Resisting the "Traditional Family Ideal"

          

Image Credit

           In sociologist Patricia Hill Collins’ “It’s All In the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation,” she argues that “the logic of the traditional family ideal” has powerful implications for understanding gender and race. Essentially, she argues that the so-called “traditional family” possesses deeply rooted hierarchies, upholding what she calls “a specific authority structure; namely, a father-head earning an adequate family wage, a stay-at-home wife, and children” with “a relatively fixed sexual division of labor” that is “organized not around a biological core, but a state-sanctioned, heterosexual marriage” (Collins 63-64). These hierarchies have been upheld as the unwavering ideal for centuries, and as such have been given a place of preeminence in our society. This is reinforced by the fact that those that uphold the “logic of the traditional family ideal” tend to “view such hierarchies as natural social arrangements, as compared to socially constructed ones,” and because of this will see these hierarchies as something that is “‘naturalized’ because it is associated with seemingly ‘natural’ processes of family (64). This poses a particular problem for those who seek to resist these “traditional family ideals,” since such individuals will need to face the uphill battle of going against what those that oppose their wishes view as natural and innate to human beings. Moreover, Collins argues that “hierarchies of gender, wealth, age, and sexuality within actual family units correlate with comparable hierarchies in U.S. society,” and that “Individuals typically learn their assigned place in the hierarchies of race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, nation, and social class in their families of origin.” (64). Therefore, if these traditional hierarchies of family directly reinforce and correspond to other larger, more systemic hierarchies in our society, and the hierarchies of family are viewed by many as “natural” in origin, it makes sense that many harmfully believe that the hierarchies that exist in our society derive from a “natural” and by extension necessary place. 

As I have discussed in several of my other blog posts, I tend to be sympathetic to the idea that the hierarchies that exist within the so-called “traditional family” are not biological or “natural” in origin, but rather socially constructed. And, by this logic, that would mean that the larger hierarchies that exist within the structures of our society (namely race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, nation, and social class) are also a product of social construction, rather than based in anything biological or inherent in regard to human nature. This sort of understanding of the power structures that exist in our society is especially valuable because they demonstrate that these hierarchies are changeable, rather than innate or “set in stone,” carving out valuable space for resistance to these structures. According to Collins, “reclaiming notions of family that reject hierarchical thinking may provide an intriguing and important cite of resistance.” (Collins 77). This sort of resistance could perhaps stem from first demonstrating and explaining to others that there is nothing “natural” about these power structures, both within the individual family and subsequently in reference to larger systems. For instance, one could cite the fact that there is nothing “natural” about the legal definition of marriage, as it was created and constructed largely for social purposes. One could also cite the fact that there is no inherent difference between men and women that makes women naturally fall in a subservient position to men, and that any “natural,” inherent differences between men and women are arbitrary in the context of family power dynamics, and therefore do not warrant justified differences in treatment between men and women (this argument stems from philosopher James Rachels’s opposition to the doctrine of ethical egoism in his “A Critique of Ethical Egoism”).

Beyond philosophical arguments, one could resist in a more concrete way via language. Collins touches on this idea of language as a form of resistance toward the end of her writings, arguing that “family language also shapes everyday interactions,” and referencing such examples as “African-American strangers often refer[ring] to one another as ‘brother’ and ‘sister’” as well as feminism’s use of the term “sisterhood” (Collins 77-78). By incorporating the language of the “traditional family” into the lexicon of groups typically excluded by such language, these groups can essentially “reclaim” the language of family as their own, thereby reducing its power to be used against them.

As far as the effectiveness of language reclamation, I would argue that it is a step in the right direction because it might help prevent those that support the “traditional family ideal” from using these terms to exclude members of marginalized groups that do not fit within their “traditional family ideal”. But, while reclaiming these terms certainly serves as an act of rebellion and resistance, I don’t know that simply reclaiming the terms of family is enough to spark real changes. Therefore, I think it might be much more of an effective route to focus on education and well reasoned argument in order to shift peoples’ views on this matter.