobs. This strategy relied on a particular kind of call to work as a form of boosterism for the local economy and the culture that both sustains and emerges from it. The strategy succeeded because it fit well in the context of the current political economy as well as an imagined community of like-minded citizen-workers in the future. Based on conversations with series workers, primarily extras, this chapter provides a lesson about the labor strategy based on those workers who occupy the most precarious jobs in locational shooting. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/05%3A_The_Production_of_Extras_in_a_Precarious_Creative_Economy/5.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
In 2013, Louisiana surpassed California as the primary location for the production of major Hollywood motion pictures.3 The state, one of the poorest in terms of the per capita poverty rate and median income, also outpaced Hollywood film shooting in other countries, including Canada and Ireland. This locational outsourcing, often derided as runaway production, has been a point of pride in Louisiana. There, media producers and policymakers alike have seized on film jobs as a cornerstone in the economic renewal of the entire Gulf Coast after a series of devastating environmental disasters, including two hurricanes and an oil spill, destabilized the political and economic infrastructure of the region. The city of New Orleans, which evacuated its entire population of nearly half a million people in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and subsequently lost many longtime residents, has depended heavily on the growing film economy to bring new migrants and jobs. A 2012 Forbes article summarized the recent political economy: “Aggressive tax incentives have also been beneficial in luring new recruits, entrepreneurs, and large business to New Orleans. In 2002, a foundation for a new film industry had been established with a tax credit program for movies produced in the state. However, it wasn’t until after Katrina that more production crews committed to continuing their work with Louisiana, and quickly saw the benefits of working in the region. In addition, the productions were pumping millions of dollars into the city’s recovering economy, and providing jobs to those who wanted to get into the industry.”4 Ten years after the storm, the city still acknowledges the scars of Katrina—press articles still refer to the “post-K” era—while touting the power of the most generous film tax incentives in the United States to aid future recovery.
In this context, a television series that would focus on the city’s unique vernacular value and cultural resilience in the post-K era drew special attention. The auteur television producers David Simon and Eric Overmyer said they had wanted to create a program about New Orleans music long before the storm, but that the disaster brought a sudden moral imperative to make a general concept into a story. “Even ordinary scenes played out against a backdrop of this city three months after the storm take on an incredibly different dynamic. An ordinary scene . . . is about something much bigger,” said Simon, while waiting for the green light from the HBO network in 2009. Arguing for the symbolic importance of viewers witnessing a second-line parade in the months after the storm, Simon explained, “Just as a visual tableau, that’s an incredible statement of human endeavor. And you place it in the context of all the political (news) and all the problems and all of the dystopic things that have happened post-Katrina—if you can’t (make) a story of that, shame on you.”5 Within weeks, Fee Nah Nee, the local production company for Treme, would begin the process of certifying the applicable tax credits for producing the series.
For four years, Treme indexed the tight imbrication between the film economy and New Orleans through a program focused on ordinary life and an extraordinary local culture. Music, food, and public performance took center stage in the weekly narrative, which broadcast via the subscriber channel for three and a half seasons. Beyond this, the program’s producers were active in charity and volunteer efforts dedicated to local musicians and the musical cultures of the region. Production crews threw block parties in some of its affected shooting locations and helped host screening parties for residents who could not afford premium cable television service. Newspaper columns deciphered the careful cultural details and historical referents stitched into the story lines, and social media organized fans to participate in the interpretative community. From this base of avid viewers and admirers, Treme set out to hire local residents as part of its ethos. The hiring director, who had worked as a local on the Baltimore set of the earlier Simon/Overmyer collaboration, The Wire, told me he was always irked by film companies that shot in his hometown but hired outsiders. Treme would aim to hire residents, he explained, touting his efforts to support a local training clinic for film crew certification, because “it’s the right thing to do.”
It was also the most economical thing to do. Louisiana residents received an extra 5 percent in state tax credits, bringing their total discount to 35 percent of the budget. Locals do not have to be housed in hotels. They go home each day without a need for a per diem or transportation. On the set, the same director told me that the local hire brought added value to the decision-making process. They have “natural knowledge” that streamlines the production schedule. He said, “They know the Teamsters, and the bureaucrats, and also the residents. So they don’t mind as much when you invade their neighborhood.” In the battle to beat the budget, he said locals helped “win the hearts and minds” of the citizens.
This odd pairing of the ethically right and the instrumentally efficient was the labor strategy in Treme’s moral economy. Mark Banks sees moral economies as a counterweight to the alienating and individuating tendencies of marketplaces.6 In them, the basis of the exchange relation is founded in a social relationship that recognizes the worker as a unique individual rather than an object for exploitation. By offering to restore a measure of recognition to workers’ identities and experiences, these exchange economies seem to thrive in precarious settings that have already been ravaged by the worst excesses of neoliberal policies. In New Orleans, for example, privatization of recovery efforts shunted the responsibility for basic human services onto private corporations, which could then monetize relief and promote it as a form of corporate social responsibility.7 Media industries since 2005 were at the forefront of using Katrina storylines to generate both advertising revenues and corporate goodwill, often based on their ability to harness and channel the free labor or charity of others. This was particularly apparent in a spate of reality television and talk show programs that frequently promised to improve the well-being of the ordinary people brought into the production.8 These genres often claimed that their staff and crew were part of a family that left the local population better off. In the meantime, the programs were effective at cutting production costs by appropriating local settings and enrolling local residents, often in the form of volunteers. Although Treme followed this trajectory of corporate social responsibility, it also went beyond in imagining a more sustained investment in the lives of New Orleans’s creative workers than a single television episode or promotional event.
To their call to help New Orleans through media labor, extras responded in droves. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/05%3A_The_Production_of_Extras_in_a_Precarious_Creative_Economy/5.02%3A_The_Treme_Moral_Economy.txt |
In this calculus of righteous spends for the right costs, extras had a particular function in Treme. Extras, known by the euphemistic oxymoron “background artists,” have historically been the most abundant local hires. Since the early twentieth century, studios have relied on the ever-renewable reserves of people flocking to Hollywood. They lured them with promises that they might “break in” to the industry if they worked hard and were lucky. Even today, the trade lore generated in Los Angeles describes how people working as extras gain a foothold in the industry by building a resume and a social network, which then leads to a stable career. Despite the low probability of Hollywood fulfilling these promises even in the classical age of production, labor unions have struggled to organize the waves of everyday people who work only irregularly, if at all. As a result, extras on a set have been the most plentiful but also the cheapest hires in the labor force. In New Orleans, extras may put in up to sixteen hours a day, only to receive as little as fifty or a hundred dollars, depending on the size of the production budget. Most of the labor then involves waiting for a chance to be in a scene.
In a local economy characterized by low wages and precarious employment, Treme set a high bar. One extra said he made \$108 for only ten hours on the set; when the crew no longer needed him, he was dismissed but still got paid for a full day’s work. The daily contracts were particularly attractive to workers in other cultural and service industries in the city, especially during seasonal or cyclical lags. As a freelancer in the arts scene explained, “If you make \$100, that’s great. You can get your groceries, and your beer, and your cigarettes and go on to the next gig.” Beyond this, however, Treme drew on a reservoir of eager would-be extras based on the ethical promise of the program to the local cultural economy. Some of these extras had lived through Katrina, but many were new migrants who simply felt that they were contributing to something larger than a daily gig. Some even described doing extra work while visiting New Orleans, adding that they would do such a thing only for the love of Treme.
I came to these insights somewhat haphazardly in what began as separate studies of the program’s production and reception, which gradually merged when I realized that in forty interviews, nearly every self-proclaimed fan of the show I spoke with, about half my sample, had worked as an extra, intended to be an extra, or had friends who were Treme extras. While this was a representative sample neither of all viewers nor certainly of New Orleans writ large, my research subjects opened a window into the deep feelings the program evoked and then put to work. These emotions demonstrate tensions in the moral economy of the production, illustrating the challenges of sustaining any local film economy that would recognize its most localized but least visible workers. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/05%3A_The_Production_of_Extras_in_a_Precarious_Creative_Economy/5.03%3A_A_Little_Extra_Work_for_a_Lot_of_Extras.txt |
“It’s the trend to work on the set, to be on the set, to be an extra, or have a friend that was an extra,” said an African American student who grew up in an affluent uptown neighborhood. The excitement, he posited, came from the narrative itself.
“The show has the potential to be truthful and realistic to the city,” he said. This appeal to the real and to fundamental truth-telling about the city in the post-K era was a frequent logic for joining the production. In this, extras were no different from fans in loving the show’s careful attention to vernacular culture, regional musical and culinary traditions, and painstakingly accurate archive of the urban cultural geography. Moreover, extras described, in very emotional ways, the solidarity they felt with the series creators in telling the story of a city under threat of disintegration. As a recent resident, a retired professor who became an extra, explained, he felt like he became an insider to the city’s trauma by watching Treme weekly in New Orleans with a group of Katrina survivors:
That experience certainly changed [me and my wife’s] relationship to the show both in terms of the knowledge gained but also a sympathy towards it. People talked about how, you know, in the opening credits, there’s the patterns of mold, and people said, “Yeah, that one looks like the one I have in my [flooded] house.” And so you get connected to the show in ways that are very unusual. But Treme has been and continues to be this booster for New Orleans as a city. And right after Katrina that was critical. So I was a worshipper of Treme at that time because I felt people had given up on New Orleans, I mean really had given up.
Here the speaker’s desire to work for the show was imbued with a near spiritual investment in the city as portrayed through the program. Inevitably, the labor of being an extra could never live up to these lofty aspirations of being real, telling the truth, and satisfying souls.
The emotional solidarity with Treme served the labor needs of the production well. They stemmed from an imagined belonging, first, to a community of empathy with the residents of a traumatized city and, second, to a television program imbued with the agency to help in the recovery. By generating a community of empathy with New Orleans, the number of people who could imagine themselves doing extra work stretched beyond a period of residency or even the geography of city boundaries, bringing in new residents and even regular pilgrims to the city. These people could believe in New Orleans as a standpoint or a way of being expressed in a popular T-shirt: “Be A New Orleanian Wherever You Are.” The motto, which recognizes the real exile of New Orleanians throughout the world, could also recognize anyone who felt the same passion as Simon and Overmyer did. One of my interviewees, commenting on a nonnative friend who regularly appeared on the program, called these extras the “super–New Orleanians,” those residents who “go to everything more than the people born here. They are the ones who know the musicians. They have all the connections. They are kind of in love with something they want to embrace much more than in the natural way. . . . They can be almost arrogant about the real New Orleans.” These extras put to work their shared dispositions toward the city precisely by being the kinds of culture bearers and bards that the show spotlighted as authentic. The program succeeded in promoting and preserving this vision of the city and its citizenry in part because so many people were willing to be part of the drama’s background.
For extras, however, their personal experiences were in the foreground when they considered why they would take off work or spend their leisure time working at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy on a Hollywood production. People spoke of how Treme had become part of their own traumatic stories: “I guess just living here and having been through Katrina and coming back. The first two months were so intense, and I think the show shows that in a really accurate way, just how intense everything was” (female, thirty-seven, housekeeper). “The show was close to home. There was a connection” (female, thirty, tour guide). In these quotes, the locational shooting of Treme became part of their own temporal and geographic locations: respectively, Katrina and home. This close siting of the series meant for some people that they felt they had to appear on the program. Extras spoke of a kind of doppelgänger effect, in which they already saw themselves in the story, and thus wanted to memorialize it. A middle-aged man who lived through the storm spoke of audibly laughing or sobbing through scenes, replaying them as he did his own memories: “I kept expecting to see myself in the background because the scenes were so real to me. . . . I think there’s some weird thing in my brain that I think I’m already a part of it. I think that would be really neat to be historically there and on film, to be part of New Orleans” (male, forty-seven, barista and composer).
This emotional and psychological investment in the series spoke to a heightened expectation for Treme that locals did not express for other productions around the city, even those specifically focused on Katrina. On one hand, the investment spoke to the role of media in memorializing tragedies. Amanda Lagerkvist, for example, has written about how television recurrently reminds viewers of its own heroic role not only in broadcasting the tragic events of September 11th to global audiences but also in dealing with the traumatic aftermath in nationally specific ways.9 Seeing their lives unfold on the screen, Treme viewers wanted to be in the program, as if to merge the lived and its representation. One interviewee, a local musician, related her uncanny feelings about the program and her desire to work for it to looking at a Beatles album: “You’re just looking around. It’s like when I saw the big protest march in the last episode, I just keep seeing all these people from different parts of my life. They were all there. They were all extras so I joked that it was kinda like looking at a Sergeant Pepper album cover, you know, to see all these people you recognize” (female, forty-seven, nonprofit worker and singer). Extras wanted to not only “be in it because everyone else is in it,” as one said, but to be remembered as having been in it with everyone. Extras merged the politics of their labor recognition with the politics of belonging to the city and its historical record.
Treme’s labor market and strategy for so many extras thus relied on larger processes of popular memorialization, which on this particular program, championed the “super–New Orleanian” as the authentic representative of the city’s recent past. As proxies for the city’s local culture, extras were tasked with being in and engaging with the city in a way that others would see as authentic. According to one tour guide who did extra work during a slow period, this aspect of the job was hardly a burden: “One of the days I did extra work I was down on Frenchmen Street, which I go to all the time, and I went to the Spotted Cat [music club] and watched the Jazz Vipers. . . . Now [in season two] a lot of my buddies have been on the show, so chances are if I do it again, I’m going to hang out with them and get paid for it.” The proposition of getting paid to hang out takes a postmodern spin on the idea of labor, as if being an extra is not really working or somehow subverting real work. At the same time, it was where and with whom that imbued the extras with an exchange value in the first instance. Producers did not need the extras to do anything but hang around with others who could give credence to the authenticity claims for New Orleans as a particular kind of place, where people congregate every day in dark, musty alcoves animated by old-timey jazz riffs and refrains.
Beyond work on the set, the personal commitment on the part of avid viewers transformed extra work into a political project to do more hours and types of media labor off the set. Although production crews frequently refer to themselves as a “family,” in the case of Treme, the city at large was often seen as part of an extended production family. Crew members volunteered themselves and solicited others to manage charity and thank-you events in some of the neighborhoods with heavy location shooting. In an era of compulsory volunteerism at work,10 many extras saw free labor as a way to build their social network in the film industry, while being recognized by others as a participant in Treme’s moral economy. Collecting Facebook likes and cheers of recognition at the bar screening consolidated the public meaningfulness of appearing on the show with a veneer of participating in the preservation of local culture. By equating being on set to hear some music with urban recovery, they could pretend that watching the show, being on the show, and then promoting the show through social networks would sustain other local circuits of cultural production.
Meanwhile, for some extras, familial tensions emerged. Not everyone could embody the kinds of authenticity sought by the program. A white university student hailing from the East Coast claimed she was picked immediately and placed prominently in the camera’s view, while many people of color with less capital were turned away. Conversely, extras reported that crews excluded white extras when producers decided that the location should be African American. These occurrences led to various conversations about the politics of race in the production versus the city. Although no one would argue that there are still many segregated spaces in the city, production decisions at times clashed with extras’ expectations of realism and truth-telling. Some of these conversations expressed bemusement, as if to reaffirm the extras’ local knowledge contra the creators. In one instance, two white, middle-class retirees who had spent the day waiting with a crowd of hundreds for a restaging of a music festival pondered why the staff would have brought in buses of black, working-class school kids. Citing the increasingly unaffordable ticket prices and the overwhelmingly white audiences at the festival since Katrina, the interlocutors wondered privately if the decision was aspirational, a vision of how the festival should be populated. Other decisions about extras were more poignant, leading to hurt feelings when producers told extras that they did not belong in a restaging of a moment from their own lives.
If extras had a sense of the uncanny watching the show, they also had moments when their memories were edited for the screen. An extended example illustrates the disconnect on a production that attracted workers with a sense of connectedness. I met one of these super–New Orleanians at a public discussion on Treme that I led at a coffeehouse. She was a white woman in her fifties. I knew her from several moments in my own cultural repertoire in the city, and I knew that she knew much of the informal cultural economy portrayed in Treme. Her regular presence in the Treme neighborhood was also felt in public Treme screenings, which in the first season allowed non-HBO subscribers to see the program. Treme cast members and production personnel were known to drop in. After one powerful screening, the crew combed the crowd to enlist extras for an upcoming scene drawn from real events. The woman recalled telling the crew she was there the night Glen David Andrews was arrested. “[The producers] didn’t really believe it too much, you know. They thought that was kinda strange, but [one of the mothers of the band members] came out and said she was glad I was there. That meant more to me than the money.” Here the slight inflicted by the producers was recouped by another member of the crowd, a Treme viewer who was also a Treme resident. The incident illustrates the difficulties for extras who gave of themselves only to find that Treme did not reciprocate or took too much in return. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/05%3A_The_Production_of_Extras_in_a_Precarious_Creative_Economy/5.04%3A_To_Be_%28an%29_Extra.txt |
Despite the added compensation, both material and symbolic, that Treme provided its workforce, the production demanded a lot from its eager extras. In making the series speak to the worthiness of the city’s recovery and renewal, producers sought extras who could speak to New Orleanians and for New Orleanians. Extras had to be highly invested in those vernacular details that made up Treme’s carefully crafted mise-en-scène. The moral politics of recognition as a worker depended on whether extras could act both as referents and as bards for the place known as New Orleans. These roles could involve more labor, often for no payment, but they also raised the specter of reification when a musical number took front stage, leaving the performances of the extras in the background. In its most extreme formulation, the labor of being an extra could be framed as a gift, which perhaps unavoidably led to hurt feelings when the gift was not recognized or reciprocated.
None of these aspects of extras’ labor are registered in the quantitative analyses of jobs produced by film tax credit policies. They do, however, add nuance to the terms local and labor, which motivated these policies as well as provided fodder for both political consensus and critiques. The strategies that production companies, such as Treme’s Fee Nah Nee, use to be more moral and just while holding the bottom line may ultimately result in other costs. If the production includes only individuals with enough free time to do the work, either paid or unpaid, then the policies cannot be said to be building toward sustainable economies. In fact, it could be that the presence of so many extras with entitlement helps drive down the day rates of those who lack the time or the proper social networks to be desirable employees in the future. At the same time, the role of production companies in promoting themselves as instruments of urban economic recovery merely furthers the notion that private companies are the best managers of the public good. In an era of endless crises—political and economic—it is worth remembering that film production companies’ reliance on cheap or free labor undermines the economic bases for public services that all workers need, such as decent public schools, health care, and wages that bring the majority above the subsistence level. Until these needs are integrated more seamlessly into the New Orleans film economy, it will be no wonder if production companies continue to put their most marginal workers at the center of their most moral employment strategies.
5.06: Notes
1 Susan Christopherson and Jennifer Clark, Remaking Regional Economies: Power, Labor, and Firm Strategies in the Knowledge Economy (New York: Routledge, 2007).
2 See, for example, Susan Christopherson, “Behind the Scenes: How Transnational Firms Are Constructing a New International Division of Labor in Media Work,” in Cross-Border Cultural Production: Economic Runaway or Globalization?, edited by Janet Wasko (New York: Cambria Press, 2008); Tom O’Regan and Ben Goldsmith, The Film Studio: Film Production in the Global Economy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005); Greg Elmer and Mike Gasher, Contracting Out Hollywood: Runaway Productions and Foreign Location Shooting (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005); Mike Gasher, Hollywood North: The Feature Film Industry in British Columbia (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2002); Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell, and Ting Wang, Global Hollywood 2 (London: British Film Institute, 2008); Michael Storper and Susan Christopherson, “Flexible Specialization and Regional Industrial Agglomeration: The Case of the U.S. Motion Picture Industry,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77 (1987): 1104–1117; Janet Wasko, How Hollywood Works (London: Sage, 2003).
3 Mayor’s Office of Cultural Economy, 2014 New Orleans Cultural Economy Snapshot, New Orleans, LA, located at www.nola.gov/getattachment/Cultural-Economy/2014-CE-Snapshot-Electronic.pdf/.
4 Adriana Lopez, “A Look into America’s Fastest Growing City,” Forbes.com, July 26, 2012, www. forbes.com/sites/adrianalopez/2012/07/26/a-look-into-americas-fastest-growing-city/.
5 Dave Walker, “On the HBO ‘Treme’ Trail: David Simon, Eric Overmyer Discuss Creation of Prospective Drama,” Nola.com, April 4, 2009, http://blog.nola.com/davewalker/2009/04/on_the_treme_trail_david_simon.html.
6 Mark Banks, “Moral Economies and Cultural Work,” Sociology 40 (2006): 455–472.
7 Vincanne Adams, Markets of Sorrow, Labors of Faith: New Orleans in the Wake of Katrina (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013).
8 Laurie Ouelette and James Hay, Better Living through Reality TV: Television and Post-Welfare Citizenship (London: Wiley, 2008).
9 Amanda Lagerkvist, “9.11 in Sweden: Commemoration at Electronic Sites of Memory,” Television & New Media 15 (2014): 350–370.
10 See, for example, Melissa Gregg, Work’s Intimacy (London: Polity, 2012). | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/05%3A_The_Production_of_Extras_in_a_Precarious_Creative_Economy/5.05%3A_Concluding_Futures.txt |
“Now, everything in the talent agency business is different forever,” commented a talent agent I interviewed after the announcement, in late 2013, of the acquisition of the sports marketing giant IMG (International Management Group) by the major agency WME (William Morris Endeavor). Indeed, in the past decade, Hollywood talent agencies have had to undergo drastic changes, for which they are also largely responsible. These changes are intrinsically connected to transformations that have simultaneously affected and been generated by the studios, who are the agencies’ counterparts on the production side. This organizational mutation creates consequences in creative terms: it directly affects...
• 6.1: Introduction
Overview of the chapter scope: analysis of midsize and large talent agencies, the recent structural changes they have undergone, and the effects of these changes on agents' own professional identity.
• 6.2: How Agency Growth Transforms Agenting
Changes in the agenting industry over the past several decades, including the rise of systematic “packaging” of talent to present to studios, the increase in intra-agency compartmentalization and specialization with the rise of new media, and the shrinking oligopoly presented by the major agencies.
• 6.3: Lessons from the Rise of the “Indie Film Agent”
The rise in importance of indie film agents in the 21st century, as they take on a more artistic and "producerial" role in arranging who will participate in a project and thus distances themselves from the image of the solely commercially-focused agent.
• 6.4: The “Lost” Art of Agenting?
The growing gap in modern Hollywood between sales- or corporate-focused talent agents, and agents whose self-definition focuses more on the creative dimension of bringing together artists for a collaboration.
• 6.5: Notes
06: Talent Agenting in the Age of Conglomerates
“Now, everything in the talent agency business is different forever,” commented a talent agent I interviewed after the announcement, in late 2013, of the acquisition of the sports marketing giant IMG (International Management Group) by the major agency WME (William Morris Endeavor). Indeed, in the past decade, Hollywood talent agencies have had to undergo drastic changes, for which they are also largely responsible. These changes are intrinsically connected to transformations that have simultaneously affected and been generated by the studios, who are the agencies’ counterparts on the production side. This organizational mutation creates consequences in creative terms: it directly affects what “doing one’s job” as an agent means and, inseparably and subsequently, how agents contribute to making cultural products and artistic careers. In a tumultuous time of rapid professional reconfiguration, work situations feel more precarious to creative workers and, inseparably, more uncertain to their agents. This chapter addresses such transformations.
Talent representatives in the United States are divided into four main types of professionals: talent agents, managers, publicists, and entertainment lawyers. Unlike managers, who have only recently developed as an organized occupation, agents are closely regulated by the state in which they work. They also hold a legal monopoly over the right to seek and procure employment for their clients, a service for which the agency receives 10 percent of the amount negotiated in the artist’s contracts. Agents scout and “sign” talent (although not always in formal written form, especially in the large agencies), work at placing them in jobs, and negotiate deals with producers and studios. They are thus involved from an early stage of the film and television production process.
Figure 1: The Creative Artists Agency (CAA) building in Century City, California. Photo credit: Minnaert, via Wikimedia Commons).
The agency business has evolved into two relatively autonomous systems: in “Little Hollywood,”1 hundreds of small companies and one-man shops form the nebula of organizations representing beginner-artists and clients with modest careers. These agents mostly deal with casting directors, especially in television. By contrast, midsize and big agencies, such as WME, CAA (Creative Artists Agency), UTA (United Talent Agency), ICM (International Creative Management), and their smaller competitors (Paradigm, Gersh, Verve, and so on), belong to a different system of interrelations which links them to studios and established talent.2 I will mostly focus on this “Big Hollywood.” The existence of such large and powerful companies—WME and CAA now total thousands of employees—who represent high-end international talent and make transactions with major studios is unique to Hollywood.
Only recently has the American agency business come to be led by giant corporate entities that are simultaneously active in many sectors of the entertainment industry as well as beyond the domestic market. Parallel to this, production professionals have witnessed decisive transformations. This chapter provides a brief description of these organizational changes in order to explore what they imply for the practice of “agenting.” I first outline the structural changes that have reorganized the agency business and redefined talent representation. Next I look closely at “independent film agents;” the emergence of this new expert profile within the big agencies is especially revealing of the mutations affecting both agency and production sides of the industry. It is also rearranging the balance of power between sellers and buyers. Finally, I examine the effects that these radical transformations, which agents have often experienced in the course of their own careers, have on what agents feel to be their professional identity.3 The instability attached to the fast and substantial changes in agents’ environment, working conditions, and responsibilities blurs their self-definition and creates fragile professional identities. While most talent representatives experience the uncertainty of their status and prospects going forward, some are in a position to embrace such a self-reinvention process, whereas others underline what they see as the degradation of the value of agenting entailed by this transformation. In addition, the new context with which these professionals have to deal influences, through their experience and their work, the process by which projects are selected, put together, and brought to life, as well as how artistic careers are handled. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/06%3A_Talent_Agenting_in_the_Age_of_Conglomerates/6.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
The prevalent narrative of change in the agency world attributes to Michael Ovitz, through his success in building CAA into the most powerful agency of the 1980s and 1990s, the role of shaping and leading the reconfiguration of the system linking the main agencies to the major studios. Turning an agenting style into an organizational “culture,” the group of five young dissidents who left the reputable William Morris Agency to create CAA in 19754 ushered in new practices in the talent representation business. These new professional repertoires were attached to an organizational model: building teams of agents to attract high-end talent by exhibiting ostensible signs of power and importance (that is, notably, by staging relationships with other key players). At an organizational level, this strategy was intended to create a collaborative structure encouraging internal sharing of resources and assets, by contrast with the more individualistic and internally competitive model under which other agencies were organized. The success of their endeavor put Ovitz and his collaborators in a position to systematize “packaging” practices—that is, the assembling of key pieces that make up a project: in film, typically, assembling a star actor or a prominent director with a writer, other agencies’ clients, and possibly financiers who are willing to bring complementary funding, and selling them as a package to a studio—and often, because the stars desired by the studios were massively represented by CAA, to impose their conditions on the buyers.
But the story of how CAA changed the industry is only one piece of the puzzle. In fact, a more collective and systemic mechanism was in play. The modes of action and organization that made CAA successful circulated widely in the agency world and hybridized as they were appropriated in different contexts. All of the leading agencies transformed on a relational level. The new ways of agenting born from this pervasion and hybridization process (focused on packaging, “poaching” competitors’ clients, and so on) progressively became a professional norm in Big Hollywood. Veteran agents had to convert to new ways of doing the job that newcomers perceived as the norm. Those who launched new agencies in the early 1990s, UTA (1991) and Endeavor (1995) in particular, had the precedent of CAA in mind, but they had already distanced themselves from this model. The collective reorganizing of the agency business, in a favorable economic context in which studios had money to spend on hiring stars and developing projects, led to the constitution of a group of big agencies that had the critical mass of clients and agents to develop the practice of packaging. By the start of the 2000s, agents had negotiated unprecedented salaries for their star clients, and star power inseparably meant agency power. The balance of forces between studios and agencies, then in favor of the latter, was about to swing back.
At the same time, for agencies internally, growth translated into an increased division of labor—that is, both compartmentalization and specialization. Constituting new roles and areas of expertise inevitably generated institutional boundaries within the structure of the agencies: the departments by which agencies were traditionally organized—(talent or literary) motion pictures and television, music, theater, commercials, books—were subdivided or complemented by new divisions in charge of the uncharted territories. These emerged from media transformation (and the rise of new distribution platforms) and from the extension of the realm of entertainment to nonscripted/alternative television, gaming, branding, sports, and digital media. Talent has been redefined in the process, as agents nowadays represent reality television performers, chefs, web celebrities, as well as corporations and brands, as much as (and often more lucratively than) actors, directors, writers, or below-the-line personnel.5 Developing such additional branches of activity not only equals increased specialization; it also implies the constitution of new areas of expertise, as new subprofessions and career paths emerge within the scope of talent representation.6
It used to be a high level of specialization back in the days, in the 60s and 70s. At William Morris when I worked for them, I was in the music department, I wanted to get out of it, I wanted to move in the actor’s business . . . they said no. And I left. They were specialized. Then, they were like “that’s dumb because TV actors are movie actors, TV writers are movie writers! We want hyphening agents!” Now, you are in reality business or in digital business, and these things really don’t cross over as much. That’s interesting. That creates more specialization, but not the old. (Talent agent, big agency, 2012)
Transformations in the economy of media—especially with the development of cable television and the subsequent opportunities in number and quality of projects, and then with the supplanting of DVDs by digital outlets for distribution—take the form of organizational dilemmas in the private bureaucracies that are the agencies. Agency leaders know that they must institutionalize the necessary circulation of their artists between complementary sectors, toward what they believe to be the most promising new areas.7 For instance, the boundary between film and television has become permeable, and the symbolic hierarchy between the two has been rearranged in favor of the latter. At the same time, however, for the individual agent, crossing an artist over to a different media or area of practice without deferring to colleagues in the concerned department remains a risky subversion of organizational order, as the agent quoted below describes: “I started as a literary agent [representing writers and directors], and then I branched into talent [representing actors]. I’ve always been in the motion picture business. When I started representing actors in addition to my writer-directors, people were like “you’re doing both?!” It’s like shocking, blasphemy. And now it’s not so unusual. I’m called a hybrid agent, and it’s what I love, I would not be happy to just be doing lit[erary] or just talent. I like both. They’re both very different, but they cross-pollinate each other” (agent, big agency, 2013). Moving (and transferring one’s skills) from one specialty to another is a challenge within the institutional structure of big agencies, whose functioning tends to reinforce the differentiation between departments (especially given the way agents are usually evaluated and compensated).
In sum, “being an agent” in Big Hollywood from the 2000s and thereafter takes on a different meaning. It involves practicing a highly specialized job, maintaining relationships with a small circle of predefined buyers regarding a given type of product or profile of client, in a quickly changing environment and in large corporate companies that have instituted a strict division of activity. It also means handling more clients, often over 150. Only top agents can preserve a managerial style of agenting by representing a few of the (rarefied) stars who still get very lucrative contracts from the studios. This transformation of agenting and agencies in Big Hollywood is directly related to the notable development of management companies in the past twenty years. Such changes are, in turn, consequential for artists and art-making: if agenting is a numbers game, the clients who are not generating enough revenue for the agency get forgotten; the projects into which agencies put effort and energy are also of a different type, as our next section will explain.
The development of large talent agencies into complex organizations has generated a new class of agency managers, who are at more of a distance from the practice of agenting and closer to other types of powerful business leaders, and whose professional value is no longer exclusively or primarily derived from their client list (and consequent ability to leave with star clients):
The major companies, each does something similar and each is engaged in things that are different. I think our core businesses are similar, but our emphasis may be different. Our sizes are different. Our method of capitalization is different. We have private equity partners in this company. . . . But the businesses are run, managed, and operated by professionals, each of whom has been in the business for an excess of twenty years. So there’s an experienced professional class of executives who run these firms but who are also agents. (Big agency manager, 2011)
The big agency world is a shrinking oligopoly. From the “Big 5” agencies (CAA, WMA, ICM, UTA, Endeavor), made “Big 4” by the WMA-Endeavor merger in 2009, two giants have emerged as a result of a concentration and diversification process: CAA and WME. The latter now surpasses its competitor in size, thanks to the 2.4-billion-dollar deal by which WME bought IMG, announced in December 2013. Combined, WME and IMG immediately totaled over 3,000 employees in cities around the world, compared with CAA’s 1,500. But the growth of these companies is better measured when one considers that, in the mid-1990s, CAA only had approximately 500 employees. Both CAA and WME have relatively recently partnered up with a private equity investor;8 they could soon have an IPO and become a public company. These new investments—which bring fresh money into the agency system—establish a new power configuration. It comes with consequences that agents can anticipate, and which they describe as threatening the creative dimension of their professional identity:
If you are partially owned by an outside, nonentertainment company, they’re kicking the tires to see their return on investment, and they’re not always as knowledgeable as they need to be about really what’s going on, aside from just what the bottom line is. And so WME and CAA both have P&L statements that they have to really manage, and that means cutting clients, cutting agents, making choices not based necessarily on the artistry, but based on the bottom line. (Talent agent, big agency, 2013, her emphasis)
By contrast, the still privately owned agencies UTA and ICM work at repositioning their image as “artist-friendly” companies, while the industry press reveals that client representation was only 14 percent of WME’s revenue in 2013.9 The gap separating Little from Big Hollywood grows wider as bigger entities focus less exclusively on representing artists. At the same time, the studios have also radically changed and become part of large media corporations. This evolution directly affects the types of projects made (or dismissed) and the relevant strategies for spotting and manufacturing “talent.” On the agency side, this process happens through the transformation of agenting work sometimes associated with the emergence of new types of positions. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/06%3A_Talent_Agenting_in_the_Age_of_Conglomerates/6.02%3A_How_Agency_Growth_Transforms_Agenting.txt |
The 1990s saw the constitution of a new field of expertise in the agency world, which gradually consolidated during the 2000s: a few agents, who represented the rare foreign star directors or actors, started focusing on foreign coproduction and distribution opportunities, developing alliances with European or Australian counterparts who had access to sources of film funding. Those who built this new field in the domain of independent film packaging and financing drew on their ability to understand and navigate international markets. In practice, these agents were familiar with the local players who participated in the main international film festivals; they had developed a unique knowledge of the local rules of the game and had established relationships with the authorities who decided on the financing and the making of movies. The practice they invented went beyond the traditional work of foreign sales agents, who usually came into the mix only at the distribution phase. Their activity contributed to reshaping what an “indie film” is and how it can get made, which increasingly became inseparable from finding international investors and distributors. This case study illustrates how changes in the agency world and the institutionalization of a new area of specialization linked to transformations in studio practice affect the definition of cinematic genres (in this case, the indie film), the options that are open for artistic careers (international circulation of actors and directors especially), and the (interdependent) remodeling of domestic and foreign markets.
Here, I will very roughly sum up the elements involved in such a process. It all started with individual “entrepreneurs” acquiring distinctive skills, both in film finance and in film production, and penetrating into new territories in the agency business, as well as into neglected geographic spaces (mostly Europe and Australia at first). Their success stemmed from this happening at a specific point in time: their initiatives coincided with changes in production activities, in particular those of the studios. This new approach to agenting initially seemed like a risky strategy: its pioneers engaged in a marginal dimension of the agenting practice. They mostly faced skepticism and defiance on the part of colleagues in traditional positions, who viewed only the projects that studios backed as viable options, and discouraged their clients from getting involved in what they saw as uncertain independent/international endeavors. However, the success of a handful of movies (Green Card, Until the End of the World, and so on) quickly made perceptions shift in the agency world. As a result, in a business in which being one step ahead of competitors is key, “international agents” were rapidly taken seriously, increasingly so as their new role was progressively institutionalized in big agencies.
[I] signed a lot of people, put a lot of movies together. And then, after a point in time, I ended up representing some movies where we didn’t represent the client at all. . . . Because I represented the money that financed the movies, and they didn’t know what to do with the movies. And so I became the person that helped them with making foreign sales decisions, with a foreign sales agent. In some cases, I even made certain deals myself, usually with France, Italy, and Germany, maybe the UK. But I developed an expertise for making U.S. domestic deals, no agents were doing that. Then, because of that becoming important, what was really funny was that, you know, agents aren’t stupid, their basic antenna is always looking around to whatever they should know and do, or that guy’s going to be ahead of them, you know, it’s like this. So I would say, within six months to a year, all the agencies hired somebody who was their international person. (Former talent and independent film agent, big agency, 2013)
This role, which was initially defined mostly as “international arrangements and deal making” (with foreign financiers and distributors), was progressively reframed and increasingly characterized in reference to the manufacture of “independent films” as this new subfield of agenting was being organized. The conditions for this new specialization to stabilize were established and reinforced by the studios’ strategy of almost completely withdrawing from the production segment of “big independent” films.10 From around 2005 on, studios increasingly focused on making film franchises and sequels of previous box-office successes and in general developed fewer projects.11 New “solutions” then had to be found to respond to the decrease in job offers and the desire of commercially successful artists to do more “arty” movies. An agent in charge of financing and packaging independent movies in a midsize agency here describes his changing relationships with studio divisions:
We can be with the independent divisions of the studio, we can be with Focus of Universal, we can be with Searchlight of Fox, or Weinstein, or Lionsgate, or whatever. But Disney is not generally buying a lot of independent films. Warner Brothers is not buying a lot of independent films. Right? The companies that have such massive overheads, you know, if they buy a four-million-dollar movie that goes off and makes ten million dollars in profit, it so doesn’t even matter. The bottom line is they don’t even want to waste their time. . . . They produce less. But it has changed, right? The studios in the 70s and 80s and 90s, it has all changed. It’s like now all the studios are owned by conglomerates. It is all about the stock price. So they have to do things that move the stock. Financing a new movie doesn’t necessarily move the stock. (2013)
From such an account, it could seem that international agents simply expanded their niche by filling a void left by the studios. In fact, they actively contributed to the collective shaping not only of a specialized “market” (for “indies”) but also of the corresponding film genre and artistic categories. By building relationships with international partners in production and distribution according to their perception of a shrinking domestic market, they participated in feeding a self-reinforcing process. In turn, indie film teams gained importance in the agency business as the domestic box office revenue numbers gained more visibility compared to international numbers. The reversal of foreign and North American film revenues (respectively 70 and 30 percent,12 when it used to be the reverse) has provoked anticipation and strategy in the industry, partly rearranging internal professional hierarchies. Consequently, in the course of a few years, entire divisions dedicated to financing and packaging independent movies became institutionalized and grew within the large and midsize agencies.13 In addition, independent “indie film” consultants and financial advisers multiplied, contributing to the formation of a whole professional sector. Practitioners claimed legitimacy based on the definition of a specialized competence enabling them to represent a whole movie, not “just” the artists involved with it. “The basic job of an agent is to put the client to work. That’s what you’d call a single point transaction. . . . But the thing about representing a movie is a whole other thing and nobody had done it, no agents had done this. And so, I even created a financial structure where we got paid a consultancy fee, because I was performing a service” (former independent film agent, big agency, 2013).
This interviewee underlines the different structure of remuneration distinguishing his job from other positions. His specific role relies on the valorization of a “unique skill”—“blending art and commerce”14—and on the exhibition of familiarity with and recognition from the world of film finance (and its bankers and investors). As a matter of fact, several of these specialized agents have a distinctive profile: they joined an agency late in their career after having worked in finance. The agency that hires someone with such a background is looking for both a level of technical expertise and a set of preexisting relationships with potential film funding sources, all the while expecting the new agent to approach movies as an “investment” like any other.15 However, for the most part, the financial dimension of the practice is not what takes prevalence in these agents’ self-definition.
As their job consists in assembling various eclectic pieces that make up an independent production, “indie film agents” can take pride in having both expert knowledge and creative autonomy. They indeed orchestrate the participation of diverse players—from financiers, producers, and distributors in various countries to creative personnel and their representatives (agents, unions, managers, and so on)—in a complex project. They draw symbolic power from this position of coordinator, which places them “above the crowd.” But they also describe this role as a challenge: they first have to overcome the reluctance of agents who hold different positions and often have contradictory interests (primarily choosing the most secure job option for their clients). It’s internally, in the agency world and often within their own company, that they fight their first battles. The precarious aspect of playing with such a composite system appears in this agent’s words:
Every agent, whether they want to admit it or not, has an agenda for their client. So, to get a movie made means you have to have a hundred different agents somehow come to the same agenda at the same time. I need this male actor, this female actor, this director, this writer, this producer, this line producer, this DP, this editor, and then the financier’s agent and manager and blah-blah-blah. The most difficult thing by far is trying to get everyone on the same page at the same time. . . . So, it is going to all the agencies, convincing talent to do a movie, convincing the team that they should do the movie for the right price, convincing the financiers that they should do this. It is getting a lot of different people to agree on one thing. To align all the different pieces and all the different agendas and find the right financier who says, “You know what? I’m doing that.” (Independent film agent, midsize agency, 2013)
As a result, these agents promote their area of specialization by stating that they accomplish “more than ordinary packaging,” in the sense that they have the responsibility of putting together entire movies. Their overarching position preserves them from the fragmentation that usually confines agents to the preproduction phase, with little control over the film-making process as a whole; by contrast, it places these specialists closer to the position of a director or a producer: “It’s not packaging, because packaging in my mind is just bringing on the director and an actor into it. If you’re also organizing all of the financing, you’re structuring, you’re setting up the distribution; it’s much more than packaging. It’s executive producing without the executive producing title” (independent film agent, big agency, 2013).
The value of working on international independent coproductions and the very meaning of independence for these agents have to do precisely with this self-attributed “producerial” power, which solidly ties them to the artistic side of the industry and distances them from the image of the agent as a mere salesman. This observation goes beyond the case of indie film specialists; it reveals the prevalence of most agents’ identification with creativity in their professional self-concept and also reveals the strength of symbolic hierarchies in even the most commercial sectors of Hollywood: “The producing that we do as agents, whether it is finding the money, or finding the other artists, or finding the script, or developing the script, or whatever it is: the not-just-making-the-deal-and-putting-them-in stuff, the other stuff, is rewarding and creates dimension to your service, and also separates the smarts from the clinicians” (talent agent, big agency, 2013).
At the end of the day, as successful as independent films may be both domestically and internationally, they are not as lucrative as big studio tent poles. Indie films are more unpredictable and require more energy from the agency side. In line with the rationalization of activity characterizing the largest agencies, and despite the growth of their independent film divisions, “going international” has not come to mean being central in the game. Studio production remains the priority, and packaging for studios the main focus. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/06%3A_Talent_Agenting_in_the_Age_of_Conglomerates/6.03%3A_Lessons_from_the_Rise_of_the_Indie_Film_Agent.txt |
For most agents, especially those who entered the profession before 2000, the globalization of the entertainment industry is not synonymous with geographic expansion or international circulation as much as it means the transformation of the “local” reality of Hollywood: the evolution of both studios and big agencies into complex corporate entities, institutionalized and rationalized in their organization, and whose activities go way beyond talent representation and filmmaking, has strongly affected the experience of agenting. Especially since, at the same time, technological changes have made agenting less a matter of face-to-face and physical interactions and have turned a primarily phone-based practice into a distant, fast-paced, e-mail-mediated activity.16 The skills, profiles, and resources required to excel, and the models of success themselves, have also started to change. As a result of the agencies’ organizational growth and the increased specialization that reorganizes them internally, agents are seeing their craft fall rapidly into obsolescence finding themselves in a weak position when mergers or acquisitions lead to staff reductions. In an environment that feels increasingly unpredictable, the requirement that an agent be a “forward thinker” who is constantly innovating—although not specific to this context but consubstantial to the professional ideology of agenting—intensifies. Adherence to this professional ideology of perpetual anticipation conflicts with the apprehension of being overtaken by change, and makes the fear even more difficult to voice and address. To this should be added the uncertainties generated by relatively short-term employment contracts (typically two or three years) and a compensation system increasingly based on bonuses (with a reduced salary base).17
Concentration and diversification processes have resulted in new challenges for agents, putting their professional self-definition into question. Although agents recognize sales as being an integral part of their job, most emphasize the artistic dimension as what gives worth to what they do. Thus they put forward their relationship with talent, their role in creative match-making, and their ability to initiate projects through packaging. Because the new conditions bring agenting closer to other sales jobs or corporate careers, many of the agents I interviewed deplored them as leading to “less of a creative experience.” With a little nostalgia, this top agent at one of the biggest companies perfectly describes the loss of balance induced by the corporatization of Hollywood that most of his colleagues with comparable trajectories also express:
I believe that advocacy, in the creative space, no matter what you are—a lawyer, a publicist, a manager, or an agent—has got to be an exclusive and nurturing relationship. And I find that, by definition, it has to therefore be a contained culture. A manageable size and scope. It’s a balance between the right amount of agents in your infrastructure and in your culture, and the right amount of clients—high-end, medium, and up-and-coming—that creates a balance in the way you manage a company that needs to sign, service, and sell creative talent, partly, and in my opinion mostly, through packaging them together and with other like-minded artists that you don’t represent. And that skill requires time and space, and creative collisions. And the more corporate you are, and the more of an order-taker, clinical kind of “here is the list,” “here is the links for the thing” you are, just [going] back and forth in a more clinical, institutional way, the more the creative gets squeezed out. And the agents’ advocacy, the premium on their advocacy, the premium on their brilliance is diminished by the system of having a voluminous client list to service and/or a voluminous agent body to manage. (Talent agent, big agency, 2013, his emphasis)
This definition of the agent as the artist’s advocate reveals the ongoing shift of the profession, in its material organization as well as its symbolic hierarchies, and the coexistence of various paths and profiles currently forming the agenting profession. These different profiles partly correspond to generations that have entered the agency world at different times, and partly stem from the simultaneous presence of heterogeneous profiles intrinsically making up a profession that oscillates between a creative and a commercial pole. The economic prosperity of the industry in the 1990s attracted law and business graduates from prestigious schools to Hollywood. These cohorts of “Harvard kids” then populated the mailrooms of the big agencies, coming in with different expectations and, oftentimes, a less art-oriented self-definition. Even though they represent a minority of today’s agents, some have now accessed leading positions of the top agencies.
Generally speaking and more importantly, the current socio-economic conditions transforming Hollywood are better adapted to the businessmen-agents’ profile than to that of those who mostly wanted to “be in the arts.” If they take on responsibilities, the former are likely to participate in bringing the agency world even further in this direction. Indeed, as the agent quoted below suggests, agency owners and managers who are running large businesses and have to report to their shareholders cannot value what this interviewee calls the “lost art” of agenting:
I feel like I’m an artist. My art is being able to craft an argument and leverage other artists and find collaborations that will work. And then get the money. That’s the job, that’s what I think is my art form. . . . I don’t think that the executives today have a reason, nor are they cultivated, nor are they trained to think of it that way. And because, frankly, art does not necessarily mean commerce. I think that it’s the goal of the owners to create more corporate executives and agents who are more interested in turning a buck than they are relating to talent. (Talent agent, big agency, 2010)
Nevertheless, this relationship to talent, art, and stardom remains remarkably important in defining the agents’ worth and value, even in the most profitable areas of the business. It is not by chance that agents who share this interviewee’s talent-oriented self-definition have often reached top positions in the agency business. In this professional world, the hierarchies ordering the artists, according to which aesthetic and professional recognition especially matters and closely combines with commercial success to make up someone’s “worth,” transfer to the ranking of talent representatives: their link to “their” artists defines the agents. In other words, being of “quality” distinguishes top talent and top representatives alike in these “markets of singularity.”18 Even in today’s context of “corporate Hollywood,” investors who put money in talent agencies—and not in a less uncertain business—manifest and reproduce the strength of symbolic capital attached to film stars and the magic of cinema. Prestige hierarchies in the industry still place motion pictures above television (nonscripted television shows for sure, and arguably scripted ones too, even though the development of cable channels has made the frontier between film and television much more permeable) as well as gaming and web products—in sum, above the most lucrative sectors of talent representation. This consubstantial interplay between sources of prestige and sources of revenue still organizes the industry.
The “business entrepreneur” agent and the new class of agency executives have not entirely supplanted more “creative types” in the agency world. Some of the latter turn to management, while others remain part of the organizational environment of large agencies. All participate in the self-reinforcing changes that are taking place “behind the scenes” in Hollywood, in the representation and production spaces, in interconnected ways: the structural changes shaping “global Hollywood” before our eyes (and making up the “digital media revolution”) are not just a reaction to external factors. They are produced collectively and subject to sophisticated strategies on the part of big agency leaders, all the while being too much of a systemic process to be controlled by any one powerful industry player. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/06%3A_Talent_Agenting_in_the_Age_of_Conglomerates/6.04%3A_The_Lost_Art_of_Agenting.txt |
1 Robert R. Faulkner, Music on Demand: Composers and Careers in the Hollywood Film Industry (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1983).
2 On the effects of the division between core and non-core agencies in terms of market segmentation and artistic careers, see William T. Bielby and Denise D. Bielby, “Organizational Mediation of Project-Based Labor Markets: Talent Agencies and the Careers of Screenwriters,” American Sociological Review 64.1 (1999): 64–85.
3 My work is based on 112 interviews conducted in Los Angeles, mostly with agents and to a lesser extent with managers, production professionals, artists, lawyers, and publicists, as well as in situ observations at talent agencies or alongside an agent. This research received support from the European Commission (7th Framework Program, Marie Curie Fellowship).
4 Ron Meyer, William Haber, Michael Rosenfeld, and Rowland Perkins are the other four.
5 Below-the-line encompasses the technical professions working on film and television projects. See Laura Grindstaff and Vicki Mayer, “The Importance of Being Ordinary: Brokering Talent in the New-TV Era,” in Brokerage and Production in the American and French Entertainment Industries: Invisible Hands in Cultural Markets, ed. Violaine Roussel and Denise Bielby (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2015), 131–152.
6 In addition to formalized divisions, various other principles of fragmentation combine. Agents are categorized much like their clients are, according to homologous (prestige) hierarchies.
7 Positions of “crossover agent” are created in some agencies for that purpose. The question of how to institutionalize the activity of social and digital media agents, in a context where no one initially knows how to monetize digital content, also illustrates the strength of the institutional framework of the big agencies. On the way film and television professionals approach this “digital revolution,” see Michael Curtin, Jennifer Holt, and Kevin Sanson, eds., Distribution Revolution: Conversations about the Digital Future of Film and Television (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014).
8 In 2010, CAA formed a strategic partnership with the global private equity firm TPG Capital, which owns 35 percent of the agency. WME partnered with Silver Lake in May 2012, the private equity firm acquiring a 31 percent share in the agency.
9 The Wrap, April 13, 2014, www.thewrap.com/leaked-inside-details-of-two-billion-dollar-wme-img-financing.
10 “Independent” in this context makes sense in contrast with “studio movie,” that is, the concentration of the activities of production, distribution, and retail under the unified umbrella of a studio. The practice of “packaging,” traditionally attached to studio production, gets partly redefined and expanded to include the activity of putting together such “big indie films,” with a focus on finding their financing and organizing their distribution. Small independent films made with no money outside of “Big Hollywood” do not belong to this category and do not result from the activity of the same participants.
11 Lynda Obst, Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales from the New Abnormal in the Movie Business (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013); Roussel and Bielby, eds., Brokerage and Production.
12 In 2013. Motion Picture Association of America, Theatrical Market Statistics, 2013, p. 4, www. mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2013_032514-v2.pdf.
13 Midsize agencies practice “copackaging” with larger companies that have more star clients.
14 Indie film agent, big agency, Los Angeles, 2013.
15 “There is a bunch of things we do, not just financing movies. . . . We’ll make investments in different movies that only come after the fact in North America. So it has nothing to do with me packaging a movie, it has to do with me saying, “Okay, I like that as an investment, let me see if one of my guys wants to put money in.” We do all of the financial analysis and put them as producers on those movies” (indie film agent, midsize agency, 2013, his emphasis).
16 Such dematerialization mechanisms also generate more “spec work” for agents, to use the category forged by John Caldwell (see chapter 2).
17 This is also true of the agents who work in the countless small companies of Little Hollywood, although it takes somewhat different forms in their case: directly impacted by the precarization of labor affecting their clients and the subsequent diminution in revenue for their agency, they sometimes have to jump from one small boutique to another at the mercy of economic ups and downs that can quickly lead a small organization to close doors. Their fear of becoming “dispensable” (in one person’s words) or irrelevant also stems from the experience of extensive technological changes: the new electronic tools that equip the practice of agenting increasingly turn it into the rationalized management of massive lists of clients (whose profiles are submitted mechanically to casting professionals via online platforms that disclose the information about available jobs to all agencies at once) and devaluate the “craft of agenting” as the agents knew it (getting the information first based on personal connections within the casting community, having more time to advocate for individual clients, and so on). However, even the agents in the most vulnerable positions claim the ideal of the fearless entrepreneur-agent who thrives in tumultuous times, dissociating themselves from a critique of flexibility or from making common cause with precarized clients. For convergent observations, see Berg and Penley, as well as Mayer, chapters 4 and 11.
18 Lucien Karpik, Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010). | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/06%3A_Talent_Agenting_in_the_Age_of_Conglomerates/6.05%3A_Notes.txt |
Political economists and network theorists offer different assessments of the global relations of motion picture production. While spatially extended webs of productive labor are central to such approaches, neither explains specifically how these webs are constituted or how they operate in peripheral production ecologies. What is more, they do not consider the implications of the knowledge transfers and power hierarchies emerging from such transnational production contexts. By contrast, this chapter offers a concrete analysis of these issues in Prague’s postsocialist film and television industries. It focuses on the segregation of the local work world and on barriers inhibiting transsectoral knowledge...
• 7.1: Introduction
Overview of the chapter focus: analysis of film and television industry labor issues in postsocialist Prague, including the segregation of work cultures, barriers against transsectoral knowledge transfers, and the two-tier production split between international and domestic production.
• 7.2: Localized Learning in Global Production Networks
Distinguishing this chapter's focus on local reasons for labor precarity from the U.S.-dominated neo-Marxist analysis of international production. The process by which Czech workers learn foreign production practices, and the three dimensions of localized learning proposed by Malmberg and Maxwell.
• 7.3: Globalizing a Postsocialist Production World – Producers and Production Management as Cultural Interface
The rise of Prague's foreign services industry since the 1990s. The emphasis on transfer of organizational knowledge and managerial, rather than technical, skills from overseas producers to Czech workers.
• 7.4: Multiple Globalizations
The limitations of knowledge transfer as a result of interaction between Czech and overseas personnel, including the lack of local production reshaping due to the lack of hiring of Czech above-the-line workers or department heads, the limited upward mobility of Czech workers in transnational productions, and the lack of production services companies branching out to original productions.
• 7.5: Career Patterns and Precarity in Transnational Project Networks
Contrasting career patterns: American-born production managers in Prague are fast-tracked compared to their counterparts in Hollywood, while Czech production workers rarely gain promotions to higher creative positions, build internationally known career, or take part in prestigious domestic projects.
• 7.6: Conclusion – A Two-Tier, Departmentalized Work World
The importance of a balanced approach to modeling globalization, that considers knowledge transfers, learning effects, and cultural intermediaries, in analyzing labor issues of the Czech screen industries.
• 7.7: Notes
07: Transnational Crews and Postsocialist Precarity Globalizing Screen Media Labor in Prague
Political economists and network theorists offer different assessments of the global relations of motion picture production. While spatially extended webs of productive labor are central to such approaches, neither explains specifically how these webs are constituted or how they operate in peripheral production ecologies. What is more, they do not consider the implications of the knowledge transfers and power hierarchies emerging from such transnational production contexts. By contrast, this chapter offers a concrete analysis of these issues in Prague’s postsocialist film and television industries. It focuses on the segregation of the local work world and on barriers inhibiting transsectoral knowledge transfers, which originate from a two-tier production system split between international and domestic production, and characterized by different business models, gatekeepers, career prospects, and precariousness.
The state-socialist past of the Czech Republic still affects its screen industries. In 1991, Prague’s once-monopolistic Barrandov Studios laid off most of its 2,700 staff, including all creative personnel. This step helped transform the Czech capital into a regional hub of international media production, attracting Hollywood on the prospect of a large, skilled, nonunion labor pool and, later on, a 20 percent rebate program. During the city’s peak year of 2003, international operations attracted \$178 million in investment, roughly twenty times more than wholly indigenous productions, which comprised some fifteen to forty feature films annually. There are three main gravity centers in this labor market: international productions, television broadcasting (with the public-service broadcaster holding a privileged position), and wholly local film productions. These represent three semipermeable economies, work cultures, and instances of globalization. Furthermore, each is characterized by a distinctive structure and hosts distinct career patterns. Questions about their development crystallize around the extent to which they will sustain themselves, collaborate, transfer knowledge, offset risk, and increase their competitiveness in the region.
This chapter concentrates on international productions, especially “service production” in film and television. This is the strongest sector economically, yet the most vulnerable. It is also the sector about which scholars have said the least. This chapter considers how the globalization of media production might be understood from the perspectives of the transnational crews working on international productions. Despite being among the best-paid members of the labor market, Czech personnel are afforded less creative control, job security, and professional upward mobility than their colleagues in other sectors. Interviews with prominent members of this production culture,1 along with ethnographic data gathered by student interns,2 suggest that inequality in working conditions has contributed to the dynamics of this professional community. The chapter therefore focuses on multidirectional local and translocal processes of mediation taking place within the global production networks connecting major East-Central European cities to other parts of the world. In so doing, it reconsiders globalization in the sphere of film production in a manner that counters prevailing U.S.-centric perspectives. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/07%3A_Transnational_Crews_and_Postsocialist_Precarity__Globalizing_Screen_Media_Labor_in_Prague/7.01%3A_Introduction.txt |
Recent discussion of international production is dominated by neo-Marxist criticism of the New International Division of Cultural Labor (NICL). This approach sees the globalization of film production as a means for Hollywood to strengthen its international hegemony. It is said that Hollywood achieved this powerful position in several ways, including sidestepping U.S. labor unions, disempowering and deskilling the global workforce, and fostering levels of uncertainty that destabilize local producers. NICL, it is argued, transforms locations into industrial sites for service providers, making them prone to dependency, underdevelopment, and disinvestment.3
Although it has broadened our understanding of the global political economy, neo-Marxist analysis of this kind can be criticized for its U.S.-centricism. By largely duplicating positions advanced by American screen unions, this approach arguably paints a somewhat unbalanced picture of power relations between U.S. companies and their overseas suppliers. Such an approach could also be accused, on the one hand, of focusing on the short-term project-based thinking of incoming producers, such as choosing between different levels of incentives, labor costs, and production services offered in competing locations. On the other hand, it could be accused of disregarding the long-term “location interests” that have led local companies and policymakers to embrace international production, including development of studios and film services, branding, and knowledge transfer.4 My interview subjects tended to demand a more measured perspective on the effects of international production on creative labor. They did not lament the exploitation spotlighted by neo-Marxists. Rather than denounce overseas producers when confronted with the precariousness of their working lives, these workers spotlighted difficulties caused by local policies, coworkers, and intermediary service companies. They also compared their working lives to schooling, inasmuch as their work afforded opportunities to learn American-style practices without leaving their hometowns. They invoked a postsocialist imaginary derived from their mediated experiences of foreign production practices, restricted mobility, and limited career prospects.
From the perspective of a regional postsocialist production center, these location interests can be illuminated by the work of the Manchester School of Economic Geography.5 Its theory of global production networks (GPNs) considers how opportunities for knowledge diffusion are opened by two parallel processes: the dispersion of the value chain across corporations and national boundaries, and integration across hierarchical layers of network participants. In contrast to neo-Marxism, this position considers local workers to be social actors rather than victims. It emphasizes the multiactor and multiscalar characteristics of transnational production, alongside societal and territorial embeddedness. Within GPNs, “global network flagships” source specialized capabilities from outside the company itself;6 however, knowledge transfer does not guarantee effective knowledge diffusion. Rather, knowledge must be internalized and translated into capabilities, because local suppliers learn by converting explicit into tacit knowledge. Qualitative data garnered from my interviewees suggests that mutual learning, social networks, and cultural mediators play key roles in the lives of Prague’s filmmakers.
In contrast to the permanent positions, standardized careers, and formalized training procedures that were central to the pre-1991 Czech production scene, today’s interfirm, “boundaryless” careers demand that workers adapt rapidly to complex new tasks 7 and a shared industrial culture, which helps them rapidly form new teams with strangers. Central to the formation of these informal, variable social networks are horizontal flows of information and tacit organizational knowledge. American heads of departments, line producers, and above-the-line talent work directly with local crews, integrating them into production teams and exposing them to tacit knowledge.
Processes of externalization and internalization are particularly intense when lengthy location shoots expose crews to foreign working practices. Economic geography has shown us that learning through offshoring depends on face-to-face contact between incoming and local actors. Malmberg and Maskell identified three dimensions of “localized learning.” First, a “vertical” dimension involves interaction between business partners, input/output relations, and their distinct yet complementary activities. Second, the “horizontal” dimension involves observation, benchmarking, and imitating similar activities. A third, “social” dimension involves everyday exposure to shared industry “buzz” or interpretative schemes. The long-term success of these processes is dependent on additional factors, including the degree of trust or quality of network relations that exists among interacting sites and between the initial local knowledge base and its institutional setup.8
Accordingly, I would like to propose three provisional hypotheses linking globalization of production with creative labor and localized learning in the postsocialist work world of Prague. First, the city’s position in global production networks suggests a multidirectional version of globalization, wherein local agents react to global forces, and “location interests” and “localized learning” are preconditioned by historical and environmental specificities. Intermediaries play a key role in translocal transactions—in Prague’s case, usually production services. Second, the “postsocialist precarity” of creative workers results more from an internal than international division of labor. Prague is compartmentalized due to a fragmented production sector, a lack of strong workers’ organizations, and the selective involvement of the state. Politicians have focused on separating the constituent sectors of the screen media industry into an indigenously produced “national culture,” which it feels needs state support, production services (perceived as a pure business), and the traditionally strong public service media that typically attracts their attention. Third, although it has improved the local infrastructure, the globalization of media production has failed to improve the quality of locally produced screen media due to barriers continuing to hamper transnational learning and career development. Innovative, internationally successful, and critically applauded works are more likely to come either from smaller production companies deeply rooted in the local environment, who are able to combine original content with smaller-scale international services, or from multinational companies like HBO, who nurture long-term relationships with local talent and understand the local market, than directly from workers and companies servicing Hollywood’s big-budget runaway productions. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/07%3A_Transnational_Crews_and_Postsocialist_Precarity__Globalizing_Screen_Media_Labor_in_Prague/7.02%3A_Localized_Learning_in_Global_Prod.txt |
Providing services to overseas companies is nothing new for Prague’s Barrandov Studios. The studio first engaged in this practice in the 1930s, and continued doing so during the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia and state-socialist rule. Under state socialism, Barrandov participated in myriad coproductions with, and provided production services to, partners from socialist and Western nations. Unlike coproductions, its services to Western producers were valued in economic, rather than ideological, terms, because they were lucrative ventures bringing muchneeded hard currency into the country. After the studio privatized following the fall of state socialism in 1989, international production was still dominated by former executives of communist-era Barrandov’s Foreign Commissions Department. At this time, Prague was underdeveloped, with most overseas producers using their own crews and sending rushes to cities like London. Moreover, overseas producers required local intermediaries to help deal with local accounting and legal systems, as well as providing access to essential resources like labor, sets, and locations. The state-socialist-era production managers who pursued these roles encountered significant difficulties in adapting to the new flexible regime. Many spoke little English, and their working habits and organizational culture were different from those of their new American partners. As former secret police agents, some struggled to come to terms with transparent negotiations and business practices.9
By the late 1990s, this older cohort who had focused on West European productions was being replaced by younger players. Some of this new generation came from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, with Briton Matthew Stillman’s company Stillking the most successful of the new setups. The thirty-year-old Californian David Minkowski came to Prague in 1995 to work on low-budget international productions. He teamed with Stillman, marking the start of a twenty-year process that made him the most influential figure in the Czech production services industry. Minkowski’s career advanced at a rate impossible in Los Angeles, a city in which, by his own admission, he would have been unable to secure high-ranking executive positions on prominent projects like Casino Royale (2006).10
Prague’s foreign services boom started in 1998. Foreign commissions required flexible, English-speaking workers. This development coincided with an estimated thirty thousand young Americans relocating to Prague. Having formed social networks, some of these “YAPS”—Young Americans in Prague—were hired by production service companies as managers to work alongside Czechs, most of whom had been employed by Barrandov during the communist period. The latter were reluctant to work the long hours common for Hollywood productions, and so Minkowski sourced bright, eager youngsters working in the city’s hotels and restaurants. According to one account, “He would strike up conversations to test their English, and if they seemed smart enough to quickly learn a new, demanding job, he would ask if they wanted to work at Stillking. ‘They always said, yes,’ recalls Minkowski. ‘I mean who would choose to be a waiter or receptionist instead of doing movies?’” Ten years later, most Stillking employees were under forty, and the Barrandov generation was gone.11
In 1998, Stillking expanded into big-budget productions, acting as a regional mediator for Hollywood studios wanting to shoot in countries like Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. In a marketing campaign dubbed “Shoot Europe,” Stillking invited foreign studios to “show us the scripts, we’ll budget them for you, find the right locations and crew—and if you work with us you’ll save between 30% and 50% compared to equivalent costs in the US.”12 By the late 1990s, Prague was earning a reputation for quality and not just inexpensive film production services. Bigger projects were drawn to the city by experienced crews, Barrandov’s fourteen soundstages, and locations that could stand in for any European city or historical period. Consequently, a disproportionally large filmmaking community of five thousand professionals developed.13
This boom period ended in 2004, when governments in countries like Hungary started to implement new initiatives to bring overseas producers to their cities. Poised to soar in Hungary, foreign film investment fell 70 percent in Prague.14 A second slump saw foreign spending drop another 66 percent in 2008. For the first time since 1992, income from international productions was less than from domestic productions.15 In the city’s postboom years, production service professionals suggested that the domestic film industry was dying. They insisted crews and the surrounding infrastructure could not survive in a small country like the Czech Republic without the support of overseas producers.
To bring the country into line with its competitors, the Czech government belatedly implemented a 20 percent cost rebate program in 2010. This step fueled a new wave of international productions, as income rose to \$140 million by 2013. Yet the program was still characterized by short-term thinking, such as attracting international projects individually, rather than a long-term strategy designed to complement and develop local skills.16 Since then, a relatively low rebate cap of \$25 million has threatened such investments. Combined with the proportional allotment principle, this cap has caused the rebate to drop from 20 percent to 6–8 percent.17 By contrast, Budapest has enjoyed considerable prosperity since introducing a cap-free rebate program.18 In 2014, the Czech cap was finally raised by \$14 million; Hungary responded by raising its limit from 20 percent to 30 percent, pushing competition to a new level.19
Since 1990, around 140 foreign feature films and TV series have been shot at Barrandov.20 Of these, 60 were Hollywood productions, including Mission: Impossible (1996), Van Helsing (2004), and The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008). A typical international production involves numerous crews shooting both at local studios and on location. Below-the-line personnel are mostly Czech, heads of departments American or British, and above-the-line talent from the United States. For several months, talent and support personnel work for twelve hours plus, six days a week. Their face-to-face interaction can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts but permits them to observe others, imitate their practices, and learn by doing.
As studios and producers operate on an increasingly global scale, they must collaborate with personnel in a variety of locations. The key players in a Hollywood runaway production are typically the head of physical production (or vice president of production) at the studio, the producer, the line producer, the local production manager, the local studio manager, the production designer, the location scout, and the director. During shooting, the line producer is the studio’s principal representative: s/he oversees the production on location. Line producers may hold little decision-making power, but American producers see them as specialists on locations and local crews, whose opinions influence whether to shoot at a particular overseas site. Local production service companies and production managers are the main partners of incoming line producers. Together they form a cultural interface between the United States and local production centers, as they pursue maximum efficiency by engineering Hollywood-style working conditions.21 Incoming line producers and local production managers are therefore key channels of knowledge transfer, enabling both parties to learn from each other. However, by achieving this mutually beneficial symbiosis and assigning other agents distinct positions within the structure of the transnational team, they obstruct local personnel’s access to higher-level positions.
As a profession, the film producer did not exist in Eastern Europe under state socialism, which instead used centralized production systems.22 In the early 1990s, the role of the producer needed to be created from scratch. The old-style production managers previously employed by state-owned studios attempted to upgrade their skills and reinvent themselves either as independent producers or as production service companies catering to overseas clients. Adapting to Western production cultures and learning from foreign partners were particularly important skills for the owners of production service companies. Foreign producers became conduits of tacit, embedded organizational knowledge, which local players attempted to internalize through direct observation and imitation.
Later in the decade, the labor market hosted the first generation of postsocialist producers, consisting primarily of students from the relaunched production program at Prague’s FAMU film school. These newcomers distinguished themselves from the older managers-turned-producers, embracing European norms of competing at international film festivals and coproducing films with Western partners.23
My interviews suggest that overseas producers and Czech personnel mainly transferred organizational knowledge relating to the division of labor, pacing, problem solving, work ethics, and communication. Even below-the-line talent contended they learned more managerial than technical skills. If technical knowledge was in fact mentioned, it did not concern filmmaking or technology but rather budgeting and accounting. This type of embedded organizational knowledge can be externalized during on-set interaction and internalized by local suppliers through observation and imitation. Production managers serve as cultural mediators during this kind of transfer. Minkowski identified the need to train new production managers as the greatest challenge to the current system, estimating that financial and organizational services represent 80 percent of Stillking’s operations. Rather than reeducating veteran professionals, he picked young, English-speaking outsiders: “In the areas of accounting, production management, coordination, assistant directors, . . . locations, you can train people who don’t have any experience and you can put them in positions of authority, and if they are the right personality and have the right internal skills, they can learn it quickly.”24 By the late 2000s, Czech production managers were self-sufficient, with Hollywood-style organizational skills firmly integrated into their daily routines.
Minkowski could not simply throw young English speakers into skilled technical fields like camera operation and lighting. Yet even in these areas, technical expertise was an important but inessential aspect of recruitment, as newcomers were assigned mentors from the older generation. He recalled the case of a gaffer who, although talented, “drank a lot [and] didn’t work more than twelve hours, even if he was getting paid overtime.” Although this gaffer’s work ethic did not meet American standards, Minkowski felt apprentices might learn much from him: “They didn’t have his cultural history, so they weren’t running into the same problems,” he explained.25 Today, Minkowski added, these apprentices are the top technicians in Prague.
Rather than simply involving Czechs picking up Hollywood methods, these learning processes are bilateral. The importance of locational knowledge and mutual learning is spelled out by Tom Karnowski, a prominent line producer involved in international productions such as Shanghai Knights (2003) and Everything Is Illuminated (2005). He explained that before deciding to travel to a foreign location, Los Angeles producers look at who has completed projects of similar size or type in the location in question. They also take local production practices into account. Karnowski recalled that while working on Everything Is Illuminated with an American director and cast, he became convinced that they should utilize the skills of as much local personnel as possible and “make it like you would have a Czech film, . . . especially if we have a very low budget to work with.”26 He therefore posited Czech production culture as well suited to the improvisational techniques often used when shooting low-budget American films on location. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/07%3A_Transnational_Crews_and_Postsocialist_Precarity__Globalizing_Screen_Media_Labor_in_Prague/7.03%3A_Globalizing_a_Postsocialist_Produ.txt |
We should avoid the pitfall of misrepresenting knowledge transfer (and spillover) enabled by spatial proximity, interaction, and monitoring as entirely positive or innocent. Contrary to some journalistic accounts, it doesn’t come as an automatic, mechanistic, and unidirectional process.27 Rather, it is important to recognize that effective knowledge absorption happens only when locals develop their own capabilities, that learning is usually a mutual process, even though it may be perceived in negative terms due to the adverse effects it is seen to have on the local culture. We might also recognize that unlearning can be just as important as learning, especially in a postsocialist working environment. Most of my Czech interview subjects talked about learning. An analysis of their revelations allows us to identify four potential paths of globalizing knowledge transfer as well as the barriers to such a transfer. These are centered respectively on incoming producers, production service providers, local independent producers, and the regional strategy of a multinational corporation (where offshoring and direct foreign investment can transform local production norms and practices). Given the limited scope of this chapter, I will restrict my focus to cases in which significant face-to-face interaction took place between Czech and overseas personnel. Before doing so, however, I offer a brief overview of local production practice and its limitations.
Czech film production is strongly influenced by a small, fragmented marketplace, television aesthetics, and the public broadcaster’s long-standing position as the country’s leading producer-distributor of indigenous feature films and documentaries over the last twenty years. In this period, Czech cinema held a strong market share of up to 30 percent; however, this has started to drop as newly digitized theaters express a preference for Hollywood fare. Czech films rely on location shooting, contemporary topics or nostalgia for the country’s recent state-socialist past, and a bittersweet tone, and they are squarely aimed at families. Many of these low-budget films are considered part of the mainstream locally but travel badly. What is more, bigger-budget films and art-house pictures both tend to fare poorly at the international box office or on the festival circuit, even by the modest standards of other East-Central European nations, such as Hungary and Poland. Czech television programs have also struggled internationally, not least because broadcasters have been reticent to alienate their prime mature, conservative domestic audience with unsettling subject matter or radical aesthetics.
Outside observers and policymakers concluded that knowledge transfer would lead incoming producers to gradually transform the practices and styles of the domestic industry. Such a change would come from sharing a labor pool and infrastructure, and from interaction, observation, and imitation. This being said, overseas producers appear to have little interest in reshaping local production—by, for example, hiring local above-the-line talent or hiring Czechs as department heads. In short, there is no clear evidence of any transformation resulting from their presence. Even the BBC—which practices runaway production via its international branches, BBC Worldwide and BBC America—has not promoted its public service ethics or aesthetics during production. As the experience of Czech crews working on The Musketeers (2014–) suggests, the presence of the BBC is felt in its division of British and Czech workers and its safety regulations. Czech personnel did not even recognize the corporation as the producer of this series, noting no significant differences between working on a BBC venture or other Anglo-American projects.28
Second, it was anticipated that service providers would eventually diversify into producing Czech-language films. However, despite their claims to the contrary, none of the production service heavyweights—Stillking, Czech Anglo Productions, and Etic Films—has branched out into original feature productions. One of the few exceptions is the former Lucasfilm producer Rick McCallum, whose company Film United provides production services for projects like Canal+’s series Borgia (2011–), while developing its own fully local and coproduced projects, such as a story of Czech anticommunist resistance fighters, So Far So Good (in development). It remains to be seen whether Film United can support high-end Czech genre products.
More typical is the approach of Stillking, a company with solid knowledge of the Czech filmmaking community but evidently little interest in producing or coproducing Czech films. Minkowski, its production head, has met numerous Czech producers but never found a reason to work with them: “We know them and they know us, . . . but we just didn’t find something that makes sense. I don’t think we are the first stop for them to come and produce Czech movies, because we are not really Czech producers.” He admits that the number of American films shot in Prague did not increase the importance of Czech films because “there is no connection there.”29 On the other hand, Minkowski claims that Stillking trains local crews who can then improve the technical quality of the local product. However, this claim relates only to certain aspects of the production process—primarily art direction, special and visual effects, stunts, and to a lesser extent, makeup, costumes, and camera operation. Stillking-affiliated production managers usually do not work on Czech productions, and Czech above-the-line talent does not work for Stillking.
The rate at which Czech personnel enjoy professional upward mobility within transnational crews differs from case to case, partially determined by the nationality, size, and organizational structure of the coproducer. The smaller and more flexible the company, the more Czechs hold positions close to first-line decision makers, and vice versa. Specializing in bigger-budget projects, Stillking employs a large workforce but typically only one Czech head of department (in production design). In these large crews with their military-like organization, locals usually work under second-line decision makers while operating in a segregated labor sphere. They are largely unaware of the creative effects of their roles. According to Minkowski, this type of segregation is typical of Barrandov’s costume department, where a staff of mainly non-English-speaking women operates in a socially and spatially isolated workspace.30
Local independent producers represent a third potential path for globalizing knowledge transfer. They work on wholly Czech projects, coproductions, and minority coproductions with European partners, and some provide production services. Often independent producers specialize in partnerships with given countries or regions, as was the case with the Indian film Rockstar (2011).31 Irregular, limited to practical services and dependent on narrow networks of contacts, such collaborations do not induce long-lasting knowledge transfers that would affect the quality of local products.
A fourth pathway involves a multinational corporation operating on the local market. In 1991, HBO Europe established central offices in the Hungarian capital of Budapest. Soon after, it set up an additional fourteen branches across Europe, all but one in postsocialist countries. Four of these—Budapest, Prague, Warsaw, and Bucharest—opened an original programming department. These were responsible for providing culturally local quality content for the company’s subscription television and HBO GO online services, thus emulating its approach to the U.S. market.32 A new two-tiered production strategy has come to the fore since HBO Europe recruited the experienced producer Antony Root as its new executive vice president for original programming and production. On the one hand, the company broadcasts low-budget licensed series to test local responses to a property. For instance, it produced adaptations of two Israeli series, In Treatment and When Shall We Kiss, helmed by renowned local directors and featuring established actors, for each of the four national markets noted above. On the other hand, it produces big-budget event miniseries, which, in Root’s words, “put a stake in the ground for a certain kind of quality and values in a show and differentiate ourselves [sic] in the market.”33 One example of this approach is The Burning Bush (2013), an award-winning three-part drama about the Czech national hero and martyr Jan Palach, who immolated himself to protest the 1968 Soviet occupation of the country.
The screenplay for The Burning Bush was rejected by the Czech public service broadcaster before being acquired by HBO. The series was directed by Polish FAMU graduate Agnieszka Holland, who had previously worked for HBO in the United States. It was written by then-unknown Czech screenwriter Štěpán Hulík, and coproduced by newcomer Tomáš Hrubý. When The Burning Bush received fourteen awards from the national film academy after being released as a theatrical feature, it was apparent that a new approach, based on HBO’s meticulous development process, was emerging.34 As the company’s Budapest-based head of development suggested, HBO’s gradual development of local talent and adaptation of American-style project development practices were crucial albeit challenging steps to striking a good balance between maintaining the cultural specificities of local fare and increasing its general quality.35 The success of The Burning Bush generated intense buzz across the Czech production sector, nowhere more than among public service television producers. Embarrassed about passing up this project, they singled out The Burning Bush as a new benchmark to which their own quality serial drama ought to aspire. | textbooks/socialsci/Sociology/Precarious_Creativity%3A_Global_Media_Local_Labor_(Curtin_and_Sanson)/07%3A_Transnational_Crews_and_Postsocialist_Precarity__Globalizing_Screen_Media_Labor_in_Prague/7.04%3A_Multiple_Globalizations.txt |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.