Family Communication Mediating Culture

DRAFT

Mediating Cultures

DRAFT

DRAFT

Mediating Cultures
Parenting in Intercultural Contexts
Edited by Alberto González and Tina M. Harris

LEXINGTON BOOKS Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK

DRAFT

Published by Lexington Books A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com 10 Thornbury Road, Plymouth PL6 7PP, United Kingdom Copyright © 2013 by Lexington Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data TO COME. Aesthetics and modernity : essays / by Agnes Heller ; edited by John Rundell. Test test test test test test test test test test test test test. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978­0­7391­4131­1 (cloth : alk. paper) ­­ ISBN 978­0­7391­4132­8 (pbk. : alk. paper) ­­ ISBN 978­0­7391­4133­5 (electronic) 1. Aesthetics. 2. Postmodernism. I. Rundell, John F. II. Title. BH39.H445 2011 111'.85­­dc22 2010037457

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48­1992. Printed in the United States of America

DRAFT

DRAFT

Contents

Acknowledgments Introduction: Parenting in Intercultural Contexts Alberto González and Tina M. Harris Section I: Interpersonal Settings and Intercultural Parenting 1 Digging (in) the Playground: (In)visibility of Difference in the Context of Multicultural Parenting Natalia Rybas 2 Cultural Ambiguity, Ethnic Identity, and the Bicultural Experience: Asian Indian Parents and Their American­Born Kids Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni 3 The Trouble with Family Stories Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán 4 How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity to Adopted Chinese Daughters May H. Gao and Deanna Womack 5 Intercultural Parenting in the White House: The Transcultural Strategies of the Obamas Kimberly R. Moffitt Section II: Media, Social Networks, and Intercultural Parenting 6 Islam in the Midwest: Parental Values on the Learning Channel’s All­American Muslim Souhad Kahil

vii ix xv 3

17 29

43

57 69 71

Contents

DRAFT

7 Googling “Latin@”: Using Technology to Construct Cultural Identity in a Bicultural Family Jennifer Willis­Rivera 8 Like Tiger Mother, Like Tiger Daughter: A Content Analysis of the Impact of Cultural Differences on Eastern and Western Parenting Styles Chin Chun (Joy) Chao and Dexin Tian 9 We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore: Diversity and Parenting Communication in ABC’s Modern Family Candice Thomas­Maddox and Nicole Blau Epilogue: The Future and Multicultural Parenting 10 “Do!mam"# Çocu!a Don Biçmek”: Visions of a Multicultural Family Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata References About the Editors and Contributors

81

97

107 121 123 139 153

DRAFT

Acknowledgments

[B02.0]

[B02.1]

[B02.2]

[B02.3]

[B02.4]

We would like to express our thanks to the following individuals who helped see this project to completion: Jes Simmons, Eun Young Lee, and Candace Thomas­Maddox. We would also like to thank all of the communication scholars who work diligently to give intellectual space to scholarship on family communication, intercultural communication, and identity construction, among other areas within the discipline. Had it not been for their efforts to offer enlightenment, awareness, and critical understanding of communication processes within these contexts we would not have the foundation upon which to launch this important body of research. We also thank Lenore Lautigar, acquisitions editor at Lexington Books, for her patience and expert advice in developing these chapters. We also thank Johnnie Simpson and Kelsey Dimka at Lexington Books for their work on this project. This book was inspired by a panel presented at the 2011 National Com­ munication Association Annual Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana. This is an example of the successful convergence of a vigilant acquisitions editor, an important topic, and passionate communication scholars who also live full lives as parents. Finally, we thank all of our ancestors (known and unknown) and the multiple cultures they brought together that now animate our daily conversa­ tions and practices.

DRAFT

Introduction
Parenting in Intercultural Contexts Alberto González and Tina M. Harris

[B03.0]

[B03.1] [B03.2]

Okay, so I’m the Hybrid Kid. You know, a “multi­culti so don’t insult me.” My mom is German American so she listens to polka music and my dad is Mexican American so he listens to tejano music. Life sucked for me because either way I grew up listening to accordion music! —Monica González

[B03.3]

This book presents compelling research about parents who creatively balance cultural influences within their families. Family communication is a growing area of communication scholarship, and given the ever­changing racial and cultural landscape of the United States, the likelihood that family units will continue to be directly impacted by this change is 100 percent. This change is accompanied by communication behaviors and practices that may not occur in less diverse families. The quote above illustrates how family members sometimes process intercultural family influences. Monica González, cur­ rently a college student in Ohio, transformed her experiences growing up with interethnic parents into a stand­up comedy set. While family units are important, those with racial, ethnic, and cultural diverse face relatively unique challenges that are under­researched in com­ munication scholarship, hence this book. Specifically, these chapters explore the communication challenges faced by parents as they raise children who are bi­cultural, multi­cultural, or are adopted from a heritage other than the parents. Also, these chapters report the communication strategies employed by the parents as they create affirming relationships between children and their heritages. Finally, these chapters explore the relationships among par­ ents, culture and new communication technologies. Television series such as

Alberto González and Tina M. Harris

DRAFT

Modern Family and All­American Muslim, along with Google and online comment posts to news articles provide representations of intercultural pa­ renting that reflect and shape relationships between parents and children. We believe that this collection is unique in two fundamental ways. First, most of the authors are parents in intercultural contexts. They have direct experience with the socially prescribed opportunities and constraints that influence family life, which we argue is critical to understanding this very important communicative experience. But also, they have first­hand experi­ ence with intercultural improvisation and innovation. They first must navi­ gate the potential tensions created by a largely intolerant society. These couples typically possess a stronger bond because “the couple’s love for each other must be strong enough to overcome societal pressures against biracial relationships” (Dainton, p. 156). The ultimate strategy also requires that they must strategically mediate the comments and evaluations of those who live a monocultural lifestyle. Second, this collection is unique because it brings together research areas that seldom intersect: family communication and intercultural communica­ tion. Many important topics have been the focus of family communication research: problem solving in the family, dual career parents and aging (Fitz­ patrick & Vangelisti, 1995), the roles of children as communicators in the family (Socha & Yingling, 2010) and the role of ritual and storytelling as family performance (Langellier, 2002). We agree with Sillars (1995) who observed that research on communication and family types “has not had an intercultural focus” (p. 376). The consequence of this is that despite our understanding that families exist within and across cultural spheres, commu­ nication scholars tend to approach “the family” as a universal construct. Similarly, scholars of intercultural communication tend to focus on commu­ nity or national intersections of cultural perspectives and they have not at­ tended to the family as a site of intercultural dialogue. What Shari Kendall (2007) says of linguistics also applies to Communication Studies: “There has been a greater focus on language in the workplaces and other formal institu­ tions than on discourse in this first institution” (p. 3); thus, our book begins to address this unfortunate gap in the literature. Yet another distinct quality of this book is that it is comprised of a collection of studies that brings together two disparate literatures with ac­ cessible yet context­driven studies to explain how families integrate multiple cultural heritages and perspectives. Additionally, this collection includes cul­ tural identities that we believe readers will want to learn more about: African American, Asian Indian, Chinese, Jewish, Latina/o, Muslim, Russian and mixed race identities. In terms of other communication efforts that foray into the area of family communication and culture, one notable text was edited by scholars Socha and Diggs (1999). Their work is critical but limited given its focus on com­

[B03.4]

[B03.5]

[B03.6]

[B03.7]

DRAFT

Introduction

munication exploring communication within the traditional racial binary of black/white. This work is very focused yet constrained by traditional racial categories. The exception is the chapter by Mark Orbe (1999) who examines how interracial married couples talk about race to their biracial children. The chapter is also distinctive in that it anticipates a variety of family composi­ tions—biological, adoptive and blended. [B03.8] Sabourin’s (2003) book, The Contemporary American Family: A Dialec­ tical Perspective on Communication and Relationships, affirms that, “The nuclear family structure . . . is no longer the standard from which to compare other family forms” (p. 3). Chapter 4 in this book considers “Cultural Diver­ sity in the New American Family.” Here, the primary variables are religion, sexual orientation and race. The treatment of religion focuses on Christian­ ity’s ambivalence toward diversity and there are brief treatments of Latino/a, Asian, and African American families. This is a helpful book; however, it is a primarily a book about how families depart from (and return to) traditional notions of family interaction in the face of divorce, substance abuse and physical abuse. [B03.9] Floyd and Morman’s (2006) excellent book, Widening the Family Circle: New Research on Family Communication, examines elements of family structures that have been overlooked in family communication studies: the aunt, siblings­in­law, grandparent­grandchild relationships and relationships through adoption. In other words, it goes beyond the usual focus on the married couple as parents. This book, however, does not approach families as explicitly embedded in cultural (and cross­cultural) meanings and systems. [B03.10] The research in family communication is robust and innovative. Addi­ tional current work from a variety of research programs is cited in the chap­ ters in this volume.
[B03.11]

OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS

[B03.12] Our book significantly extends our understanding of these multicultural fam­ ilies by pointedly exploring the influence of culture on family dynamics. The chapters in this volume are organized into two sections. Section 1, “Interper­ sonal Settings and Intercultural Parenting,” contains six chapters that de­ scribe parenting choices and events in face­to­face interactions. Rybas (chap­ ter 1) explores how everyday outings to the playground or restaurant and trips to her son’s school often result in being marked as foreign or other. The simple question: “Where are you from?” at the sound of their Russian ac­ cents triggers a negotiation of the shared and unshared knowledge and prac­ tices between families. Rybas describes how this question and other “perfor­ mative acts” work to establish positions of power. Rybas wonders how her

Alberto González and Tina M. Harris

DRAFT

son will navigate future moments of interrogation and if he will come to learn how to counter­act and take advantage of the potential for resistance in those moments. Shenoy and Kulkarni (chapter 2) note the increasing population of U.S.­ born children of Asian Indian immigrants. The authors describe the dominant cultural expectations for family: unconditional love, close kinship and em­ phasis on interdependence, patriarchal authority, and deference among chil­ dren. The authors conclude by identifying four “concerns” that Indian par­ ents confront when raising their children in the United States Each concern is elaborated by Tara Kulkarni, who is raising her daughter in the New England region of the United States Alemán and Alemán (chapter 3) focus on the gendered and “cross­cultural variability” of stories of transgression. The au­ thors examine how storytelling rituals reflect the Mexican American and European American approaches to risk taking and resistance to dominant social prescriptions. Gao and Womack (chapter 4) describe the factors that account for the increasing number of U.S. adoptions of Chinese children. China’s One Child Policy, low legal costs and bureaucratic cooperation have resulted (in the decade preceding 2011) in the adoption of over 66,000 children, most of them females. The authors report their analysis of 20 in­depth interviews with Atlanta­area parents as these respondents comment on the “desired identity” for their daughters and describe their strategies for creating this desired identity. In February 2012, unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin, was killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer. The event in Sanford, Florida made interna­ tional news and ignited a dialogue on racial profiling and gun ownership laws. On March 23, 2012, President Barack Obama stated, “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.” In expressing his sympathy to the parents of Martin, Obama concluded, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon” (Remarks by the President, March 32, 2012). Obama’s reaction to this event reveals that his parenting mode is never far removed from his role as Presi­ dent. Moffitt (chapter 5) examines the intercultural parenting of the First Parents of the UNITED STATES, Michelle and Barack Obama. Drawing from interviews and Obama’s books Of Thee I Sing (2010), Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (2004), Moffitt describes the parent­ ing values of this “transcultural” family. Section 2 contains four chapters on “Media, Social Networking, and Intercultural Parenting.” While most reality television programs allow view­ ers to be shocked or amused by the actions of the participants, other shows have an educational (as well as entertainment) purpose. Set in Dearborn, Michigan, home to the largest Muslim population outside of the Middle East, All­American Muslim followed the lives of several families including the Jaafars, the Amens, the Zabans and the Aoudes. This series offered a view

[B03.13]

[B03.14]

[B03.15]

[B03.16]

DRAFT

Introduction

[B03.17]

[B03.18]

[B03.19]

[B03.20]

not only of the everyday reality of U.S.­born Muslims, it revealed the expres­ sion, contestation and negotiation of parental values. Employing concepts from diaspora studies, co­cultural theory, as well as Qur’anic interpretation, Kahil (chapter 6) examines the how traditional Islamic values are performed in the series, describes how these values are both challenged and upheld, and foreshadows the new mediated reality for successive generations of Muslim American children. Employing autoethnographic narrative, Willis­Rivera (chapter 7) exam­ ines how her bicultural family incorporates technology into their everyday lives to prepare for an important class project, the Festival of Nations. Willis­ Rivera describes how she and her husband Daniel guide their twin daughters’ use of popular mediated programming (on DVDs and television), the internet (Google searches) and social networking (Facebook and YouTube) to deepen cultural connections and to productively construct and reinterpret what it means to be “bicultural.” Chao (chapter 8) examines the online responses to Amy Chua’s article, “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.” This article was published in the Wall Street Journal in January 2011. Chua described the “Chinese Mother” not as a marker of nationality, but as an approach to child rearing that emphasized high standards of achievement and near total focus on practice and school­ work. Analysis of 312 posted comments to the online article reveals interest­ ing findings on variables such as gender, parental involvement and expecta­ tions of children’s achievements. Fictional television representations of family have changed from ideal­ ized versions of the nuclear family to satirical versions of blended families. Thomas­Maddox and Blau (chapter 9) argue that the series, Modern Family invites audiences to consider options for intercultural parenting. A cross­ representation of family relationships is analyzed—from committed partners, parent/child, to sibling interactions. Issues surrounding cultural, sexual, and generational differences are explored to identify contemporary themes that impact effective communication among family members. This collection closes with an Epilogue by Ali Erol and Joris Gjata (chap­ ter 10). The authors are soon to be married. The authors acknowledge that, “A Turkish Muslim husband (Ali) and an Albanian Christian wife (Joris) living and working in the United States seem to present a couple with an overwhelming conjuncture of differences and not many similarities.” In this chapter, the couple engages in a dialogue about the nature of culture, cultural blending and what the heritage of each implies for the children they plan to raise in the United States.

DRAFT

Section I

Interpersonal Settings and Intercultural Parenting

DRAFT

Chapter One

Digging (in) the Playground
(In)visibility of Difference in the Context of Multicultural Parenting Natalia Rybas

[1.0]

[1.1]

Like many families around the United States, my family members find them­ selves in situations of negotiating culture on everyday bases. My husband and I grew up in the South of Russia, and we have resided in the United States for more than 10 years. While in Russia, we belonged to a Russian­ speaking majority of the predominant ethnicity and to the middle class. The ideas of minority cultures, power difference, and implicit racism never emerged as a topic of discussions. After leaving Russia, the rollercoaster of expatriate life as well as the training as a communication scholar have sensi­ tized my understanding of culture as constitutive of communication that in its turn reinforces and resists cultural systems. Now I write as a mother of a 4­ year­old, who will have to learn to navigate the landscapes of his privilege and difference. I also write as an educator, living in North America, who has been afforded multiple opportunities in this society. Due to these opportu­ nities, I have become aware of the instability of cultural signifiers as I am still struggling to understand my cultural space and my role in its construc­ tion. Living in the States, I often find myself in situations where I am ques­ tioned about my culture: people ask what language we speak, where we come from, and who we are. Such questioning is most complicated when I have to think about the culture of my son: What is he? What are we as a family? How do we stand in relation to other families? Bhabha (1994) helps establish the subject matter of this chapter with the quote “Where do you draw the line between languages? between cultures? between disciplines? between peo­

Natalia Rybas

DRAFT

ple?” (p. 85). In the case of parenting, these questions suggest the need to find the answers and the practical urgency in critical inquiry. To think about such questions, I frame this project in terms of discourse, or communicative systems that influence our understanding of culture. I rely on rhetoric as a way of knowing culture and talking about it, and I question the moments of interaction when culture becomes evident as such. This is a very pedagogical process for the adult members of my family, immigrants to the U.S. Mid­ west, and to my son, a student and a paragon of culture in the making. This process teaches us to read the reading of us as a culture and to sketch negotia­ tion strategies helpful to us as well as people with whom we interact. Follow­ ing the objective to examine the moments when culture becomes evident, I develop the following parts in this chapter. First, the theoretical preview of the discursive work of culture builds the background of the project. I further reflect on instances of everyday interactions of and about my son and my family to examine how culture and cultural knowledge become visible. The analysis of the ethnographic observations focuses on critical reading of the communication episodes as texts (Warren, 2003) to explore how markers of culture emerge in interaction. I conclude the chapter with a reflection about the search for a strategy to negotiate cultures in the context of multicultural families. THE WORKING OF CULTURE AT THE PLAYGROUND This chapter examines the construction of culture “at the playground”—a loosely defined public context where parents come to interact with their children as well as other parents and children. The metaphor of playground refers to a productive site where adult and younger participants practice, learn, and teach their offspring and each other about human relations. One of the aspects of such learning is culture. Culture is a complex term and can be defined in many ways. Lee (in Collier et. al, 2002) reviews different defini­ tions of the term to argue that each definition privileges certain interests and is never neutral. To avoid biases, Lee advocates that “culture” signify “the shifting tensions between the shared and the unshared” (p. 229). Such an approach underscores the situatedness, instability, contestedness, and process of what may be referred to as with a variety of terms that reflect culture, such as difference, diversity, race, origin, and background. Because communication is always culturally located and culturally bound, children become cultural and cultured beings while they are interact­ ing with their own parents, other children and their parents, and many other participants of interactions in public places. Cultural positions and histories define how persons think about themselves and about others. One’s moving
[1.2] [1.3]

[1.4]

DRAFT

Digging (in) the Playground

[1.5]

[1.6]

[1.7]

within and between cultural spaces forms communication approaches and discursive relationships with others. Such cultural locations by the merit of assembling specific events, peoples, relationships, and histories imply con­ structed meanings that map out communication possibilities and limitations. With the focus on playground, I invoke spatial metaphor as an opportunity to think about constructions of identity and rhetorical ways to levy power among children and adults (Gupta & Ferguson, 1992; Nakayama & Krizek, 1995). Thus, playground may become a system of relations and spaces where culture emerges as a marker to define communication strategies. Hall (1996) examines the concept of “identity” to the point of asking “who needs it?” According to Hall, the deconstructive critiques of “identity” by feminist, cultural, and other voices produce the effect of erasing the con­ cept and yet simultaneously permit it to be used. Such operating in between the push­out and pull­in movement suggests that an idea, about identity in Hall’s case, cannot be used in one definitive way, but it helps thinking about certain key issues. The concept of “culture” is similar to “identity” in this respect. The multiplicity of approaches to examining and defining culture may suggest a question “who needs it?” with an attempt to remove “culture” from theorizing. However, it is the instability of culture that makes it irredu­ cible because of its political implications and centrality for communication processes. Thus, thinking in terms of “culture” helps define the power rela­ tions, communication strategies, and interactional roles. The examination of culture and cultural spaces invoke some important issues such as dislocation, contact, conflict, contradiction, and difference. Lull (2000) notes, “the very concept of culture presumes differences” (p. 234). If this is the case, what becomes marked as differences and as culture if my family participates in public discourses about and of children? Gupta and Ferguson (1992) examine the problems that emerge as soon as cultures are locked in specific geographies, when they come in contact with each other. For example, the authors discuss the differences within localities and social change and transformation in interconnected spaces, life on the border and in colonial regimes. In the case of interacting within the metaphorical space of the playground, I am concerned about what communication strategies are employed by the interaction participants to emphasize, erase, or name culture and persons who carry the markers of culture, and then if such understanding of culture can be negotiated in any way to the benefit of all participants of communication interaction. I approach culture and knowledge about it through the lens of performa­ tivity. Madison and Hamera (2006) explain that the performative approach to communication emphasizes reiteration of norms and citationality, drawn from Butler and Derrida. For a feminist critic Butler (1988), gender is sus­ tained only through repetitive enactments of culture. Derrida provides that repetitions become comprehensible because they rely on, or cite, historical

Natalia Rybas

DRAFT

knowledge in context (Madison & Hamera, 2006). For example, Warren (2003) considers race as an accomplishment, whereby “race as an identifier of difference is not in the body but rather made through the bodily acts” (p. 29). In his examination of whiteness, Warren addresses specific performative acts through which race re­created and made sense of. Further, Chawla (2011) examines how she has been continuously “raced” to argue that cultu­ ral practices of racing, or assigning particular cultural groupings, consistently and affectively re­produce the repressive relations of everyday life (p. 56). Thus, performativity allows thinking of culture as a process, “Performativity becomes all at once a cultural convention, value, and signifier that is in­ scribed on the body—performed through the body—to mark identities” (Madison & Hamera, p. xviii). In the context of interacting about the family matters, performativity suggests that culture, cultural knowledge, and cultu­ ral/cultured identities come into being within specific historical and institu­ tional sites by specific enunciative strategies. If the metaphorical context of a playground creates possibilities for the re­ creation, reiteration, and citation of the cultural systems, then there is also a possibility for subverting and resisting such systems. Both Chawla (2011) and Warren (2003) consider the acts of performing race as moments of resistance. The monologues and ethnographies interrupt the process of local­ ized acts to allow opportunities for meaningful critiques and undoing the gender, race, or other specified or unspecified in language markers of differ­ ence. Below, I consider 3 cases that produce the act of culturing to find possibilities for reframing identities, experiences, and social relations. In these cases, I refer to my son with a pseudonym that reflects the qualities of his real name. What Is His Name? Where Are You From? August 2010, a hotel in Fort Lauderdale, FL: It is breakfast time. We go to a hotel cafe to pick up something to eat. The hotel is a world­class facility with always friendly staff. On our way to the café from the lobby, a smiling male, most likely a concierge, talks to Dima. Dima chooses a shy role this morning and does not respond to the passes of the stranger. We proceed on our business and start with the breakfast. The concierge finds us in one of the café booths and hands Dima a coloring book and a box of crayons. After the exchange, he asks for my son’s name. I repeat “Dima” a few times. The question follows: how do you spell it? I respond: D­I­M­A. Another question: Where are you from? I respond: We are from Ohio. And my husband adds: We are from Ohio, but his name is Russian. We are often asked, “where are you from?” in school, at playgrounds, and other public places. Such ritual conversations are frequent whereby our ori­

[1.8]

[1.9] [1.10]

[1.11]

DRAFT

Digging (in) the Playground

[1.12]

[1.13]

[1.14]

gin and name are consistently repeated. In journalistic (e.g., Hopper, 2008), fiction (e.g., Kothari, 2005), and scholarly (e.g., Chawla, 2011) writing, where are you from? is a dreaded question. This seemingly innocent expres­ sion of curiosity produces an important ideological work of hailing (Althus­ ser, 1971), or assigning relational positions, defining identities, and drawing lines of power. The question “where are you from?” interpellates individuals as concrete subjects related to each other in a particular way. The question primarily delineates space and establishes social position­ ing. Being questioned “where are you from?” places an interrogator in a position of a host, being at home, who is looking at an Other, who is an outsider, forcing him or her to move, and conceptually, to migrate. The question raises the issues of belonging as well as of the trajectories of mov­ ing and staying: Who belongs? Who moves? Moves where? Moves when? Who stays? As such, this address produces the effect of injury by dislocating, as Butler (2004) explains, “to be injured by speech is to suffer a loss of context, that is not to know where you are” (p. 4). For my family having breakfast, the phrase “where are you from?” is an unexpected interruption in the process of our daily routine. I am often reluctant to speak to my son in Russian in public spaces. Such speech often attracts unnecessary gazes and, again, questioning and guessing. If I speak loud enough in Russian for others to hear and fail to understand, I inadvertently place us on display. Inquiries about our location and other aspects of identity push us out of invisibility to the center of attention—to be looked at and examined. Such examination strives to place my son and his parents as a group into specific categories, whereby nationality and ethnicity are applied as the most natural labels. As the categories persist, a way to protect the self is to “walk in the shade” (Chawla, 2011), or to avoid being on display. Thus, I often prefer to lower my voice. We often slip into visibility when we talk amongst ourselves. Since Dima becomes more proficient in speaking yet still has not learned to manage his voice, we usually attract gazes. The questions then serve as strategies to establish particular kinds of identities and relations. Nakayama and Krizek (2000) argue that certain sub­ ject positions occupy an invisible and normalized position of centrality. Thus, the experiences and communication strategies of Others are marked as outside the norm. In other words, the non­central, non­normal positions be­ come visible, raced, colored, or cultured. Invisibility produces names and provides labels that mark particular behaviors as “culture.” Althusser (1971) argues that we are pushed into ideological systems by the process of interpel­ lation, which hails individuals into subject positions. Butler (1997) further explains, “by being interpellated within the terms of language that a certain social existence of the body first becomes possible” (p. 5). This line of thinking suggests that being addressed in a particular way constitutes a pos­

Natalia Rybas

DRAFT

sible system of relations, which is often defined by geopolitical and local histories. The exchange about my son’s name is similarly typical for the English­ speaking majority in the U.S. Midwest where we reside or in the South or West where we travel. The general understanding of proper name is that it confers singularity in place and time, yet the historical and social connections of specific names shift such singularity (Butler, 1997). The name Dima we picked for our son carries strong implications for his current and possible future cultural locations as well as histories of his parents and geopolitical situations. According to the U.S. Social Security Administration (2011), for the boys born in 2008, the most popular names are Jacob, Michael, Ethan, Joshua and Daniel. These names were among the 10 most popular in the 5 previous years (2007–2002) and in the following years (2009–2010). This proper name names not only a specific boy but also his parents’ specificities in terms of time and space—by negating exclusive Englishness of the par­ ents’ language imagination and by suggesting the temporary character in a predominantly English­speaking location. If a cultural space of home is asso­ ciated with familiarity and knowledge of routines and cultural patterns, the name Dima does not imply consistency but creates ruptures. As a result, the people who hear the name may not understand it or may not recall it. March 2009, a learning center in Dayton, OH: After a couple of months at daycare’s Toddler group (for children up to 2­years­old), I was dropping my son off on my way to work. That morning his group was still pooled together with the other group of older kids (called Discovery Preschool, with 2­3­ year­olds). It is a common practice at learning centers to start a day with children of closer age assembled in the same room. I left Dima with his classmates, and stepped into their regular room to leave his coat and bag in the cubby. While I was checking him in, I noticed that the toddler teacher started moving her students to their appropriate room, yet my son stayed, distracted by something. Another teacher from the Discovery Preschool group, who regularly saw the children in both Toddler and Discovery Pre­ school groups, was calling the kids by their names but could not recall my son’s off the top of her head, and addressing another teacher, she said struggling with her memory lapse “. . . whatever his name is.” This struggle by a teacher at my son’s daycare provides an illustration of the work that goes in the construction of culturally marked identity. The disjunc­ ture of a memory lapse for specific name compared to the lack of such loss in regard to the more common names links to the politics of cultural knowledge, that create exclusions uncomfortable for some yet unnoticeable to others. I identify with Chawla’s (2011) articulation of racialization—the moments and processes that “mark me as a/part, yet keep me enclosed inside both the

[1.15]

[1.16]

[1.17]

DRAFT

Digging (in) the Playground

[1.18]

community and the culture” (p. 54). Chawla refers to the color narratives to understand the ways she belongs to and stays apart from the historical and political agencies constructing the fabric of mundane performances of cul­ ture. Even though I find it difficult to claim color as the central trope in my stories and experiences, I/we still experience the moments when the mem­ bers of my family are “raced” in other ways and slip into cultural categories. The talk about the name is symptomatic of community, which monitors its membership. The essence of giving a name, according to Butler (1997), is to provide linguistic existence and to “confer singularity in location and time” (p. 29). Because the subject will be named again and again, she or he becomes vulnerable to the possible iterations of one’s name. Mispronuncia­ tions, misunderstandings, and questions to spell “Dima” abound. Butler asks “what if one were to compile all the names that one has ever been called? Would they not present a quandary for identity? Would some of them cancel the effect of the others? Would one find oneself fundamentally dependent upon a competing array of names to derive a sense of oneself?” (p. 30). This is where the processes of avowal and ascription (Martin & Nakayama, 2011) come into play: The possibilities of developing self depend on the address of others. The name constitutes a subject socially, and the subject may not need to participate actively in this process. Such is often the case with personal names because they are given to children at birth without their participation or consent. This is the discourse that identifies Dima as different: It happens without his participation beyond his presence and general existence. Butler succinctly puts it “The time of discourse is not the time of the subject” (p. 31). The discourse performed in acts of frequent misunderstandings, mispro­ nunciations, and questionings produce a sense of community where Dima does not belong. Is He Russian? September 2011, YMCA family playland in Dayton, OH: My husband and I are resting after an intense yoga practice, while Dima is climbing the play area, and slides down. After 15 to 20 minutes, I look at the watch and move to start our way home. Dima is at the very top, and I call to him in Russian: “Dima, it’s time to go!” Another couple is in the same room watching their two kids play, climbing up and sliding down. The woman notices my call, and she asks about Dima “Is he Russian?” I respond affirmatively. She then shares that she had an experience living in Russia a few years ago when she was on a mission with her church. She reminisces her experiences with people and explains that she craves for borsch. The direct query about nationality and ethnicity is a frequent topic initiated in public spaces. Chawla (2011) writes how she has been questioned whether

[1.19] [1.20]

[1.21]

Natalia Rybas

DRAFT

she was Italian, Middle Eastern, Egyptian, from Turkey or from Spain, and doubted being Indian. Similarly, we have been asked if we are German, Swedish, or of other European descent. It is not really the suggested choices that are troublesome but the guesswork that seeks certainty. Why does that woman at YMCA need to know if my son is really Russian and why does she recall a cabbage soup from her long­time­ago­missionary­trip­to­Russia? Echoing the stranger, I also ask: Is my son Russian? He probably is—by the virtue of his parents being born in Russia, speaking Russian at home and with other rare individuals, and by the virtue of occasionally having borsch. How­ ever, he is probably not Russian as well—by the virtue of him growing up in Ohio, speaking English with his teachers, friends, and parents, and doing many other things that do not qualify as Russian. Anyway, what does it mean to be Russian? Struggling to find definitive answers to my questions and to make sense of these situations, I rely on Ono (2010) who considers problematic under­ standing culture in terms of coherent and stable nation­states. Assigning a particular culture to a boy—in other words, guessing a 3­year old as Rus­ sian—produces a troubling impression because the speaker addresses ab­ stractions that inevitably promote stereotyping from the points of Western gaze. Ono explains,
Such abstractions can be used to privilege a particular perspective, a vintage point of the Westerner, the citizen of the United States, white European Americans, people with legal and political legitimacy within a first­world nation­state, those who invent the ground of cultural comparison from a sub­ jective and limited point of view. (p. 90)

[1.22]

[1.23]

Thus, thinking in terms of nation­states is not productive for interpersonal exchange. Can we talk about anything else? Like Chawla (2011) laments idealistic neighborly relations with welcoming cakes to the new families, I lament similar friendly relations with the people we meet in public places. I argue that by exercising the power to name in order to satisfy one’s curiosity, a stranger we met at the local YMCA voices her ideas and attitudes about my son’s identity and locations he belongs to. These failed attempts to make identity tied to a place suggests that identity escapes locating in physical geography rather it anchors relationships and alludes to power struggles. Asking about Russia, the stranger at the YMCA playland was prying into the idea of home, which attains a special meaning for immigrants. Home has a symbolic meaning as it implies emotional, relational, and political spheres which contribute to the formation of identity (Chen, 2010; Kinefuchi, 2010). Chen argues that the discussions about home provide a reflexive context to understand self and others: “identity is inexorably bound up with what we do, how we make sense of what we do, and how we make choices of what we

[1.24]

DRAFT

Digging (in) the Playground

do” (p. 489). Referring to Russia as a home, zooms to only distant aspects of the past, and routs around many aspects of Dima’s life. Yes, the connection to Russia is undeniable, yet it is only a part of what makes who Dima is today. Chen suggests that identity emerges in historic moments out of un­ equal choices. Thus claiming being only Russian for my son would eliminate not only the multiplicity of his life turning moments but also ignore the regional and other cultural politics inside Russia and inside the United States
[1.25] [1.26]

Can I/You Teach You/Us Some Russian? March 2012, a learning center in Dayton, OH: When I was picking up my son from the daycare, I noticed a few labels in Russian on the furniture. From the conversation, I learned that a teacher created the labels for Dima. I noticed that even though the labels were in Russian, these words did not correspond to what we actually say. I tried to explain the meaning of what was on the labels. The next morning, from the quick talk with the teacher, I realized that the previous night I made the teachers uncomfortable with my comments about wrong words. I suggested that I type the labels if the teach­ ers provide the list of the English words. In a couple of days, I sent the translations back. My initial reaction was extremely cautious and reserved. The Learning Cen­ ter my son attends has been providing a very supportive atmosphere. We have not been troubled by requests to explain the “culture,” the teachers and students at the center can proficiently pronounce my son’s name, and overall it has been a rewarding experience for my family in terms of education and care. The labels on the furniture looked dooming though: I envisioned Dima interrogated about how words would sound in Russian and fielding decontex­ tualized requests to translate phrases from English into Russian. What is at stake in this situation is the already established relations that my son and my family have developed with his teachers, classmates, and the Center’s admin­ istration. We value the membership in this early childhood education com­ munity and intend to support my son’s success. A few days later, the teacher in Dima’s class showed me a Russian Diction­ ary in Pictures, her eyes sparking with excitement and her voice highly enthusiastic. A wide smile was on her face lit with delight. She explained that the School bought this book because of Dima, and when he got hold of the book he spent at least 30 minutes just “reading” and looking at the pictures. The teacher also described that Dima was trying to read “Di­ma” on the labels placed on furniture in the classroom. According to the teacher, my son was happy and very interested in the new book and the labels. A couple of

[1.27]

[1.28]

Natalia Rybas

DRAFT

weeks later, I also prepared a collection of songs and stories in Russian to be played in class. The discomfort with the labels emerges from the dialectical ambiguities: On the one hand, the teachers want to take proactive steps to teach the children, and on the other hand, the labels, the books, and the songs produce difference of particular sorts. First, placing labels is a common practice in education environment to teach reading skills. Such technique seems useful for all children of any language. Second, the labels in two languages may help children to learn other than their native tongue. Multilingualism is a desirable trait valued in many contexts of contemporary life: business, government, and education. Jones (2012), a professor of education, comments on the value of knowing more than one language, “Fluency in another language takes us beyond mere tolerance of “otherness” and requires us to engage with alternative worldviews as a matter of course.” However, an ability to speak more than one language is relatively rare in common encounters in the American Midwest. An exposure to another language may be advantageous for children at the Center. What is the effect of including words in foreign language into the every­ day of toddlers who do not speak such language and one Other who is learning it in a different way? Will these labels and the phrases serve the same effect and function to Dima and the other members of his group? Such questioning takes me to the article by Thurlow (2010), who discusses how language can speak the difference. Considering British television vacation shows, Thurlow argues that brief encounters with a foreign language pro­ mote tourist discourse through a tokenistic depiction of the language. In the context of the daycare, the episodic presentation of the foreign language carries similar connotation. For now, the chance to know the words was offered to all members of the childcare group. In a few days after introducing the new idea of learning Dima’s language, some of the more quick learning kids would shout out “do­svidaniya” (goodbye in Russian) at the end of the day. Such reduction to labels and phrases represents the language in “its most instrumental form rather than a mode of relationship, of interpersonal, or intercultural exchange” (Thurlow, p. 235). The trope of entertainment, traced by Thurlow in the analysis of vacation programming, crept into the school’s newsletter reporting that the children had fun learning some Russian. The easy going way of learning provides the perfect opportunity to master not only separate words and phrases but also the colonial mentality in the atmos­ phere of the playground, when a representative of the Other may be used to model the foreign, and the participants of the game can practice interacting with the exotic Other. From the literature on bringing up multilingual children, I learn that mix­ ing languages serves certain communicative functions. For example, speak­
[1.29]

[1.30]

[1.31]

DRAFT

Digging (in) the Playground

[1.32]

[1.33]

ers of at least 2 languages may use one or the other to describe things that do not exist in another language or to fill in a vocabulary gap (Wang, 2008). Genesee (2006) suggests that speakers may mix languages to add emphasis to the meanings, to add to the emotional expression, to quote somebody else verbatim, to express protest, or to tell stories. Thurlow (2010) argues the joking non­grammatical use of foreign phrases serves to establish the power relations, elevating and constituting Anglo­American identities. This focus on communicative functions should make the idea of spoken language be­ yond the internet translation of separate words or phrases whereby the lan­ guage serves as one of the ways to express and produce belonging to a group, establishing the meaning of events, and developing identity for all members of the communicative interaction. The considerations of potential pitfalls of the language lessons have be­ come a turning point for us as parents and scholars who wish to protect our child and who are engaged in the performative critique of intercultural com­ munication. Non­cooperative “walking in the shade” (as in Chawla, 2011) is not an option because my son attends the Center every workday—a major part of his active weekly routine happens outside home. While preschool education is relatively optional, future grade school education provides no choices of escaping. Thus, we all have to learn to engage such moments of discomfort when culturing becomes an issue. The only route that we—par­ ents and educators—can take is negotiating possibilities to benefit not only Dima but also other children and teachers in the Center, and, hopefully, other members of the playground context. I keep a close eye to the emotional reactions of my son, his teachers, and other children that emerge on the surface of their interactions. Warren (2003), Chawla (2011), and other re­ searchers note particular kinds of discomfort when cultural categorizations emerge in speech. I observe if Dima is still willing to play with his friends and if he is continues coming to his group with the same happy face. I appreciate the books purchased by the Center for the classroom. I seek to gauge the good intentions through his eyes. We have been “living in color” (Chawla & Rodriguez, 2002, p. 699) as we respond to questions about who we are. Now we are exploring the ways to not only confirm the existing structures of cultural knowledge but also to spin the boundaries (Chawla & Ridriguez, p. 704) guarding the mythology of immigrant identities and their families. Inviting the members of the Center to perform culture together with us potentially may build alternative citational­ ity and reiteration into the performative process of cultural knowledge. The critical cultural communication scholars (such as Warren and Chawla) report moments of satisfaction when Otherness of the Other allows a possibility of change. At my son’s daycare, the initial excitement about the Russian words has transformed to the background. I observe the non­eventfulness of the music (that I collected) playing at the background when I pick my son from

Natalia Rybas

DRAFT

the daycare. Stories pour about Dima teaching his teacher some words in Russian and correcting her. The anticipation of conflict has subsided, yet the ambivalence about inviting identities drawing from various complications persists, because speaking another person’s language does not guarantee mu­ tual understanding (Thurlow, 2010). CONCLUSION: PLAYGROUND PEDAGOGIES OF CULTURE I am digging in the playground to understand, critique, and re­negotiate the moments of culture­ing related to my child. I re­tell the notable and mundane stories of interactions when certain actions become qualified as culturally different. Because the cases I describe are systematic occurrences, the pro­ duction of social relations is repeated over and over again. The instances, when we are made to report on my son’s homeland, ethnicity and other aspects of culture typically re­inscribe his identity into the rigid categories of dominant knowledge about intercultural relations based on nation­state per­ ceptions of cultures. Such focus on intercultural relations objectifies some players at the ground and pushes them to the margins, excluding them from the communal engagement, reaffirming the dominant perceptions of diver­ sity, culture, the exotic, and keeping the passive reception of cultural knowl­ edge intact. I strategize to perform cultural difference by teaching my son about cultu­ ral knowledge and possibly engaging others in the process of learning. As proficient speakers of Russian and English, we intended to maintain the implications of borderland, in Gloria Anzaldua’s (1987) sense, in our son’s name, language, and general logics of everyday life. Dima’s name carries the baggage of his parents’ story and produces stories for the bearer of this name. Otherness will accompany him in grade school and further—How is he going to perform it? In some time in the future, he will be able to speak for himself, to others—about his name, his language, and his culture. The choices we as parents make for our son to create the experience on the border allow devel­ oping what Gloria Anzaldua calls “conocimiento,” which implies an ability to understand not only what is on the surface but what is inside, “when you hear the other, really hear what they are saying, beyond their spoken word” (Lara, 2008, p. 44). Such knowing, according to Anzaldua, comes from spe­ cific experiences of living in crisis and finding ways to manage uncomfort­ able situations that create ruptures in the flow of everyday life. The coming out of the crises recomposes the self, others, and the relations with others. The engagement of digging (in) the playground is pedagogical for it provides opportunities for learning and teaching about my family members, others around us, and myself. The moments of culturing harbor the potential
[1.34] [1.35]

[1.36]

[1.37]

DRAFT

Digging (in) the Playground

for risk, stress, and anger. I/we can keep walking in the shade, or I/we can start accusing the people who injure us in speech for their ignorance and lack of intercultural consideration. These reactions may lead to conflicts and esca­ lation of misunderstandings. My family needs an alternative route to keep playing on the playgrounds. Outlining an agenda for transforming intercultu­ ral relations, Collier (2003) helps acknowledge that the context of dominant ideology defines the ways families experience intercultural relations. The same context serves as a spring board for transformative possibilities for family members and scholars of intercultural communication. Chawla (2011; Chawla & Rodriguez, 2007) engage the performative practice of telling sto­ ries of herself and others to understand the power of racialization and to resist the racial complications. Similarly, other scholars (e.g., Warren, 2003) produce pedagogical interventions within the structures of higher education by creating courses that focus on critical study of whiteness, race, or other culture categories. In situations when we navigate various playgrounds, we take an obligation to make Dima belong to different parts of the world. We strive to position strategically the languages spoken in the family and in the dominant context. I expect that Dima will acquire Midwest American accent in his English and probably in his Russian, which carries a noticeable flavor of the region where his parents grew up. Being fluent in more than one tongue, he will not only know the self but understands others. Engaging others in conversations about culture as well as actively responding to the moments of culturing, we can experiment to create hopeful directions for intercultural communication.

DRAFT

Chapter Two

Cultural Ambiguity, Ethnic Identity, and the Bicultural Experience
Asian Indian Parents and Their American‑Born Kids Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni

[2.0]

[2.1]

With a population of 2.8 million registering growth of over 100% since the last census in 2000, Asian Indians are the second largest minority group among all Asians in the United States (U.S. Census, 2010). In fact, in six metropolitan areas—Chicago, Washington, Dallas–Fort Worth, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit—Asian Indians are the largest Asian group. By and large, Asian Indians trace their ethnicity to India and represent multiple religious identities such as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, and Jains, among others. Asian Indians’ historic journey to the United States was not without its share of controversies. The first wave of immigrants from colonial India who entered the U.S in the early 1900s as agricultural and railroad workers were an alienated minor­ ity, deprived of political and economic rights (Hess, 1974). Strong anti­ immigration laws against what came to be considered the “Hindu Invasion,” systematically excluded, limited, and denied these immigrants their rights, while making them victims of racial prejudice and residential segregation. Stereotyped as “untrustworthy, immodest, unsanitary, insolent, and lustful” (Hess, 1974, p. 580), they were considered a menace to society and accused of undercutting prevailing wages by offering cheap labor, thereby engender­ ing an “anti­Oriental sentiment” (p. 580). The second wave of immigrants from independent India entered the United States after the 1965 Immigration and Nationalization Act (see, Ludden, 2006, for how the Act changed the face of America) that lifted the discriminatory ban and allowed Indians to legally immigrate into the country. These Indians were comprised mostly of

Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni

DRAFT

educated professionals and their families. Compared to first wave immi­ grants who were illiterate or uneducated, did not speak English, and were largely ignorant of American society, this second wave of educated immi­ grants were English­speaking, highly skilled, well educated, and among the urban elite (Dasgupta, 1997; Hess, 1974). In fact, it is believed that 83% of Indians who immigrated between 1966 and 1977 were engineers and physi­ cians (Prashad, 2001). By 2012, nearly half a century after the 1965 Act and 2.8 million strong, Asian Indians are visible in every walk of life, at least in large cities. According to a recent Pew Research Center’s report on “The Rise of Asian Americans” (Pew Research Center, 2012), Indian Americans lead all other Asian groups in their levels of income and education by a significant margin. All of these accomplishments have perhaps led to the inclusion of Indians as a “model minority,” a construct not without its own share of controversies, hidden agendas, and a “concept to blame traditionally disenfranchised communities of color for their economic plight” (Subrama­ nian, 2012, para. 9; also see, Srivastava, 2009). Despite the sentiments this concept evokes among Asian Americans across the board, the growing suc­ cess of this group has given the community much to celebrate. While victories and accomplishments of Indian­origin politicians such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and North Carolina Governor Nikki Hal­ ey, economists and Nobel Laureates such as Amartya Sen, authors like Jhumpa Lahiri, and CEOs like Indra Nooyi of Pepsi, appear more frequently in domestic and international media, achievements of a newer generation of Asian Indians evokes perhaps a greater a sense of pride, joy, and renewed hope. On June 15, 2012, when Snigdha Nandipati won the National Spelling Bee, she joined nine other Indian Americans who had previously won this competition that is in its 14th year of existence (Subramanian, 2012). Most often than not, immigrant parents measure their own successful integration into their adopted country vicariously in the achievements of their American­ born kids who are inevitably labeled by native­born Indians as confused. This judgment is popularized by the moniker ABCD or American­Born, Confused Desi. Calling an American­born kid an ABCD where colloquially, the D stands for desi or someone of Indian origin, is meant to imply that this generation will be “difficult to parent, will have confusion and misunderstanding of their cultural identity, and will present a multitude of problems across the individ­ ual and family life­cycle development” (Poulsen, 2009, p. 168). To under­ stand how first generation immigrant parents parent their American­born second generation kids, one needs to understand the uniqueness of the Indian family structure and value system. The goal of this chapter is to introduce readers to the Indian family and particularly to the Asian Indian immigrant family dynamics in the United States. This chapter also discusses the four common fears these immigrant

[2.2]

[2.3]

[2.4]

DRAFT

Cultural Ambiguity, Ethnic Identity, and the Bicultural Experience

parents encounter when raising their American­born bicultural kids transcul­ turally. As authors of this chapter, we are sisters who were born and raised in India and came to the United States in our early 20s; Suchitra when she was 20 years old, and Tara when she was 21. While we can attest to much of the research on Indian families in India, Tara’s own experience raising her U.S.­ born daughter is explained here to give readers a window into empirical reality. We aim to present a theoretical overview developed and substantiated by scholars across disciplines while also presenting how these observations materialize in actuality through the second author’s narratives.
[2.5] [2.6]

THE INDIAN FAMILY Even though scholars sometimes struggle to define ‘family’ (see, Floyd, Mikkelson & Judd, 2006; Galvin, 2006), viewing an intimately related group of people from a role perspective that is based on “emotional attachment and patterns of interaction” (Floyd et al., 2006, p. 26), a psychosocial definition that argues “that people who perform instrumental tasks, such as providing nurturance, care giving, and support, are family” (p. 27) allows for an inclu­ sive and subjective interpretation. Such an open construal of ‘family’ is apt for Indians who derive their primary source of support from their immediate as well as extended families. As Budhwar and Baruch (2003) observe, “In­ dians are socialized in an environment that values strong family ties and extended family relationships” (p. 702) in addition to providing nurturance and emotional bonding (Sonawat, 2001). One of the hallmarks of Indian culture is the interdependent and unconditional love and support expected from family members. Of course anomalies exist within any structure and the Indian family is not unique in that regard. However, the majority of Indians believe in strong family and kinship ties as essential to their cultural core as Indians. Given that Indian society is hierarchically structured and patriarchal in nature, family roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. While tradi­ tional roles assign men as wage earners and women as homemakers, children are expected to be obedient, respectful of elders, conform to familial norms and most importantly, work hard and bring honor to their families through their academic and professional accomplishments (Durvasula & Mylvaga­ nam, 1994). Despite the emergence of nuclear and urban families, Kakar (1981) observes that family bonds among immediate family members and relatives continue to remain strong. Often considered as authoritarian, the primary goal of Indian parenting involves filial piety where children are inculcated with a strong sense of obligation and duty that includes unquestioned acceptance of parents’ deci­ sions made for them, a moral code of conduct, and observance of the hier­

[2.7]

Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni

DRAFT

archical relational status quo (Rao, McHale & Pearson, 2003). Other parent­ ing goals, which will be subsequently discussed, only work to further the primary objective mentioned above. Understandably then, when Indians im­ migrate to the United States and embody an immigrant label that identifies them as “Asian Indians” or “Indian Americans,” both of which we use inter­ changeably here, socialized as these immigrants were by their own Indian parents, they bring those values with them as they make their home in the United States. The Immigrant Asian Indian Family Poulsen (2005) argues that Asian Indian parents attain a mixed rate of suc­ cess when it comes to imparting cultural and parental values to their kids especially since these American born­and­raised kids develop their own bi­ cultural identity and experience. Even so, these parents continually strive to strategically influence their children to achieve their parenting goals of filial piety, socio­emotional competence, ethnic identity formation, as well as character building (Maiter & George, 2003; Rao et al., 2003). Research on immigrants’ parenting styles indicate that socialization goals that get mani­ fested in child­rearing practices depend on cultural values and priorities that privilege either individual autonomy or interdependence in adulthood (with Asian Indian parents supporting the latter). Furthermore, parenting American­born kids is very challenging because first generation immigrant parents are removed from their own traditional upbringing. In the United States, these parents are negotiating a different set of societal expectations and cultural norms with different implications and outcomes. Raising kids in the context of dual cultures while trying to maintain some semblance of cultural continuity with one’s country of origin (in this case, India) can be daunting, not only on parents, but also on the kids who have to realize their parents’ expectations amidst navigating the many challenges of living within and between two cultures (Berry, Phinney, Sam & Vedder, 2006). Another goal of immigrant Asian Indian parents is that of raising their children to respect the family unit and flourish in an environment that teaches them about responsibilities toward other family members. Helping their chil­ dren develop this kind of an interdependency with their families and commu­ nities emanates from Indians’ largely collectivistic outlook that gives pri­ mary importance to the wishes of elders who have clearly defined lines of authority that demand deference, respect for hierarchical relationships, and a strong regard for traditions and customs. In such a culture, the identity of an individual is rooted in the collective success of the entire group to which she or he belongs versus individualistic societies that emphasis personal achieve­ ment. Therefore, as Rao et al. (2003) posit, vis­à­vis non­Asian European Western students who may work hard to attain individual goals, Asian stu­
[2.8] [2.9]

[2.10]

DRAFT

Cultural Ambiguity, Ethnic Identity, and the Bicultural Experience

dents work hard to achieve academic, professional, and financial success (Baptiste, 2005) to please their families first and then, themselves.
[2.11]

ESSENTIALLY INDIAN, UNIQUELY AMERICAN: ASIAN INDIAN PARENTING IN THE U.S. CONTEXT Baptiste (2005) posits that parenting is especially challenging for East Indian immigrant parents due to their reluctance to “modify their cultural prescrip­ tions for parenting and maintaining their cultural status quo specific to pa­ renting” (p. 350). While some of this may no longer hold true, given that a newer generation of immigrants are now becoming parents, Baptiste cites four reasons why parenting in the United States may be difficult for these parents; (a) their unpreparedness to deal with post­immigration change that potentially leads to stress and conflict; (b) parents’ beliefs that parenting rules that applied in India can be transferred unmodified to the U.S. context; (c) parents’ own ambivalence toward the U.S. culture; and (d) their desire to raise children in the United States with values, behaviors, and attitudes con­ sistent with those in India (Baptiste, 2005). Scholars (e.g., Baptiste, 2005; Dasgupta, 1997; Dion & Dion, 2001) argue that oftentimes immigrant par­ ents carry with them their limited impressions of U.S. culture when they immigrate and despite exposure to their new lived realities, continue to main­ tain those initial beliefs, post­immigration. Even though the Asian Indian immigrant community is diverse, according to Baptiste (2005), as parents, this community shares some common concerns as explained below. In the following section, we discuss the four common concerns that Asian Indian parents share. At the end of each ‘concern’, the second author, Tara, responds to the findings and helps put them into perspective by narrating her own experience in raising her U.S.­born daughter. First, parents fear losing their children to the U.S. culture and worry about their children becoming too “American.” The rationale for this fear is under­ standable. When these parents immigrate to the United States, they leave the comfort and familiarity of a strong support system back home. Left to raise their children by themselves, these parents work hard to recreate a cultural space that is carved out of their interpretation of Indian values and traditions. As the “sole interpreters, upholders, and transmitters of their natal culture” (Dasgupta, 1998, p. 579), parents become the repositories of cultural knowl­ edge and in trying to reproduce their natal cultures, often err on the side of an intricate system of rights, morals, duties, and obligations that children are expected to obey and respect. These parents may establish rigid rules for their children’s behaviors as a means of preserving their native culture. Any departure or rejection of these carefully developed standards may be seen as

[2.12]

[2.13]

[2.14]

Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni

DRAFT

evidence that their children have gotten “corrupted” by Western influences. Therefore, it is no surprise that the literature on Asian Indian immigrants often reveal parents’ demands that children minimize or eliminate all contact with markers of the host culture; particularly, “dating based on personal choice, partying, using contraceptive, marrying for love vs. accepting an arranged marriage” (Baptiste, 2005, p. 351). Tara’s response: I believe this fear is indeed well founded. At the age of three, when my daughter first started pre­school, she was already asking why she did not have blonde hair and blue eyes. This question has been raised a few more times over the years, and each time my response has been to give her a sense of pride in what she has (“most people long for our naturally tanned skin tone” and “doesn’t everyone really compliment you on your beautiful, shiny and silky black hair?”) rather that yearn for what she cannot have. In the years since, I can possibly point to several instances that may appear to be a “corruption” by Western influences. She does not like tradi­ tional spicy Indian food. Given a choice she will pick pancakes over “do­ sas.” She likes to speak English rather than our native languages. She pre­ fers to dress in Western outfits rather than anything Indian. She wants to know if Jesus is our God. I don’t believe this is a “corruption” by Western influences as much as it is her own perception of the world around her, exploring any differences and similarities, questioning everything and setting the parameters of her own bicultural experiences. Do all these instances make me worry about her being “too American”? Maybe. On the other hand, I am also wary of Indian immigrant parents who want to make their children “too Indian.” Wanting the best of both worlds for my daughter is where I think I stand. I want her to try a little bit of spice here and there and happily enjoy her pancakes and as well as the occasional dosa. I speak to her in both English and Konkani (my mother tongue) and will receive responses in English and be happily surprised if she responds in Konkani. Over the last year or so, without any nudging on our part, she has embraced Indian outfits and loves wearing a saree. She believes in God, and knows that different folks have different names for “God.” A second fear that Asian Indian parents share is loss of parental authority to discipline their children (Baptiste, 2005). According to the model proposed by Maccoby and Martin (1983, cited in Farver, Xu, Bhadha, Narang & Lie­ ber, 2007), there are four child­rearing styles parents use; (a) an authoritative style where a reasonable number of demands are made of children and con­ sistently enforced while taking into account children’s needs and perspec­ tives; (b) an authoritarian style where children are expected to obey parental rules and demands without being given an explanation for the same and with
[2.15]

[2.16]

[2.17]

[2.18]

DRAFT

Cultural Ambiguity, Ethnic Identity, and the Bicultural Experience

[2.19]

little sensitivity to their views; (c) a permissive style which is typically lais­ sez­faire with few rules and demands and little attempt made to control children’s behaviors; and (d) an uninvolved style where parents set few rules or demands and are usually insensitive as well as inattentive to their chil­ dren’s needs. Chao (1994) presented a fifth child­rearing style; training, where akin to Chinese parenting (see, Chua, 2011), parents are highly in­ volved at all levels of their child’s development with a strong demand and desire for physical closeness and educational achievement. In case of Asian Indian parents, research indicates that those parents who endorse traditional values typically rate themselves as authoritarian while those who have been exposed to a Western value system during the course of their immigration, rate themselves as authoritative (Farver et al., 2007; also see, Patel­Amin & Power, 2002). In addition, Asian Indian parents have also been known to use guilt, shame, or moral obligation to appropriate desirable behavior in their children. Farver et al. (2007) also found that Asian Indian parents endorsed the training style of child­rearing. Regardless of the specific parenting style used, one reality that immigrant parents have to encounter is the differences in parenting styles acceptable in the United States. For example, while physi­ cal punishments in the form of hitting or slapping a child are common in some cultures, including some parts of India, these practices are severely frowned upon in the United States where parenting rules significantly lessen parents’ general authority over their children (Baptiste, 2005). These diffe­ rential disciplinary methods force immigrant parents to relearn what is ac­ ceptable and appropriate in the host culture by accommodating to a new set of value systems, rules, and expectations. Whereas Indian parents expect their children to accept their punishment without argument, immigrant parents might feel anger and frustration at the cultural dissonance they experience when new parenting rules appear to dis­ count, disregard, and devalue their indigenous beliefs. This lack of control over using what they perceive as effective disciplining practices for their children challenges traditional parental authority. However, in making sense of their own bicultural experiences, Asian Indian parents do not just replace one parenting style with another. Instead, Patel, Power, and Bhavnagri (1996) found that these parents blend the cultural elements of the different styles and adapt their own style to one that makes sense to their family context. In fact, more recent research suggests that Asian Indian parents actively enable their children’s bicultural identity development and adopt an authoritative parenting style while remaining open to a democratic style where they grow with and learn from their children (e.g., Inman, Howard, Beaumont & Walker, 2007; Jambunathan & Counselman, 2002). Tara’s response: I think my parenting style may be a mix of the authoritative and training styles. As rightly pointed out by the first author, my assimilation

[2.20]

Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni

DRAFT

into the culture of my host nation (U.S.) and my experiences as an immigrant settling into this new home have lent me an open­mindedness that I hope will be reflected in my parenting. While I am perhaps guilty of using all of the “guilt, shame, or moral obligation to appropriate desirable behavior in their children” as disciplinary tools, I do not get the sense that I am losing my parental authority to discipline. I have never believed in corporal punish­ ment, so that is a non­issue for me in the context of this discussion. As a rule, I have approached the topic of discipline as a discussion. My daughter knows that there are no “secrets” in our family, and speaking the truth will be seen in a much better light, regardless of how bad a choice she may have made that necessitates any form of disciplinary action. A discus­ sion ensues on what exactly happened, what bad or wrong choices were made and how they could be avoided in the future. The “punishment” is then meted out. This is where I channel more of the American influences I had growing up through The Cosby Show and Full House rather than only tradi­ tional Indian values. I believe it is especially advantageous that my own parents had an authoritative form of parenting (in my opinion) and I think my parenting style benefits from that. Of course at the age of seven, when Mommy is still her “most favorite person in the whole world,” it is much easier to pat my back and proclaim that my parenting style is working, because she seems to be thriving. The real challenge and the true dilemma of where, when and which boundaries to push on her part and mine will likely show up in the next five years or so. As a sub­text, I could add, that in the dilemma of disciplining my child, I face some of the same challenges as several peers regardless of nationality or immigration status; that is, as a working mom, there is a sense of guilt at not always being there for your child. I do believe this makes for “softer punishments,” depending on the context of course. However, this may be a topic in itself for another forum altogether. A third fear Asian Indian parents experience is the loss of authority in select­ ing their children’s mate (Baptiste, 2005). Indian parents consider it one of their primary responsibilities to find suitable mates for their children. Despite being removed from the Indian cultural context, and despite having other­ wise integrated into their adopted environment including celebrating Western holidays, immigrant first generation parents resist any alterations to their beliefs surrounding dating and arranged marriages (Wakil, Siddique & Wa­ kil, 1981). Dating, a topic that lends itself to a really strong intergenerational controversy is especially opposed by Asian Indian parents. Seen from a cultural sense, this resistance to dating is understandable. Because in India the older generation carefully chose a mate for their child based on compat­ ible family backgrounds, caste and class considerations, and community af­ filiations, the free and unsupervised mixing of the sexes is seen as improper

[2.21]

[2.22]

[2.23]

[2.24]

DRAFT

Cultural Ambiguity, Ethnic Identity, and the Bicultural Experience

[2.25]

and even promiscuous (Dasgupta, 1997). When their adult children in the United States date with the objective of vetting out potential future partners, parents’ sense of cultural propriety are challenged (Dasgupta, 1998). Furthermore, given the minority status of the community in general, par­ ents rely on their children to observe traditions and customs to maintain cultural continuity. They fear that should their children engage in interethnic/ interracial marriages, the next generation would essentially disappear or be­ come difficult to distinguish (Wakil et al., 1981). All of these fears make it even more imperative in the parents’ minds that they select the right mate for their child, one who values Indian cultural traditions that can then be trans­ mitted to future generations (Inman et al., 2007). However, even with the overall disapproval of dating, Asian Indian parents showed more flexibility in allowing their sons to date while enforcing stricter rules on their daughters. Daughters, as transmitters of cultural values to the next generation shoul­ dered the burden of their family’s as well as their community’s honor and were expected to embody ideal behavior at all times. This restriction meant daughters did not enjoy the same freedoms as their brothers, were expected to learn how to maintain a household, and live up to parents’ cultural expec­ tations in marrying a partner of their parents’ choosing while continuing to achieve academic and professional success (Dasgupta, 1997; Dasgupta, 1998; Poulson, 2009; Wakil et al., 1981). Tara’s response: This fear is probably the one that scares me the least. My husband and I did not have an arranged marriage. In fact, we fell in love as graduate students while studying in the U.S., and even though we are both Indian, I believe that the likelihood of my daughter marrying someone of Indian origin is rather slim and the probability of an arranged marriage is non­existent. That being said, I do share the concerns raised by my cohort of Indian immigrant parents related to dating. The concern is not related to whether or not she will or can date. I assume she will, but the real question is when she will start dating. With my perception that her generation is more precocious and doing everything earlier than the generation before hers, I am not sure how I would react to a “boyfriend” in her tween years. I want to believe that I would have the same angst regardless of the sex of my child, and would much rather engage in a discussion on abstinence than contra­ ception. While the response so far may imply an authoritative style of parenting (and I believe it is), the response is based on the premise that my daughter will continue to excel in her academic and extracurricular endeavors along­ side her dates and boyfriends. As referenced earlier, I too am “guilty” of making greater demands of academic excellence from my daughter in ex­ change for considering not­so­rigid “rules” relating to dating when the time comes, finding her own mate and marrying the person of her choice. Also

[2.26]

[2.27]

Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni

DRAFT

along these lines will be a potentially universal parental expectation that no matter whom my daughter picks as her mate, may he be everything she wants. Finally, as articulated by Baptiste (2005), Asian Indian parents also fear a loss of face within the Indian community because of children’s out­of­culture behaviors. Given the largely collectivistic orientation of Indians, one’s repu­ tation within the community is an important signifier of personal, social, and ethnic identity. According to Phinney (1990), ethnic identity refers to atti­ tudes about one’s own ethnicity where the individual focuses on how she or he relates to her or his own cultural group as a subset of the larger society. Ethnic identity differs from acculturation that involves two or more groups and concerns itself with broader changes in cultural attitudes, values, and behaviors that emerge as a result of intercultural contact (Berry, 2001). Ex­ tant research indicates that of the five acculturation strategies that Berry (1997) proposes—assimilation, separation, integration, marginalization, and separation—integration, where immigrant groups maintain a degree of cultu­ ral integrity while adapting and seeking to participate in the larger social network of the host culture, is most effective in facilitating a strong bicultural identity. Immigrants often live in fear of cultural obliteration brought about by their children assimilating into the large U.S. melting pot and thereby losing their sense of ethnic personhood. Because one’s children are often seen as a reflection of their parents’ life work, any misstep by their children threatens to shatter parents’ carefully crafted model immigrant cultural iden­ tity and consequently, cause disrepute in the larger Asian Indian community. These parents feel especially wary of espoused American values of inde­ pendence, individualism, and self­sufficiency (Durvsula & Mylvaganam, 1994) given the great disparity between the values of their society of origin (India) and their adopted home (United States) (Dion & Dion, 2001). Of course, research also indicates that the longer immigrants have lived in the United States, the more accepting and tolerant they are of the host culture’s value systems. Farver et al. (2007) found that mothers who had prolonged contact with American culture and who followed an integrated or assimilated acculturation style were more likely to develop a new set of values and parenting beliefs that allowed them to function effectively and biculturally. Likewise, Patel et al., (1997) found that the longer mothers had been exposed to North American culture, the more they supported the imbibing of North American values in their children. Subsequently, U.S. born and/or raised kids may be strongly encouraged to participate in cultural and religious practices, foster a sense of community pride and commitment to their ethnic group, and visit India regularly, while they may be spoken to in English, pushed to participate in American cultural activities and celebrations like the Easter egg hunt or Halloween, allowed to have American friends, while continuing to
[2.28]

[2.29]

DRAFT

Cultural Ambiguity, Ethnic Identity, and the Bicultural Experience

identify themselves as Asian Indian or Indian (Farver, Bhadha & Narang, 2002; Farver et al., 2007).
[2.30]

[2.31]

[2.32]

Tara’s response: I think this last paragraph sums up where I stand in parent­ ing my American born daughter in my adopted homeland quite aptly. Even though throughout our lives in the U.S., we have had Indian friends, both my husband and I have never vied for acceptance by the larger Indian commu­ nity, instead focusing on building stronger relationships with our close friends—Indian and American—and working hard professionally to make our families in India proud (as has been indicated earlier). Therefore, contrary to worries about how my parenting style and the behavior of my daughter may make me lose face with the extended Indian community, I have used parenting tips, tricks, and strategies from neighbors, friends, and co­ workers from American and other immigrant cultures, to create a collage of sorts that works for my family. I have the added advantage of long visits from our folks who live in India, so my daughter gets to partake in all the traditional festivals, foods, and stories that they bring with them. The opportunity to visit India frequently has allowed my daughter to enjoy and embrace her “Indian­ness.” While her friends in school are all non­Indian and influence her thoughts and actions in a big way, she now takes pride in helping them pronounce her name the way it “should be pronounced,” she asks for “Indian” music to be played during their music class and shares all her trinkets from India with her friends. She dresses up as Cinderella and goes trick­or­treating for Hallo­ ween, but also crafts up paper lanterns and lights little lamps for Diwali. I believe that parenting is not easy no matter whether you are a native or an immigrant, whether you are Indian or not. However, if as an Indian immigrant parent, I can effectively help my child navigate the “confusion” of dual cultures through my own open mindedness, she can just be herself—a global citizen. As evidenced in the discussion above, Asian Indian immigrant parents en­ counter unfamiliar territory post­immigration into the United States. Even though this exclusive class of educated and professional people may have had some or limited exposure to the larger U.S. cultural expectations before their arrival, raising children in this adopted land unveils an entirely new set of challenges and experiences. While this first generation’s fears are under­ standable when seen through the sociocultural lenses unique to their situa­ tion, more recent research does indicate an acceptance of dynamic parenting styles that are getting adapted to suit a newer generation of U.S. born kids. This gradual transition makes sense as immigrant parents’ prolonged expo­ sure to the U.S. culture aids their own intercultural adaptation and comfort and familiarity with their post­immigration lives.

[2.33]

Suchitra Shenoy and Tara A. Kulkarni

DRAFT

CONCLUSION Asian Indian immigrants, like almost all other immigrant groups, come to the United States in search of better lives for themselves and their families. In dislocating their immediate emotional bonds, they not only leave behind their natal families and cultural familiarity but they also inherently make peace with the changes they are about to encounter. While the promises of a new land beckon them, immigrants are also keenly aware of the loss of a rooted family network of guidance, support, and assistance; cultural continuity; and other environmental backing. Even as these immigrants are working to make sense of their own cultural identities, raising a child in a new land poses hitherto uncharted challenges. Understandably, in the absence of immediate family guidance, these parents rely on their own memory and interpretation of parenting. Perhaps then, immigrant parents may be allowed some leeway in their desire to hold on to and transmit cultural values to their U.S. born and/or raised kids. After all, what makes for effective parenting, its goals and objectives, is often socioculturally and contextually determined. Research on Asian Indian parents conducted in the 1980s and 1990s typically reveal par­ ents’ strict adherence to Indian customs and traditions and similar expecta­ tions of their children. In fact, Dasgupta (1997, 1998) claims that in their resolve to create a semblance to home and in reinventing, creating, and preserving their version of “Indian,” first generation immigrant parents are more Indian than Indians in India. As explained in the previous section, more recent studies have shown that these first generation Indian parents are highly cognizant of their children’s struggles to create a bicultural identity amidst challenges like dating and racism (Inman et al., 2007). Continually negotiating their own status and comfort level in their adopted culture, these parents wonder about the right kinds of values (those important to them as Indians or those that would facilitate their children’s smoother adaptation to the new society) to impart to their children (Inman et al., 2007). Ultimately, a blended style of parenting influenced by their authoritarian style cultural upbringing interlayered with more commonly practiced and accepted U.S. styles resulted in a model that enabled bicultural functioning as the chosen model for Asian Indian parents (Patel et al., 1997). Of course successful bicultural functioning is no easy feat. Considerable effort is required to seamlessly adapt to both cultures as well as confront the trials and tribulations that accompany raising biculturally competent children but given the embodied “model” behaviors this immi­ grant group has adopted, the negotiation, retention, alteration, and perfor­ mance of selective acculturation processes and cultural ambiguities is just part of their new reality, a reality that is essentially Indian, but uniquely U.S.­ American.

[2.34] [2.35]

[2.36]

DRAFT

Chapter Three

The Trouble with Family Stories
Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

[3.0] [3.1] [3.2]

I like when you tell me stories about when you were growing up. —Valerio Alemán, 14­years­old

[3.3] [3.4]

For the past six years, camping in the nearby Washington National Forest has presented my son and me with a ritualistic communication situation that encourages the telling (and re­telling) of personal and family stories. Reflect­ ing on such occasions as we prepared this manuscript, Valerio remarked, “I like when you tell me stories about when you were growing up.” “Why?” I asked. “They’re full of action. You’re always doing stuff that I would never do,” he replied. His comment brings relief, but also a tinge of sadness. I am relieved that my stories may have worked to confirm in his mind the reck­ lessness of so many of my past actions; I am saddened that my son may not have enough stories of his own reckless behavior to pass on to his children. TROUBLE WITH LA PLACA AND OTHER PORTRAITS OF THE WHITEMAN During the communication ritual of camping, I try to direct conversation so as to prompt stories and consejos (pieces of advice) that communicate what I know to be a personal understanding of friendship and sexuality, and a cultu­ ral understanding of family responsibility and loyalty, as interpreted by la familia Alemán. More often than not, the preferred stories are entangled messages of race and risk, if not well­treaded tales of childhood and teen encounters with laplaca (the police) and other persons authorized with insti­ tutionalized power (e.g., teachers, school principals, physicians).

[3.5]

[3.6]

Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

DRAFT

Anzaldúa (2007) affectionately writes, “Nudge a Mexican and she or he will break out with a story” (p. 87). An often­told story has my younger brother, four friends and me assuming the lineup in front of two police officers on the grounds of a vacated elementary schoolyard located a block from my home in Selma, CA. My parents still reside in that home and the school remains, although now as an alternative school for students expelled from the public high school. I remind Valerio that unlike our current resi­ dence in Virginia, the entrance to classrooms in most public schools in Cali­ fornia open up to concrete corridors that are outdoors. The wide, worn and sheltered sidewalks made for smooth skateboard riding during the sweltering 107­degree heat of June. The shaded hallways were our oasis from the heat and the tedium of endless daytime soap operas on network TV. Lying on the cool slabs felt almost as good on our skin as water from the backyard sprink­ ler. As I tell it, our motley lot is between eight­ and sixteen­years­old, attired in cut­off jeans, striped white tube socks, sneakers, and Kool­Aid stained tank tops. We span the spectrum of light brown sugar to dark chocolate. “One friend was so dark that we used to call him ‘Stain,’” I laugh. Valerio never finds this funny, so I repeat it. “Get it? Stain? Because he’s really dark.” Still nothing. I describe how our group would take turns riding two skateboards, one of which remains in our garage. The orange poly GT Spoiler is tangible evi­ dence of my story’s authenticity. On this day, one friend found a half­filled can of black spray paint conspicuously placed in some shrubs. A few shakes of the can and the words “KISS Army” appeared on a nearby picnic table. With the deed done, he tossed the can back in the shrubs. Many years after the incident, I realized the well­placed spray paint was likely huffed, but this fact still seems too complicated to explain to Valerio. Nor do I explain who Kiss was, or how many kids of that time loved Gene Simmons’ demonic face paint. What is most important is that Valerio understands the sprayed “KISS Army” on the picnic table as both minimal and harmless when compared to the gang tagging seen around Selma today. The story takes its turn when the youngest of our crew retrieved the can from the bushes. He first painted “KISS,” and then a backward swastika. We all yelled at him to put the can down, as black paint covered the tip of his index finger. I describe wanting to rub out the swastika only to realize doing so would make more of a mess. Just then, someone exclaimed, “Ditch the paint! Here comes la placa!” I looked out to the school grounds to see a police officer 100 yards away unlocking the gate of the cyclone fence that encircled the campus. “Hurry up and ditch the paint!” As I looked again, the black and white cruiser passed through the gate and begun heading our way. Too late to run.

[3.7]

[3.8]

[3.9]

[3.10]

DRAFT

The Trouble with Family Stories

[3.11]

[3.12]

[3.13]

[3.14] [3.15]

With a foaming can of Krylon high gloss hiding only ten yards away, we are made to stand in a line as we are interrogated. Despite our skateboards in hand, we are repeatedly asked, “What are you doing here?” I characterize this part of the story as a ridiculous instance of police hassling, and occasion­ ally ramble off to another instance when I was pulled over by a police officer or questioned for my presence on university grounds. Eventually, I come back to the story and describe how one of officers sees the tag. “What is ‘KISS Army?” the jefe asks. We denied knowing anything about the tags. “There has been lots of graffiti lately,” he continued. Still, no answer. Even­ tually, we speak of some older kids who were hanging around before we arrived, but had since left. Unconvinced, the jefe touches the still wet paint, and then looks back our way. Perhaps feeling frustrated by our lack of deference, the younger officer threatens to take us all to jail if we don’t admit that we vandalized the tables. I describe how we knew his comments were mostly posturing for the jefe, but I advise our son, “Still, you can never be sure, especially if the chota doesn’t like your ‘attitude.’” I punctuate “attitude” with air quotes, pausing just long enough to take questions. To date, there have been none. I continue by describing how after 15 minutes of police lecture regarding school vandalism and public taxes, the younger officer says, “I think we should just go ahead and take the big, dark one.” At this point in my telling of the story, I imitate the voice of the officer, as well as the widened eyes and quivering lip of my older friend. Valerio laughs and mimics the facial gesture to my amusement. We laugh together and muse for several minutes about the utterance. “I think we should take the big one.” For all intents and purposes, this is the end of the story; we have built toward this moment of shared laughter and gesture. But, I eventually close story by stating jefe’s final words: “No, I think we should give them ten seconds to get out of here.” One . . . two . . . Blam! We were outta there! I have told this story to our son many times over the past six years. At first, he seemed intrigued as to why his father would tell him about childhood run­ins with the law, but later entertained by mockery of laplaca, and our imitating of my friends’ face. “I think we should take the big one,” he’ll sometimes say in a lowered voice tone while in a public setting. I’m not at all sure that he is aware that my brother, now also in his 40’s, repeats the same utterance. “I think we should take the big one,” Jesse said a few months ago while we walked between pubs in Richmond. We laughed, as I am a few inches taller than he.

Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

DRAFT

THE TROUBLE OF FAMILY STORIES For Carlos, telling stories of race, risk and responsibility, such as the opening narrative, are important and opportunistic performances of personal and fam­ ily identity. However trivial they may seem, their content speaks of the risks inherent to being brown in everyday life, while their telling is a testimony of resistance and survival. Carlos will occasionally claim, if not justify, the content and the telling as being in participation with and in relation to other cultural narratives of Chicano identity (see Limón, 1994; but also Rosaldo, 1989). It makes sense then that Carlos revels in their telling. In contrast,Melissa tends to describe herself as more reserved in telling tales of risk taking that are shared carefully in those moments when, in her mind, they would seem to matter the most. It was a bit disheartening then, but not surprising, when Valerio recently ruminated aloud, “I guess Mama just isn’t a big risk taker.” Indeed, the statement “I guess Mama just isn’t a big risk taker,” is an important utterance and consequence of the discursive negotiation of identity that happens in family storytelling (Koenig Kellas, 2005), implicating per­ sonal, gendered, and raced identities in the very fold of the conversation. The example highlights broader gendered patterns of storytelling and socializa­ tion found in research indicating that fathers are more likely than mothers to tell of childhood stories characterized by themes of being independent, en­ gaging risk, and generally getting into trouble (Fiese & Bickham, 2004). Fiese and Bickham summarize this research stating, “Although we found a few stories that contained an explicit moral, fathers’ stories about getting into trouble and risk taking often times reflected the implicit message, ‘Do as I say not as a I did’” (p. 272). But even if this is only one reason why Carlos tells such childhood stories of himself or of his family members, it is certain­ ly not the reason he enjoys doing so. To be sure, in multicultural families such as ours, stories of trouble can be complicated, as are the circumstances of their telling. Stories of childhood transgressions by parents and their children have also been shown to have considerable cross­cultural variability, as not all cultures similarly value sharing stories of transgressions (Miller, Sandel, Li­ ang & Fung, 2001). Miller et al. (2001)argue then that when exploring the use of narratives as tools of socialization it is critical that scholars seek understanding of the different perspectives that guide and underlie storytell­ ing practices, specifically norms and beliefs about childrearing and parent­ ing. For instance, they observed that when North American mothers of Long­ wood, Illinois, narrate their own and their children’s transgressions, they not only take great effort to avoid messages that might undermine their child’s psychological health, but pursue behaviors that convey approachability to

[3.16] [3.17]

[3.18]

[3.19]

DRAFT

The Trouble with Family Stories

[3.20]

[3.21]

[3.22]

their child, occasionally at the expense of their parental authority. In contrast, Taiwanese mothers of Taipei appeared to make the most of narrative as didactic opportunities, reminding their children of their past misdeeds, but taking great care to avoid sharing their own transgressions. To do otherwise would amount to granting their child permission for bad behavior. The re­ search by Miller et al. contrasts globalizing assertions regarding Western socialization practices of praise versus Eastern practices of shame (see e.g., Benedict, 1946). But for Miller et al., the line of research illustrates how the contexts in which stories are told, the characters in those stories, and the end goals are strategically guided by cultural assumptions about how to socialize a child within a family. Sandel (2010) would later conclude that “stories, therefore, are an important means of expression as they can be examined both as a model of local values and beliefs, and as a performance that demon­ strates a model for action” (p. 326). As parents in a family of Mexican­American and European American traditions and as researchers of cultural and interpersonal communication, we can identify with the importance of examining family stories in cultural contexts. Raised in distinctly different ethnic, racial, religious, and socioeco­ nomic households, we sometimes turn to personal and family stories of our respective upbringing so as to communicate differences in our expectations of people who are within and outside of our family, construct shared visions of family life, and tease out an ever changing dialectic of belonging. Like Miller et al. (2001), we have concerns regarding the non­reflective idealism and power generically issued to family stories. And so, we offer this chapter as a tale of trouble with family stories, particularly in terms of their content, their telling, and their theorizing as family communication. Specifically, we reflect on family stories and storytelling as communica­ tion practice (Langellier & Peterson, 2006a) so as to articulate storytelling rituals as sites for presenting values, performing identity, constituting and negotiating family cultures. In order to make sense of the rituals of storytell­ ing in our family, we employed methodological processes similar to what Carolyn Ellis (2004) calls the co­constructed narrative, in which we engaged a reflective and dialogic process of identifying, discussing, writing, and re­ vising written narratives of those stories most often repeated. In doing so, we present small and large stories from our personal histories that are drawn upon in routine retellings, most often at our family dinner table and while en route to our annual vacation. These narratives help to illuminate the dialogic manner of family stories and multicultural families (Baxter, 2010). Moreover, we examine and engage “trouble” as theme, code, and heuris­ tic for making sense of storytelling practices in our own multicultural house­ hold, and invite readers to consider whether the act of storytelling as commu­ nicative practice may be more important for negotiating cultural differences in families than the content of the actual stories being told. Indeed, when we

Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

DRAFT

ask our son to reflect on the moral lesson of oft told stories he’s heard from and about us, he often shrugs, while still goading us on to tell yet another story. FAMILY STORIES AS CULTURAL TRANSMISSION AND THE TROUBLE OF MULTICULTURAL FAMILIES The scholarship on narrative and the family widely asserts that family stories and personal stories told within families function to socialize members about rules for behavior and relating (Fiese, Hooker, Kotary, Schwagler & Rim­ mer, 1995), define broad familial and cultural beliefs, norms, and values across generations (Jorgenson & Bochner, 2004), and construct people’s sense of personhood as cultural and family members (Stone, 1988/2008). Specifically, in her classic study exploring the sociological importance of family stories, Elizabeth Stone (1988/2008) asserts that family stories in­ struct members about the ground rules for participating in family life and for what it means to be a member of a family. Stone writes:
The family is our first culture, and, like all cultures, it wants to make known its norms and mores. It does so through daily life, but it also does so through family stories which underscore, in a way invariably clear to its members, the essentials. (1988/2008, p. 7)

[3.23]

[3.24]

[3.25]

Koenig Kellas and Trees (2006) further explain that stories “families tell act as packages, representative of family norms, identities, and functions” (p. 51). Whether it is in the form of grand genesis stories tracing the origins of a family (Ballard & Ballard, 2011), tales of extraordinary and beloved family members (Trujillo, 2004), stories of pain, suffering and trauma (Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009), or accounts of the everyday events that punctuate our lives (Perregaard, 2010), the content contained in family stories is infused with information regarding how to be, while their performed telling imparts how family is “done” (Langellier & Peterson, 2006a). Family stories are thus characterized as types of communication “vessels” used for transporting and conveying information that tell (and remind) one another of how we are and who we are not (Thornborrow & Coates, 2005). These carrying and constituting functions of family stories appear particular­ ly true when family members confront challenges to their understanding of cultural identity and face crises that test the boundaries of familihood. For instance, research has shown that family members construct and tell stories to deal with difficult situations (Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2006), navigate threats from outsiders (Galvin, 2006b), and negotiate collective understand­

[3.26]

[3.27]

DRAFT

The Trouble with Family Stories

[3.28]

[3.29]

[3.30]

ings regarding the meanings of relational caregiving (Alemán & Helfrich, 2010). Utilizing autoethnographic methods, Melissa and her mother examined caregiving themes found in personal narratives for living with and caring for matriarchs with dementia within their own family (Alemán & Helfrich, 2010).They then concluded that their family narrative is one of “members ‘stepping up to the plate’ and taking care of one another with humor, patience and perseverance” and that jointly told stories of care enable them “to talk candidly and openly about [their] own future expectations of caregiving—all of which assume the possibility of living in a long term environment” (p. 21).The importance of quality professional care for aging family members, more so than its availability, is a topic of routine dinner table conversation, particularly as the health of Melissa’s surviving grandparents deteriorates. Accounts of their (presumed) need, but refusal for greater institutionalized care, such as assisted living, infuse phone conversations that speak of “trou­ bling” health circumstances and frustrating interactions regarding the planned care of her grandparents. These stories of both personal attention and professional caregiving highlight the value of freedom from burden while simultaneously celebrating an ethic of involved care that favors indepen­ dence over interdependence, and that is contextualized by the ability to af­ ford to pay for such quality care. In contrast, Carlos frequently tells of familial caregiving and of his role as a young teenager in caring for his 79­year­old grandfather during the end stages of prostate cancer, care that took place in his grandparents’ home. It is not a coincidence that references to these stories began to appear with greater frequency in our family when our son turned thirteen­years­old and his pater­ nal grandfather turned 80. The ethos of Carlos’ account of the challenges and blessings in providing care for his grandfather as a teenager is imbued with an ethic of shared sacrifice that involves many family members—young and old—caring for the sick and dying, contextualized by a reality of unafford­ able if not unavailable health and hospice care. He states, “My cousin, Mi­ chael, and I had to take turns spending our Friday nights at our abuelita’s house because we were big enough to help lift Welito out of the bed and carry him to the bathroom.” Carlos also frequently tells of how later, after the passing of his grandfather, he returned to spend appointed Friday nights at his abuela’s house so as to keep her company. It might seem then that multicultural households, such as ours, would likewise be characterized by stories of contradicting coda regarding proper and expected care of family. Melissa’s stories of caregiving for her grandpar­ ents highlight cultural values of personal independence and freedom from burden; Carlos’ stories emphasize cultural values of family interdependence and obliged commitment. Indeed, these conflicting codes regarding familial care express varied cultural norms for expected family member behavior

Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

DRAFT

toward self and other. Yet, we assert that such conflicts and contestations are routine of the storytelling rituals that characterize the doing of multicultural family. Put differently, while our respective caregiving tales are rarely told in the same sitting, their telling nonetheless affords our son with divergent, if not competing, ways of talking about what constitutes an ethic of care and the role of family members in such care. For members of monocultural families, the contesting codes of care presented in story content may be construed as troubling or at least troublesome. However, Luke and Luke (1999) write that the experience of “situated multiplicity, of reconstituting one’s identity in relation to place, climate and social field,” such as the simultaneous presenta­ tion of divergent meaning systems and behavioral coda, “is a part of interra­ cial couples everyday lives,” and may be experienced as an affirmation of their unique marital and family character (pp. 230–31). The authors further assert that situated multiplicity and hybridity among interracial couples and multicultural families is not a blending of cultural norms or assimilation of culture into another, but the emergence of new forms from those presented through difference. Family stories and the ritualistic activity of storytelling can thus be potentially examined for important contents of divergent coda, as well as important contexts and locations for enabling multiplicity in perspec­ tive. In families, then, both the content of stories and the performance of storytelling create parameters regarding what constitutes family and the ap­ propriate behaviors therein. Examining the content of stories, for example, can afford an understanding of the particular assumptions regarding what is right and wrong, when and to whom deference and respect is to be given, and the navigation of honor and shame in families. Examining the ritualistic performance of those stories, however, may help to afford an understanding of force that directs family culture and relational climate. For example, like many families, we tell stories to our son that convey negative consequences of lying and valorize the importance of turning to family in the face of a difficult situation rather than seeking to “hide one’s sins.” Regardless of the seriousness of the transgression, we take effort to convey that “it is better to tell us the truth about what you did than to lie about it,” and “while you might get into trouble for what you did, you’ll be in worse trouble if you try to lie about it.” By revealing instances in which we lied to (and were caught lying by) our parents, we seek to create relevant portraits of our respective childhood families—a mythos of parent­child rela­ tionships of past and a characterization of identities therein. A common coda, “Lying will get you into more trouble than the deed you seek to hide,” articulates the linkage of somewhat divergent parenting philosophies of past and present.

[3.31]

[3.32]

[3.33]

DRAFT

The Trouble with Family Stories

[3.34]

[3.35]

Yet, marked differences in the narrated punishments of lying to parents help to inform how mythos can work to produce a family climate regarding parental discipline and the consequences for lying. In Carlos’ stories of child­ hood family, relational misbehavior was often corrected through corporal punishment, but the consequence of such behavior was inevitably made more severe if one attempted to lie about the behavior. As Carlos frequently sums, “We’d get yelled at or swatted if we were bad, but we’d get the belt for lying.” Repeated and opportunistic stories of numerous and diverse instances of how Carlos’ attempts to lie to his parents were met with the cinturón convey a vivid message that expresses an identification with a child’s desire to lie while promoting a constant reality of the belt. Complementing stories of neighboring kids sadistically beat with motor fan belts and electrical cords over apparent trivial matters, such as forgetting to close a screen door or being slow to respond to a parent’s call, convey a known code that there is a difference between just corporal punishment and child abuse. Stories laugh­ ingly told by adult children at Alemán family barbeques of instances when “Dad really gave it to us” confirm both the veracity of the stories and the loving intent of the punishment. In Carlos’ closet, an old, wide, cracked black leather belt hangs in ominous view for no apparent reason other than to convey that justice is within reach should the need arise. Aside from the practical purposes for which a belt is designed, it has never been used to exact punishment, yet its presence is connected to the mythos of family culture and tied to family stories of lying. Taken together, and in relation to infrequently told stories of lying in Melissa’s childhood household, or of “stern talks” received for violating family rules, the telling of the belt encourages a climate of what might also be our family. As our son quipped, “That’s kind of true. You’ve never hit me for lying, but still, there’s this feeling like it might happen.” Bochner, Ellis, and Tillmann­Healy (1997) write:
We tell our stories in a particular style, for a particular purpose, at a particular time. Often our purpose is to foster a story of the past that helps to function effectively in the present. Our tellings rework, refigure and remake our past in accordance with a future onto which we project our possibilities. . . . The question is not whether the narratives convey the way things actually were, but rather what narratives do, what consequences they have, to what uses they can be put. (p. 312)

[3.36]

[3.37]

Thus, the content of our family stories has important socializing functions called up in particular moments for specific reasons to project how we are/ are not as a family. Yet, explorations of family storytelling rituals have potential to illustrate how coordinated performances also help members navi­ gate moments of existential and valuative crisis so as to illuminate answers and invite query regarding how we might yet to be as family.

Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

DRAFT

Indeed, research on stories in the interpersonal communication literature lauds the value of narrative for creating order and coherence in the face of chaos and relational loss (Weber & Harvey, 1994), for making sense of difficult and challenging relationships (Jago, 2011), and for navigating a family system in the context of disruption, fragments and conflict (Goodall, 2006; Poulos, 2009). As such, it would be reasonable to assert that multicul­ tural families continuously rely on personal and family stories as a means to legitimate and negotiate their varied, multiple and perhaps divergent codes of conduct to persons within and external to the family unit. It might even be argued that they rely on such stories for their very existence so as to come to be, as Kathleen Galvin (2006a) calls, discourse­dependent. However, we would caution any interpretation of such an argument as support for the claim that multicultural families experience greater crisis of structure and identity than monocultural families. Rather, we’d offer that while the content of family stories serve important functions for the presenta­ tion of competing values, norms and mythos from parents to children, the coherence of family as multicultural is created by and through performances of storytelling itself. Marvin (2004) captures our sentiment in her description of the power of storytelling for creating family as she reflected on her experi­ ences studying storytelling of Indian grandmothers:
The act of telling stories is more than a gesture of affection and closeness, more than a means of educating children and conveying family values . . . the telling of stories (the act of using breath and language to narrate an experience) is the confirmation and perhaps even the forging of family connection. In the telling, and the listening, the storyteller’s essence mingles with that of the listener and thus strengthens the bond between the teller and the listener on a sacred level. (p. 42)

[3.38]

[3.39]

[3.40]

This interpretation of social form and multicultural family can be viewed as consistent with other broad works of sociality theorizing communication as ritual (see Carey, 1985; Leeds­Hurwitz, 1995; Rothenbuhler, 2006). Thus, theoretical perspectives that theorize the processes and performance of story­ telling provide insight into the ways in which family storytelling can provide cohesion and a shared experience, even when the content of the stories them­ selves may convey differing and conflicting cultural values. A tale ritualistically told from Melissa’s childhood serves to illustrate the manner in which the telling itself becomes a site for cohesion across multiple generations, as family members align their roles and participation in particu­ lar ways. “Tell the story about the elephants!” Valerio has squealed since he was old enough to request a family story at dinnertime. Restrained grins come across all seated at the table. Melissa’s sister, when present for the retelling, rolls her eyes and waits for someone else to tell the story. It is her story, but it is a family story told over and over again. In some ways it can be

[3.41]

[3.42]

DRAFT

The Trouble with Family Stories

[3.43]

likened to what Bamberg (2004) calls a “small story.” It is often called up in a telling with few sentences, a story begun and completed by the sentence “the time Caroline drew elephants on her bedroom wall,” and usually filled with equivocations around the resulting punishment for her transgression. It is undoubtedly a family story of trouble, but the fact that the listeners rarely agree on the “moral” of the story troubles the theoretical biases toward con­ tent as paramount to understanding family cultures. The bonds and shared laughter created in the telling of the elephant story affirm the warmth and value of the ritual, while the ordered participation of the older sister telling the tale of her younger sister in trouble reproduces a historical family structures and the power dynamic created therein. The con­ text of Melissa’s family of origin, now fragmented through divorce, yet forever storied here as intact, affords an enduring sense of unity and together­ ness in spite of the separate birthday and holiday dinner celebrations where the story is called up. Taken together, the telling of the elephant story as a communication situation of family informs its significance for imparting and reproducing important code regarding the dialectical nature of relations, par­ ticularly the simultaneity of both the unpredictability and certainty of family. The Elephant Story It was close to lunchtime on a sweltering summer day when we were about to lock up our empty townhouse for the last time. Freckles, our beagle, had died the day before, I had slammed my hand in a borrowed pick­up truck during the chaos and tears of finding her, and everyone was on edge trying to get our young family ready to move. I was hungry and melodramatically nursing a bruised hand, my sister was moping with her head hung low, and my parents’ patience was left deep in the basement of our now empty home. I was five­years­old and my sister had just turned four. My parents had recently signed the contract on our first house in a nearby city and the last of the boxes was placed in the back of the truck. The subdivision of townhouses we had been living in for the last two years was teeming with children our age; the parking lot turned into a playground for our imagined marching bands and chalked hopscotch. Our best friends lived up the hill in the parson­ age right next to the Methodist church and their home was practically our second home. While excited about the adventure of moving into a brand new house, still my sister and I felt sense of loss during this transitional time. On this moving day with tension in the air, grief over the loss of our beloved dog, and my sister’s attachment to her first real memory of a place we called home, my sister got in trouble. Just before we were ready to lock up the house and drive to our new house, she disappeared from the living room. A few moments later, my parents found her in our bedroom with a

[3.44] [3.45]

[3.46]

[3.47]

Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

DRAFT

fistful of crayons and upon the white bedroom wall, a rainbow portrait of a parade of elephants. This is my first family memory of getting into trouble, really getting into trouble. This story was told over and over again in our family always in intergenerational contexts—but by my grandparents, my parents, and me. It is never told by my sister. DOING MULTICULTURAL FAMILY THROUGH STORYTELLING The telling of “Caroline drawing the elephants” is a ritualistically performed story about getting into trouble. It was routinely told to Melissa and her sister as children by their parents and grandparents in family settings to simultane­ ously celebrate their creative modes of “acting out” and value the expressing of one’s feelings, while reminding them of what happens when their actions are guided by uncontrolled emotions. Storied now as a humorous portrait of a sister’s misdeed, it is often called up as the only time anyone was ever spanked in Melissa’s household. In many ways the elephant story narrates an image much like who we are now, a family that can identify only a few instances of childhood spanking at the hand (literally) of a frustrated and impatient father. In other ways, it simultaneously narrates a tale of who we are not, as it sits in relation to the storied reality of family discipline and punishment narrated by Carlos. These tales of the cinturón need not be uttered within the same seating, but definitely co­exist as context for the telling of the elephant story so as to produce a sense of who we might also be. The seeming contradictions and inconsistencies between who are, are not, and might yet be, are held coherent by a telling ritual that communicates how we are; we are a family that engages stories of childhood transgressions and parents’ differing preferred ways of responding to them with a relative light­ heartedness. In this light, the character of our family communication when telling the elephant story is not unlike the ego protective narrative practices and espoused views toward transgressions observed by Miller et al. (2001, p. 178) of North American mothers and summarized by Thorne, McLean, and Dasbach (2004) as code; “that bad acts do not make a bad person, that bad behavior can be redeemed, and that people are ‘complex, protean, and flawed’” (p. 188). Langellier and Peterson (2006a) assert that performances of storytelling such as these are a means of doing family. The conflicting tellings call into question the meanings of trouble in our multicultural family, while simulta­ neously expressing a degree of comfort with conflicting mythos of family culture. Indeed, our family stories do family through conflict, and that isn’t troubling, it merely is. Langellier and Peterson further describe:

[3.48]

[3.49] [3.50]

[3.51]

[3.52]

DRAFT

The Trouble with Family Stories The doing of family storytelling highlights embodied communication: emo­ tional, dynamic, and creative acts of making meanings and telling stories. . . . As communication practice, telling family stories is a multigenerational crea­ tion and struggle over meanings: what events and actions are told and passed on, which family values are narrated, who tells stories and how who listens, and what identities are visible and which muted? In storytelling, families pro­ duce themselves as a family within, between, and over generations and repro­ duce The Family as a discursive construct. (2006a, pp. 110–11, emphasis in original)

[3.53]

[3.54]

Thus, family is done through the performances and processes of storytelling (Langellier & Peterson, 2006b) and is indeed an interactional achievement (Holstein & Gubrium, 1999). CONCLUSION: LOST IN TRANSLATION The focus of this chapter has been to problematize the manner in which family stories and storytelling have been theorized for explaining the experi­ ences and construction of multicultural families through focused reflections on our family stories of “trouble.” Indeed, stories of “trouble” highlight violations and transgressions in families and thus serve as clarions for family codes. In exploring our own family storytelling practices, we considered Langellier’s (2002) caution against examining the performance of storytell­ ing at the interpersonal and small group levels to draw inferences regarding relationships between family members. She argues that such analytical pro­ cesses risk the possibility of diminishing the political, cultural, and national implications embedded in such orderings of identities. That is, the historical contexts that give rise to families and to family stories are important and essential toward understanding the significance of their tellings. While we agree with Langellier that it is critical to seek understanding of the ways in which power and socio­historical contexts are infused in perfor­ mances of family stories, we disagree that examining stories toward explor­ ing “relationships within the family” is a form of “overpersonalization” (p. 58). Rather, we assert that significant historical and social forces present in family stories might be observed in how utterances such as “the way things are” work as normalizing practices, or how utterances such as “some memo­ ries are too painful to talk about” or “it’s not worth bringing up” work to bury the cultural past and hide privilege. Such practices are disrupted, troubled and questioned in multicultural families where the essentializing and totaliz­ ing “way things are” meets square up with “the way things might also be” and “might yet to be.”

[3.55] [3.56]

[3.57]

Melissa Alemán and Carlos Alemán

DRAFT

In our multicultural family, stories of trouble provide instances in which to examine the ways in which cultural coda are presented dialectically. Still, at times the discourse of binary logics, reliance on simplified cultural con­ structs, and preference for one spoken or written language assured that much was lost in the translation of family stories and relational meanings of story­ telling practices. While studies of the particular and of the situated storytell­ ing performances, such as ours, highlight and problematize the conflation between culture and nation (Ono, 1998, 2010), and illuminate the complex and layered ways that culture values are re­presented and contested simulta­ neously in narrative accounts of family, cultural and ethnic identity (see Alemán, 2003), the constraints of writing this chapter in a manner that was accessible to the largest possible English speaking audience greatly limited what could be presented or what might be heard. Too many conversations about family stories ended or were edited because of an assumption that they “wouldn’t make any sense” to the non­Latin@ reader, or that a non­Euro­ pean­American reader might form a wrong impression. These challenges are not restricted to the writing of family stories in multicultural families, or in any family for that matter, but they are part and parcel of how many multicul­ tural families are “done.” Still, scholarly inquiries into the layered, contested, and competing cultu­ ral coda in family storytelling rituals provide new possibilities for members of multicultural families to negotiate identities so as to open new cultural spaces for future generations. In doing so, static conceptualizations of inter­ generational transmission of cultural values are problematized and ques­ tioned, and new frameworks for storytelling in multicultural and mono­cultu­ ral families are proposed. For as Luke and Luke (1999) found in their study of interracial couples, the experience of multiplicity was valued across nearly all families and opened up “a third space: an array of possibilities for trans­ formed and hybridized cultural, religious, and gendered practices, and recon­ figured power relations” (p. 246).

[3.58]

[3.59]

DRAFT

Chapter Four

How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity to Adopted Chinese Daughters
May H. Gao and Deanna Womack

[4.0]

[4.1]

This chapter examines parenting and identity formation among daughters adopted from China by U.S. Caucasian parents. First we discuss the history of international adoption from China, and the reasons American parents seek children from China. Next, we briefly review intercultural identity theory. Then we highlight identity issues that adoptees from China are likely to face. We interpret the results of in­depth interviews with U.S. Caucasian parents who have adopted daughters from China to identify parents’ strategies for communicating identity to their daughters. Finally we identify problems re­ lated to identity communication and recommend areas for further research. The number of children needing homes and the demand in the U.S. and other western nations for adoptable children have combined to create an international adoption boom. Between 1999 and 2011, parents in the United States adopted almost 234,000 children from other countries; 66,630 of these children came from China. From 2007 to 2011, when adoptions from China reached a low of 2,587, China was the number one sending country in every year except 2008, when Guatemalan children comprised the largest group of international adoptees in the U.S. About 95% of the Chinese children adopted by American families were healthy infant or toddler girls (Andrew, 2007). The majority was abandoned by their biological parents in China due to pressure from the “One Child Policy” instituted in 1979 to control the population boom. Traditional Chinese culture’s heavy reliance on male pos­ terity discriminates against baby girls, especially in rural areas where manual labor is needed and no social security system is established. Since wives are expected to care for their husbands’ elderly parents, parents without sons have no means of support and must often rely on government assistance

May H. Gao and Deanna Womack

DRAFT

provided in Social Welfare Institutes that shelter both older adults and chil­ dren. Particularly in rural areas, there is a strong preference for sons needed “to uphold the spiritual and economic continuity of the family and to care for their elderly parents in the absence of a social security system for peasants” (Miller­Loessi & Kilic, 2001, p. 246). After all, according to Confucian teaching, “There are three ways in which one may be unfilial, of which the worst is to have no male heir” (Zhang, 2006). As a consequence of the one­ child policy, these factors combined to create an unprecedented situation: “orphanages overflowing with mostly health female children in need of government care” (Miller­Loessi & Kilic, 2001, p. 246). WHY DO CAUCASIAN AMERICANS ADOPT FROM CHINA? For several reasons, China has become a country of choice for Westerners adopting internationally. First, enforcement of China’s One Child Policy has meant that biological parents unable to pay the heavy fines for violating public policy are sometimes unable to provide for additional family members and adoption ensures the babies’ survival. Second, the Chinese adoption program is legalized, centralized and state­controlled so it is formal and predictable, resulting in a comparatively fast adoption process (Evans, 2000). China has younger babies available for adoption and has welcomed older adoptive parents. The children’s health is generally good, and developmental delays due to institutionalization have been quickly overcome (Hurwitz, 2003). Finally, adopting from China has been more affordable than other alternatives. As of 2001, Miller­Loessi and Kilic estimated the cost of adopt­ ing a baby from China at between $20,000 and $25,000 U.S., including international travel expenses; domestic adoptions can cost twice or even three times that amount with no guarantee that the adoption process will result in a child for a given set of parents. For these and other reasons, hundreds of Caucasian parents decided to adopt from China when China legalized inter­country adoption. A majority of the adoptive parents from the U.S are Caucasian. China required that adoptive parents have a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree, pro­ vide financial statements, and be no younger than their early thirties. These prerequisites favor adoption by middle to upper middle class families, espe­ cially Caucasian families. For all adoptees, but especially for Chinese girls adopted by Caucasian parents, identity is a key issue in the course of their growth. For these adopted Chinese girls, the identity factors of being “racially and ethnically Asian and Chinese,” “culturally American,” “female,” “abandoned in Chi­
[4.2] [4.3]

[4.4]

[4.5]

DRAFT

How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity

na,” and “adopted by Americans” create an interesting dynamic as they grow up in “biracial” and “bicultural” families.
[4.6] [4.7]

INTERCULTURAL IDENTITY THEORY All individuals have multiple identities that they constantly negotiate through social interactions (Hecht, Warren, Jung & Krieger, 2005; Ting­Toomey, 2005). Ting­Toomey understands identity as the conceptualization of the whole self that unites its many different parts. One’s identity is comprised of partial identities linked to different membership groups; individuals have gender identities, family identities (Martin & Nakayama, 2012), and national identities. People must balance the tension between wanting to be distinct individuals and wanting to be included in various groups by negotiating their self­construals as members of groups and their differences from other group members. How well people manage the tensions between these membership groups and between the desire to be included and the desire to be different in developing one coherent identity affects how well they are able to communi­ cate across cultures. Those who are secure in their own identities will be more effective communicating in general and especially more effective in communicating with people of different cultures (Ting­Toomey, 2005). In addition, identities have a political and social component so that iden­ tity is not only an individual negotiation but also involves socio­cultural interactions that may support or challenge someone’s chosen identity. Be­ cause Chinese children adopted by Caucasian parents will be enculturated as “Americans,” their primary socialization will likely reflect U.S. values be­ cause of the young age at which most were adopted. If they choose to live in China, for example, they may have to be acculturated in an incremental process of integrating Chinese norms and values with their original identities as Americans. They will have to develop new roles, skills, and interaction patterns to adapt to a culture with a value systems different from the one in which they were raised (Hecht, Jackson & Ribeau, 2003). Identity Negotiation There are also other approaches to understanding identity. Hecht’s (1993) Communication Theory of Identity consists of four layers of identity that are created by communication as well as expressed through communication. The personal (self­concept), enacted (identity expressed in communication and other social behavior), relational (the perception of identity as ascribed by others) and communal levels (identity of a group as ascribed by society) of identity are broad enough to encompass both individualistic and collectivistic approaches to identity because they include both individual and group levels

[4.8]

[4.9] [4.10]

May H. Gao and Deanna Womack

DRAFT

of identification. Tensions between the different identity frames may produce various kinds of mismatches or identity gaps. Other theorists like Bardhan (2011) have explored the relationship between diaspora and hybrid identities. Orbe’s (1998) Co­Cultural Theory explains how traditionally underrepre­ sented minority group members interact with those of the dominant culture to negotiate their construction of a “different” identity from that of the main­ stream. Ting­Toomey’s (2005) group­focused Identity Negotiation Theory emphasizes not the presence or absence of cultural and ethnic identities but which of someone’s many identities are salient in a particular situation. Ting­ Toomey believes everyone desires and tries to create and sustain both posi­ tive individual and group identities in interactions. It is clear that communi­ cation theories represent identity as a fluid concept negotiated through inter­ actions with others from the same and different cultures. Individuals who have multiple salient identities, for example ethnic identities different from their national identities, must constantly negotiate the relationship between the various identities. Most communication research, regardless of the theo­ retical paradigm from which it is conducted, reflects the concept that individ­ uals adapt flexible identities that evolve over time (Kim, 2007). Bardhan and Orbe (2012) conclude that identity is “a complex and simultaneous interplay of various markers of cultural difference” that requires further study by com­ munication scholars (p. xviii). Cultural‑Ethnic Identity Patterns Thus it is important to explore the challenges for immigrants in balancing multiple identities. An ethnic identity is one that a person inherits, such as one from the country of her ancestors. In addition to the biological or objec­ tive layer, an ethnic identity also includes a subjective layer of emotional ties with the ethnic group. So Chinese adoptees may have ethnic identities as Chinese, as well as national identities as citizens of the United States. Members of minority groups may experience discrepancies between the identities that strangers ascribe to them and their own avowed identities, those that they create for themselves. For example, because of their racial features, people may ask Chinese adoptees where they’re from or whether they speak English, even if the adoptees have grown up in the United States and have little connection with Chinese values and behaviors. Thus there may be a discrepancy between adoptees’ ascribed and avowed identities that is likely to be a source of tension in social interactions. Berry, Kim, and Boski (1987) have created a cultural­ethnic identity ty­ pological model that presents four options for how individuals like immi­ grants adapt when their original identities are different from those of the dominant culture they live in. Someone with a marginal identity identifies strongly with neither the majority nor minority culture and is alienated from
[4.11] [4.12]

[4.13]

[4.14]

DRAFT

How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity

society. Immigrants who identify strongly with the ethnic culture and weakly with the values and traditions of the dominant culture have ethnic­oriented identities. One might expect these individuals to live in an ethnic enclave like a Chinatown or to have most of their close friendships with others of Chinese ancestry. Chinese adoptees with ethnic­oriented identities might view them­ selves as primarily Chinese and secondarily American. The opposite identity pattern, assimilated identity, describes those who identify primarily with the dominant culture’s norms and values and only weakly with those of the ethnic group. Adoptees with assimilated identities would likely be most com­ fortable referring to themselves as American and behaving in ways that re­ flect American culture. While they may recognize their Chinese heritage, it is less important to them than the dominant values of United States culture. The last form of adapted identity is a bicultural or integrated identity. Individuals with this form of identity identify strongly both with their ethnic values and with the values of the dominant culture. These adoptees could be described as having hybrid or bicultural identities, describing themselves as both Chi­ nese and American or Chinese­Americans with relatively equal emphasis on both cultures.
[4.15]

SPECIAL IDENTITY ISSUES FOR ADOPTED CHINESE DAUGHTERS Because enculturation in the U.S. will influence Chinese adoptees’ identity formation and because parents and other family members strongly influence one’s enculturation, it is important to explore how U.S. Caucasian parents communicate identity to their Chinese adopted daughters. The literature indi­ cates that these children are different from other immigrants and may face special identity issues as they become adults. The adoption of Chinese girls by Caucasian parents in the U.S. is different from other interethnic adoptions for several reasons. First, the adoptees likely have no memories of their country of origin and may have few encounters with other Chinese to help them understand what it means to “be Chinese.” Second, if these children had remained in their country of origin, their identities would have been vastly different, speaking a different language, engaging in different activ­ ities and customs, growing up in institutions and necessities of food, cloth­ ing, education, and medical attention. Third, once adopted, these Chinese girls are woven into a preexisting racial and ethnic tapestry in U.S. society. Interracial adoption thus brings the families into the frontier of racial and ethnic stereotypes and discrimination. The minute these adopted Chinese girls enter the U.S., they are viewed as “Asian,” “Chinese,” “female,” and “adopted daughters in biracial and bicul­

[4.16]

[4.17]

May H. Gao and Deanna Womack

DRAFT

tural families” (Phinney, 1989, 1990, 1991). In the U.S., Asians have been labeled as “model minority,” “eternal foreigners,” and Asian children have been associated with images of being “smart, good at grades, obedient, and athletically fit” (Liu, 2004). They step into a complex of ambiguous iden­ tities and become members of the Chinese diaspora (Cohen, 1997; Miller­ Loessi & Kilic, 2001). Research shows that racial or ethnic identification is more closely related to self­esteem and psychological health for members of minority groups than for majorities (Phinney, 1990, 1991; Phinney & Alipuria, 1990). According to Friedlander (1999), adoptive parents must face a central question: “Does having strong feelings of identification with his or her culture of origin provide the child with a sense of security when faced with prejudice and discrimination, or does ethnic identification promote feelings of confusion, isolation, and alienation?” (p. 45). If adoptive Caucasian parents properly answer that question, they can help their Chinese daughters construct posi­ tive identities. Researchers have found that parental influences on child’s ethnic identity and adjustment are critical. Yoon (2000, cited in Mohanty et. al, 2006) stud­ ied 241 Korean­born adolescent adoptees and found that parental support of ethnic socialization was related to the adopted children’s positive sense of ethnic pride, which was consequently related to their subjective well­being. Similarly, Thomas and Tessler (2007) reported results from a two­wave study of adopted parents descriptions of and attitudes toward their Chinese daughters’ Chinese cultural competence. Previous immigration research indi­ cates that key factors in bicultural identity formation revolve around the children’s parents: the racial makeup of the community in which they reside, the racial composition of their social networks, and their own attitudes to­ ward the children’s home culture and the importance of the child’s maintain­ ing ties to that culture. However, little research has focused on communication aspects of the intercultural and interracial identity formation and management process. For example, even though Thomas and Tessler (2007) explore ability to commu­ nicate in the home culture as a key component of bicultural identity, they consider only the ability to communicate in the home language, rather than the factors that constitute effective communication from the perspective of the Communication discipline. Therefore, we decided to interview Caucasian adoptive parents concerning their hopes and actions related to their daugh­ ters’ identity formation processes. The research attempted to answer two questions:
RQ1: What type of identity do Caucasian parents desire for their adopted Chinese daughters?

[4.18]

[4.19]

[4.20]

[4.21]

DRAFT

How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity RQ2: What strategies do Caucasian parents utilize to manage their Chinese daughters’ identities?

[4.22]

[4.23] [4.24]

RESEARCH METHODS AND FINDINGS A total of twenty semi­structured, in­depth interviews based on an in­depth interview guide (see appendix A) were conducted, with each interview last­ ing between one and 1.5 hours. The participants were married and single Caucasian parents who had adopted one or more daughters from China. The interviewees were identified in the metro Atlanta area via gatherings of church and community support groups for waiting and adoptive parents. The in­depth interviews were designed to elicit narratives with respect to intercul­ tural adoption and identity management strategies in the participants’ com­ munication with their Chinese daughters. These interviews helped to uncover the meanings behind actions, to test emerging ideas, and to gather data essen­ tial to this study. We report the research findings targeting the two research questions concerning the desired identity for the Chinese daughters and the parents’ strategies to achieve it. THE DESIRED IDENTITY: CHINESE AMERICANS Our research shows that most Caucasian parents hope their daughters will grow up as Chinese Americans, and they love their adopted Chinese daugh­ ters no differently from their biological children, if any. In addition, these Chinese daughters are viewed as “saved angels of love from China,” “gifts from China,” “seeds from China,” and “children born of the heart not the womb.” In our sample, Christian religious beliefs had much to do with many Caucasian parents’ decisions to adopt from China; this finding might well be an artifact of the southeastern Bible­Belt region where our participants lived. Knowledge of China’s one child policy and the increased number of children abandoned when the policy became strictly enforced led many evangelical parents to China to try to “save” their potential daughters from lives in orphanages. Steven stated that his faith had not only led him to adopt from China, but it also played a role in selecting a name for his adopted daughter. He stated that, “God put it on his heart to adopt from China.” This led him and his wife to name their daughter “Grace.” He has a biological daughter “Hope.” Coming from such a religious mindset, many participants seemed to have mixed feelings about China as a country and a culture. Participant Alice said:

[4.25] [4.26]

[4.27]

[4.28]

May H. Gao and Deanna Womack

DRAFT

“Prior to traveling to China—I hate to say this out loud because I hate to admit it, but—I went over there with the attitude that I want to take that child and get her out of there. I felt somewhat resentful. I felt like how can you do this . . . but when we got there I found the people to be so warm, and my husband and I got out with the baby, we would draw crowds of 20 to 30 people, and they all wanted to touch her and hold her . . . every communica­ tion that we had with any Chinese person was so positive that it just it made me realize that people are abandoning these children because the government is forcing them to do it, not necessarily because they don’t love the little girls.” According to Miller­Loessi and Kilic (2001), adopted Chinese children are often framed as gifts of friendship from China. A gift makes the receiver feel indebted to the giver. This situation motivates adoptive parents to con­ nect their adopted children with the country and culture of their birth. These “gift daughters will always, in this sense, belong to or be identified with China” (Miller­Loessi & Kilic, 2001, p. 247). Typically, parents who adopt these girls try to raise them with awareness of their culture and homeland. For example, they try to celebrate Chinese holidays with their daughters to create a cultural tie to their history. PARENTS’ STRATEGIES FOR CULTIVATING THE DESIRED IDENTITY Dorow (2006) believed Chinese children were especially desirable as adop­ tees because they do not have biological attachments, are racially “flexible,” and can be considered “rescuable.” The extremely young age of the adoptive Chinese girls makes it attractive and possible for the Caucasian parents to mold them into a desired identity—Chinese American. We found that the parents of adoptees use several strategies to achieve this goal: participating in various Chinese cultural activities, encouraging their daughters to learn Chi­ nese language, maintaining a support group of adoptive families, and com­ municating positive identity values to their daughters. Positive Communication Mindset Positive communication is a top strategy. Betty communicated to her Chi­ nese daughters about how beautiful her daughters were so that they were aware that they did not need to fit into any racial mold. When asked whether the families wanted the girls to identify with Chinese entertainers (movie stars, singers, etc.), families stressed that they would prefer the girls to be confident in who they are, by being themselves.

[4.29]

[4.30]

[4.31]

[4.32] [4.33]

DRAFT

How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity

[4.34]

[4.35]

Subtle racism is an issue the girls are likely to face in American society. Louise stated that her life changed completely after she adopted her Chinese daughter. She recalled a story about some discrimination she experienced: “I went to a wedding of a family member, and this was before I got my first daughter, but I was in the process of adopting, and people knew that I was in the process of adopting from China, and this lady that’s about—I guess she was about ten years older than me—she said to me, ‘Why don’t you stick with your own kind?’ And I went, ‘What? Huh?’ . . . I was like ‘what?’ She said, ‘I just think you need to stick with your own kind. We don’t need to be going over to another country and bringing children back here of a different race. You just need to stick to your own kind. What’s wrong with you? Why are you doing this?’ . . . I have not let my daughters come close to her ever since.” Several families had experienced racism as a result of their choice to adopt internationally. Two families repeatedly commented on how this choice had made them see things differently and make personal changes within themselves. Michael and Nancy both discussed the surprise, disap­ pointment and hurt that they had experienced as a result of discrimination. Michael shared that his parents did not speak to him for over a year after he told them of his family’s plans to adopt a girl from China. He discussed how adopting Stephanie had drastically changed him and the way that he viewed things. The loving feelings parents have for their daughters is unquestion­ able. Participating in Chinese Cultural Activities and Events Participants Chuck and Barbara actively seek out Chinese cultural activities. They drive miles and miles just to experience a cultural fair. They used language software to learn Chinese and teach it to their Chinese daughter Patricia. Before adopting Patricia, Barbara was a world traveler. Her multi­ cultural experiences have likely influenced the rest of the family. She knows first­hand what multicultural means. Chuck and Barbara, who constantly promote Chinese culture, are not concerned with how Patricia will identify herself. They later explained their intention to continue to promote Chinese culture as long as Patricia wants to participate. Sarah stated that the community has readily accepted her children and their cultural heritage. She integrates their heritage culture with U.S. culture by sending them to culture camps, celebrating Chinese New Year, and get­ ting involved in any available Chinese programs or events in her area. She reports that she has educated her daughters about their birth culture and where they came from. She says that she makes an effort to answer any questions that the girls may have about China and their biological parents and foster parents. She says that one of the girls does not mention China or

[4.36] [4.37]

[4.38]

May H. Gao and Deanna Womack

DRAFT

express any kind of loss toward her parents or her hometown. On the other hand, the other daughter does express a concern about her parents and the loss that she feels toward them and China. She expresses an interest in learning more about China and her origins. Sarah states that she wants her girls to think of themselves as “Chinese American.” She wants them to have a balance between maintaining their birth culture, yet taking on the culture and society that they are currently living in. She vows to always answer the girls’ questions honestly and truthfully and provide them with as many activ­ ities and traditions from China as they desire. Encouraging Chinese Language Learning Some parents have gone so far as forming Saturday or Sunday Chinese language schools for their adoptive and biological children, realizing the education is beneficial for their identity formation as well as for their occupa­ tional futures, as China is becoming a major economic power. In fact, we interviewed some parents while their children were attending a Sunday Chi­ nese school in Northern Georgia. Forming Support Groups Support groups such as Families with Children from China (FCC) are essen­ tial in the lives of these adoptive families. Many parents form bonds when traveling to China to adopt the babies. Others get to know each other through attending cultural events designed for such adoptive families. Still others take the lead in forming support groups themselves so that they create a showcase of biracial and bicultural family norms to help the adopted girls feel comfortable. Josh, father of two Chinese daughters, stated that he ex­ posed his daughter to Chinese culture and even started a networking group to give his daughter exposure to girls who share her experience. These parents surround themselves with other people who have adopted Chinese girls and who have gone through the same experiences they have. Parents have set their daughters up with friends who came from the same place as their own girls. It is important that these people have a community. Aaron and Phyllis are members of a Chinese cultural group. They formed a bond with the other parents that accompanied them to China to pick up their daughters. They refer to this group as their “tribal group.” Phyllis ex­ plained, “We all met in China, and we were together for the whole two weeks. We got the girls at the same time and everything. After that experi­ ence, I said I felt like I was in a delivery room with 17 other families.” Aaron and Phyllis have remained in closer contact with this group than their local group. They meet for a “reunion” at least once a year. At this reunion, they look for local cultural activities. For example, one year the city where they met was hosting an Asian heritage exhibit at a local children’s museum.
[4.39] [4.40]

[4.41] [4.42]

[4.43]

DRAFT

How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity

[4.44] [4.45]

Balancing Chinese and American Cultures Seven mothers we interviewed shared the idea that they wanted to incorpo­ rate Chinese traditions, such as holidays, into the family, but also wanted to encourage the children to accept the lifestyle and traditions of the family and of the United States. Most families felt that the community had accepted the children into society and did not express any negative racial or ethnic feed­ back. Similarly, they mentioned support systems that were readily available, like family, friends, school, camps, and the adoption agency. The parents never wanted to push their children to participate in any events, but readily encouraged the child if that event was desired. Karen’s situation differed from Julia’s in that the girls are Karen’s “only children”; therefore they have her undivided attention. Julia has two other children and a job so her atten­ tion is divided; leading to the belief that Karen may encourage her children to participate in Chinese traditions more often than Judy. Both families claimed that they encouraged their daughters to learn Chi­ nese culture, but only one family seemed to truly mean that. Keith and Caroline appeared to participate in cultural activities because it made them look good in the community. They liked the attention of the whole process and were more than willing to brag about their cultural activities. Unfortu­ nately, the only cultural activity mentioned was the Chinese New Year cele­ bration. Elizabeth and her husband adopted a Chinese girl in the 1990s. Elizabeth highlights the struggles faced by both the parents and the children. The parents may eagerly adopt because of the lack of ties to the birth parents, but later find it unsettling not to know anything about the child’s natural family. The children (and the parents) face the problems of racial discrimination and a lack of cultural identity. Becky, a forty­year­old stay at home mom, has a seven­year­old Chinese daughter Amy and two blond biological sons. She said that she came from an adoptive family, so she believed that it was only natural to adopt children. She also stated that her family desires to have a balance between Amy’s birth culture and her American culture. They also celebrate Chinese New Year and other Chinese traditions. She says that recently Amy has been expressing emotional feelings because of the loss of her biological and foster parents. She has begun to ask more questions about her culture and what her foster parents were like. She has also said that it has been a little difficult for Amy to cope with the fact that she has black hair rather than blonde hair, like the rest of the family. Judy has also tried to answer any questions that Amy may have toward her culture and about China, but also feels that Amy should accept U.S. culture and integrate herself into the society in which she resides. Becky only encourages Amy to participate in something related to her cul­ ture if Amy requests it. Becky said that it was more of transition for her to

[4.46]

[4.47]

[4.48]

May H. Gao and Deanna Womack

DRAFT

have Amy as part of the family versus just immediately loving an adopted child, as most people say. She stated, “It’s different when they are babies, but when they are 17 months old it is difficult. There is this new person in your house, and you are supposed to love them like they are your own. You have to have time to fall in love with the child. It takes time. Be prepared for an emotional roller coaster.” PROBLEMS OF IDENTITY COMMUNICATION Our research shows that there are several problems in the identity manage­ ment process of Caucasian parents for their Chinese daughters. We find there is a lack of theoretical guidance in identity management; sometimes parents send mixed messages to the Chinese daughters concerning their identities; their support systems tend to be convenient and superficial; and they have yet to learn how to effectively deal with subtle racism. Though the majority of parents would like their daughters to grow up as Chinese American, some families did not whole­heartedly believe in this concept. They left the identification up to their daughter. They believed that it was her decision; but until she made that decision, they would continue to expose her to Chinese culture. The most common answer parents gave was that they wanted their daughters to grow up however they felt most comfort­ able. Some parents even shelter their kids from the outside world by limiting their contacts with the seemingly unfriendly community members. For example, participant Victoria wanted her Chinese daughters Lucy and Betsy to identify themselves as Chinese Americans, but her husband Frank did not want them to see themselves as Chinese. Frank stressed that promo­ tion of the Chinese culture is not very important in his family. When asked the question, “Do you want your daughters to think of themselves as Chi­ nese, Chinese Americans, or simply Americans?” Victoria immediately re­ sponded “She’s Chinese American.” Frank said, “I don’t want to raise her as Chinese . . . let them go the way they wanna go.” When asked the same question, Rachel and Todd responded, “It is up to her.” Todd went on to explain, “We’re never going to starve her of her heritage. But, it’s like anything else. . . . In all honesty, we need to let her find her own identity. That’s my answer to the question. I don’t care . . . it’s her life. We’re just part of that.” Despite an adoption friendly support system, many Caucasian parents seem to be reluctant to contact members of the Chinese American commu­ nity. Our research shows they do not have much contact with the local Chinese community. Further, some of them do not stick to Chinese learning and their participation in Chinese cultural events seems to be superficial.
[4.49] [4.50]

[4.51]

[4.52]

[4.53]

DRAFT

How Caucasian Parents Communicate Identity

[4.54] [4.55]

CONCLUSION This research addressed the issues of identity communication patterns be­ tween Caucasian parents and their adopted Chinese daughters in the U.S. The research focused on several different aspects: family background, relation­ ship dynamics of family and community, and the identity management of issues these girls may face. Twenty individuals who had adopted girls from China were interviewed face­to­face. Most adoptive parents presented their daughters with some elements of Chinese culture. Most reported they wanted their daughters to form a hybrid “Chinese American identity” and used strat­ egies ranging from language learning to play groups with other adoptees to achieve this. They also reported some instances of racism that may affect the girls’ interracial identity construction. Overall, the parents desired Berry, Kim, and Boski’s (1987) bicultural identity. However, most of the girls’ contacts were with other Caucasian adoptive parents and Chinese adoptees. Most adoptive parents did not have contacts in the local Chinese community who could serve as role models for their daughters. We believe the findings are of great importance for parents who are seeking to adopt and people who are interested in learning about multi­ cultural adoption. We found that there exists a very strong union between a child and the parent, even if it is not biological. The parent and child may not be linked by heritage and bloodline, but by love and culture.

[4.56]

DRAFT

Chapter Five

Intercultural Parenting in the White House
The Transcultural Strategies of the Obamas Kimberly R. Moffitt

[5.0]

[5.1]

Even after serving a full term as President of the United States, Barack Obama continues to endure questions about his racial/ethnic identity. It is commonly known that the 44th president is the product of an interracial marriage between a white mother and a black Kenyan father, however be­ cause of Obama’s self­ascribed identification with the plight of the black male experience in America (Jones, 2010, p. 138), his mixed ancestry is often dismissed. Yet his upbringing exclusively with his mother’s family and, in part, with his Indonesian stepfather highlights his diverse cultural identity. And upon marrying an African­American woman who is identified as a “descendant of slaves” (Trice, 2012), Obama has, in fact, situated him­ self in an intercultural relationship. The Obamas have been hailed as the epitome of a happily married couple by many, most often by African­Americans who view their relationship as a black marriage. And by extension, the Obamas are “the first black parents” to occupy the White House along with daughters Sasha and Malia. However, maintaining the understanding that intercultural “relates to bringing togeth­ er . . . two different cultural backgrounds into one relationship” (Crippen & Brew, 2007, p. 107), we embrace the Obamas as an intercultural couple raising their children in an intercultural familial setting. Although several studies (Bhugra & DeSilva, 2000; Gaines & Brennan, 2001; Romano, 2001) suggest that childrearing can be a significant source of conflict for these couples as a result of the divergent perspectives on childhood, parenting styles, and the impact of cultural differences, the Obamas have offered an­

Kimberly R. Moffitt

DRAFT

other alternative—transcultural strategies of parenting informed by the di­ verse makeup of their family. References to the books, Of Thee I Sing (2010), Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (2004), as well as various interviews/quotes by President and First Lady Obama will be used to highlight common themes of parenting while also illustrating these strategies in action. LITERATURE ON INTERCULTURAL COUPLES The Obamas do not reside alone as an intercultural couple in America; as of 2008, according to a 2010 Pew Research Study, 1 in 7 new marriages were between interracial or interethnic individuals, including those who were foreign­born, living in the United States and raising families (Bikel & Man­ darano, 2012). Such couples often face the task of negotiating and resolving cultural differences recognizing that their diverse background will influence their union. This may foster excitement for some, but more frequently it enhances conflict among the partnered individuals. To that end, intercultural marriages can experience high levels of stress and tension resulting in unful­ filled relationships or ending in dissolution. Realistically, conflict exists in all marital relationships, however cultural differences between partners may exacerbate said challenge. Frame (2004) suggested that the common concerns of values, gender, money, sexuality, religion, childrearing, social class, and language are expressed differently, and at times, detrimentally, in intercultural relationships. So early in the relationship, couples seek out ways to navigate those differences; according to Romano (2001) that may manifest in one of four ways: (1) a partner solely embraces the cultural practices of their partner; (2) a couple may seek com­ promise suggesting that both relinquish aspects of own culture and strive for equity; (3) a couple chooses to ignore their overt differences, leaving behind their own traditions and norms, and then searches for neutral ground; or (4) the partners stress the goal of consensus by allowing each to retain the aspects of the culture most significant to their existence. Other paradigms, such as the model of interracial relationship development designed by Foe­ man and Nance (2002), serve “as a theoretical framework designed to facili­ tate understanding of how relational partners negotiate their individual racial identities and their identity as a romantic unit” (Orbe & Harris, 2007, p. 169). This suggests that partners move through and vacillate between the stages of racial awareness, coping, identity emergence, and maintenance in an effort to understand the nature of their relationship (Foeman & Nance, 2002). Howev­ er, with the multitude of barriers facing such relationships, the burden placed
[5.2] [5.3]

[5.4]

DRAFT

Intercultural Parenting in the White House

[5.5]

[5.6]

[5.7]

[5.8]

on partners to decide to withstand the pressure and “fight” for the relation­ ship becomes a common consequence (Harris & Trego, 2009). Rosenblatt (2009) offered a similar perspective in a consideration of the role of systems theory in intercultural relationships. Concerns for couples were categorized into three major areas: (1) power dynamics that focused on the impact of social class/wealth and language issues; (2) an evolving couple system, suggesting that couples may not share their understanding of what marriage means; and, (3) ecosystems, which specifically addressed issues of gender, race, and the involvement of family. Bustamante et al. (2011) posited several coping strategies in their study of intercultural couples that might diminish some of the aforementioned stressors. Specifically, the authors en­ couraged recognition of similarities, an appreciation for different cultures, as well as, the use of humor (p. 159). As noted above much of the literature addresses the challenges of inter­ cultural relationships, but there is paucity in the scholarship related to the opportunities and successes of intercultural relationships. Romano (2001) offered a comprehensive study of couples that acknowledged the difficulty in “identifying the rewards of their marriages than the problems [yet] could not differentiate rewards which flowed from the fact that they were from differ­ ent cultures” (p. 179). Some of those rewards included developing a deeper understanding of self as a result of such a relationship, cultivating an interna­ tional identity, providing their offspring a worldview of breadth and depth, and a renewed sense of being part of the multicultural world of the future. Other scholars (Falicov, 1995; Molina et al., 2004) also recognize the potential success of such unions. Although these couples encounter cultural shifts or transitions that might be tense­filled, they may also experience constructive “personal transformations that could be compared to a process of mutual acculturation” (Falicov, 1995, p. 234). And upon greater under­ standing and acceptance of one another’s cultural perspectives these couples can foster a relationship that “can be complementary and create a richness that would be less likely to exist in less culturally diverse relationships” (p. 108). In fact, couples have a unique opportunity to embrace an identity that incorporates a broader worldview as Romano (2001) posited. Perel (2000) labeled this new identity as a “third reality,” which serves as a foundation for individuals to have “their separate and idiosyncratic selves—while maintain­ ing sensitivity to each other’s reactions” (p. 201). Whether challenges or opportunities, all may impact the intercultural rela­ tionship. And although repeatedly not feasible, it is important to consider these matters prior to the decision to create a transcultural family.

Kimberly R. Moffitt

DRAFT

THE OBAMAS AS TRANSCULTURAL FAMILY According to Crippen & Brew (2007), transcultural suggests that a “new family culture [is] created when the cultures of two people from different backgrounds intersect to form a new culture” (p. 107). Barack and Michelle Obama along with their two young daughters would exemplify a transcultu­ ral family as they have attempted to cultivate a new culture that embraces the diversity of their individual and familial backgrounds. This is not to suggest such a task is effortless for when asked about her role in her husband’s political life, Michelle Obama was quoted as saying, “There is so much work we need to do as a family and as a couple” (Glover, 2007), implying the constant negotiation occurring within the family. Her statement resonates with much of the literature that reports the intense stressor of childrearing in intercultural marriages. In fact, raising children in an intercultural relation­ ship is seen as one of the most significant challenges in these relationships because the values and beliefs about childhood may vary greatly. Ho (1990), as referenced in Moriizumi (2011), stated that “the birth of a child may reactivate each parent’s own childhood experiences, which may be underscored by their respective cultural beliefs about childrearing” (p. 91). Seen as a “flashpoint for conflict,” childrearing and parenting styles highlight the fact that previous methods of compromise do not work as gracefully when children are involved. Instances in which cultural differences were minimized, ignored, or accommodated, now seem unrealistic and in need of re­negotiation. For example, scholars note that at each developmental stage of a child, there are unique stressors that arise in a transcultural family such as discipline, racial/cultural identification of the child, and ways to address racism/discrimination (when each parent’s experience may vary greatly) (Crippen & Brew, 2007, p. 109). In her qualitative study of international marriages, Romano (2001) found the following three ways that couples address conflicts over parenting styles: (1) conformity with norms of host culture; (2) adaptation to style of other parent; or (3) retention of individual differences in parenting style dependent on the specific matter or a division of roles (Moriizumi, 2011, p. 91). Unique to intercultural marriages, Crippen and Brew (2007) encouraged parents to cultivate a new identity that would embrace their different backgrounds and “develop strategies to construct a third, transcultural family system” (p. 111). The creation of such a family identity would reflect the realities of both partners and offer a foundation for addressing those matters occurring during the family cycle. The Obamas, while not presented as an ideal or representative model here, area family often in our homes via media and on public display and serve as an example of a transcultural family at work. Based on various

[5.9] [5.10]

[5.11]

[5.12]

[5.13]

DRAFT

Intercultural Parenting in the White House

interviews/quotes and written works, this chapter sheds light on the strategies used by the Obamas to construct this family identity.
[5.14] [5.15]

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION THEORY Social construction theory is a widely applied and accessible framework for investigating the study of family identity (Turner & West, 2006). Galvin et al. (2004) stated that this theory “suggests that persons co­construct their social realities through conversation” (p. 69), while Stamp (2004) added, “through socialization, interaction, and language, individuals, within the con­ texts of social institutions such as the family, collectively construct the real­ ities in which they live (p. 9). To that end, families have the opportunity to communicate their understanding of what it means to be a family by nego­ tiating in the construction of that concept. This meaning­making often presents itself in the communicative form of “family myths, metaphors, themes, and narratives” (Sabourin, 2006, p. 47). Each of these aspects is important in the creation of the family identity. While family myths present a “face”—often not true, but inspirational none­ theless—metaphors, themes and narratives are said to guide how families interact with one another due to the amount of energy and emphasis placed on those aspects. Additionally, a review of a family’s themes “can provide a description of the major issues, goals, concerns, or values of the family” (Yerby et al., 1995, p. 239). All are necessary to construct the way a family sees itself and presents itself to others. In an effort to explore the construction of one family’s identity, the guid­ ing question here asks: What strategies do the Obamas use to navigate par­ enthood in a transcultural family? A thematic analysis of the interviews/ quotes by the Obamas and their written works will be used to answer this question. Thematic analysis is a process of “encoding qualitative information” with the goal of determining common messages specific to a phenomenon (Boyat­ zis, 1998, p. 4). This method of analysis serves as a powerful tool to consider the voice of members of transcultural families. With a review of Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance and Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters by Barack Obama and interviews/quotes made by the Obamas related to family, parenting, motherhood, or fatherhood, an analysis is of­ fered. The dates selected for analysis ranged from February 10, 2007 (the day Barack Obama declared his candidacy for president), to November 4, 2009 (the date marking a year in which he was elected as United States president). Over fifty items located in the texts or by a search of EBSCOhost, were found featuring the Obamas.

[5.16]

[5.17]

[5.18]

Kimberly R. Moffitt

DRAFT

Four themes revealed the strategies used by the Obama family to con­ struct a transcultural family identity: (1) shared American values, (2) world as limitless, (3) fluidity in parenthood, and (4) understanding of biases and expectations. SHARED AMERICAN VALUES Barack and Michelle Obama come from disparate “walks of life.” Their childhood experiences, cultural understandings of self, and geographic loca­ tions all influence their worldview. However, both seem to share a common understanding of what it means to be an America. In his published work Of Thee I Sing, Barack Obama asks the question, “Have I told you to be proud to be American?” to which he shares the dream of George Washington, the first U.S. president, who “believed in liberty and justice for all . . . [and] helped make an idea into . . . a country of principles.” Later in the book, he stresses that America is made up of people who have made the country better by sharing their gifts, fighting for important causes, and working hard. The core values of unlimited perseverance and dedication are clear messages to Malia and Sasha as well as other readers of his book. Consistent with the myth of Horatio Alger who finds success by “pulling himself up by his own boot­ straps”—the “American Dream”—Obama is suggesting that all can enjoy the same achievements with tremendous hard work toward a goal. This point is further exemplified by Michelle Obama’s quote:
If I wilted every time somebody in my life mischaracterized me or called me a bad name, I would have never finished Princeton, would have never gone to Harvard, and wouldn’t be sitting here with him. So these are the lessons we want to teach our kids. You know who you are, so what anybody else says is just interesting fodder. (Ifill, 2008, p. 155)

[5.19]

[5.20] [5.21]

[5.22] [5.23]

Again, the theme of hard work and dedication is evident. She highlights the point that the path to success might not be effortless, but it is still probable, if desired. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Obama never loses sight of another important American value that encourages us to “give back” to those who may need encouragement to attain their dreams. In a Chicago Sun­Times article she remarked that “I did exactly what leaders in my community told me to do” (Mitchell, 2007). She performed well academically and pursued her dreams through education. And then she returned “home” to Chicago to extend her­ self as a resource and mentor to help others. Barack Obama’s early work as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side suggests that this perspective

[5.24]

[5.25]

DRAFT

Intercultural Parenting in the White House

is also shared. In an interview with Bill Thompson of Eyeonbooks.com in 2008, Obama stated,
[5.26]
I worked as a community organizer in Chicago, [and] was very active in low­ income neighborhoods working on issues of crime and education and employ­ ment, and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African­American community are doing as bad, if not worse, and recognizing that my fate re­ mained tied up with their fates. That my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country. (Thompson & Oba­ ma, 1995)

[5.27] [5.28]

Mr. Obama conveys this sentiment best when referencing Jane Addams in his book as one who “opened doors and gave people hope” (Obama, 2010). This theme reflects the literature that encourages intercultural couples to seek common ground (Bustamante et al., 2011). Based on their study of intercultural couples it was noted that “recognition of similarities” and “cul­ tural reframing” were key coping mechanisms used within the union. One participant stressed the need to seek out similarities in cultures “to strengthen rather than (stressing) all the things you maybe don’t have in common” (p. 160). And even in those instances where there is not shared meaning, couples appeared willing to “reframe” their stressors and “take the best from both cultures . . . and make it something else that works for us” (p. 161). Shared values can make the journey of constructing a family identity simpler, how­ ever the literature also affirms that the goal to acquire similarities is also possible through cultural reframing. SEEING THE WORLD AS LIMITLESS This theme seems consistent in several of the quotes made by the Obamas when they both speak of a world that is boundless with opportunities for their children and others. Barack Obama encourages his daughters to see them­ selves as explorers like Neil Armstrong who was the first to walk on the moon, but also who showed us how “to take our own big, bold strides.” Michelle echoed that notion with “I want my girls to really be free, to reach and dream for whatever they can imagine. I don’t want anybody telling them what they can’t do” (Heintz, 2007). Recognizing the institutional and structural impediments still evident in American society, these parents are instilling a worldview in their daughters that does not limit their possibilities. In fact, Michelle Obama suggests that the foundation and security to take risks comes from the home and from parents who encourage their children “fly” (“First Lady Raises,” 2009, A1).

[5.29] [5.30]

[5.31]

Kimberly R. Moffitt

DRAFT

This easily can be accomplished, according to the Obamas, once the vastness of the world is understood. Michelle Obama remarks,
They’re [Malia and Sasha] living in a family where they’ve got an African American grandmother and an Indonesian aunt. They’ve got a Chinese American cousin. They’ve got African American cousins. They’ve got a multi­ racial cousin in Africa who’s African and English. They have in­laws of our in­laws, who are Chinese Canadian, are part of their families. Their world is bigger. (Michelle and Barack Obama, 2008)

[5.32]

Not everyone’s family tree is as diverse as the Obamas, however this quote highlights the fact that their daughters’ worldview has great depth and breadth because they are exposed to others, namely relatives, who represent cultures unlike their own. Barack Obama reinforces that point by sharing stories from his book of diverse individuals who he considers significant to his daughters’ understanding of self. Using heroic figures from U.S. history like Sitting Bull, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, and Cesar Chavez capture this sentiment and demonstrate the limitless world he envisions for his chil­ dren (Obama, 2010). This theme confirms the findings of Romano’s (2001) extensive study of intercultural marriages. Specifically, as noted by the couples, the rewards of creating an international identity for self, as well as a globalized worldview for their offspring is also illustrated in the Obama family unit. These families perceive themselves as contributing to the diversity of the world with multi­ cultural children. But they also believe they are responsible for raising chil­ dren who view the world beyond the constrained black/white binary often adhered to in the U.S. These rewards may initially appear intangible in chil­ drearing practices, however couples like the Obamas suggest that such a notion empowers children to think (and then act) in ways that have tremen­ dous applied value for all. FLUIDITY IN PARENTHOOD Understanding their distinct cultural backgrounds, the Obamas have em­ braced the idea that parenthood requires tremendous flexibility and a willing­ ness to listen to one another. This, at times, was a struggle for Michelle Obama who believed in a parenting style with order and precise routines. But she admits that she learned from her husband that “there is not one right way to parent,” which has freed them to explore ways to connect emotionally and psychologically with their children (Merida, 2007). Barack Obama reiterates his own point by acknowledging that “I decided that if I could be one thing in

[5.33]

[5.34]

[5.35] [5.36]

DRAFT

Intercultural Parenting in the White House

[5.37]

[5.38]

life, it would be to be a good father. . . . It’s not always about succeeding; it’s about always trying” (Thomas, 2012). The literature on intercultural families suggests “cultural deference” or a form of flexibility as another coping mechanism. A participant in one study stated, “I think that being raised in the U.S. by Colombian parents, I am more bicultural. I can more easily see her side than she can understand mine so I can more easily go both ways” (Bustamante et al., 2011, p. 160). In this example the partner has embraced the couple’s difference, but also acknowl­ edges the need to offer flexibility in parenting style. Such effort demonstrates a general appreciation of the various cultures involved and enables couples to navigate this area of terrain with greater freedom, without constraints. Often characterized as a black family, not a transcultural family, Michelle Obama asserts, “This is one model of what a black family can look like, but there are hundreds of others that work just as well” (Burt­Murray, 2009, p. 113). This quote again recognizes the need for fluidity, as well as the need to broaden our understanding of family structures. Many “black” couples are considered bicultural as a result of geography, religion, or ethnicity, and hence, transcultural should they have a family together. Moving beyond the boundaries of the construction of race in America would also enable families like the Obamas an opportunity to “parent” in more variable ways, no longer conforming to the expected styles of parenting based on race/ethnicity or culture. So Mrs. Obama’s quote encourages us to think in broader terms that allow families to construct the identity most befitting for those involved. UNDERSTANDING OF BIASES AND EXPECTATIONS As much of the literature notes, partners come into a union with their own preconceived notions of race/ethnicity and culture, yet rarely acknowledge that those points influence the nature of the relationship (Crippen & Brew, 2007). Oftentimes, as the relationship evolves, partners have experiences that shed light on how culturally different they may be from one another. Should couples not seek common ground or understanding, such varied perspectives could increase the tension and conflict in the union. Michelle Obama under­ stands this best as she has consistently remarked on the divergent interpreta­ tion of marriage she and Barack Obama had from one another:
I came into our marriage with a more traditional notion of what a family is. It was what I knew growing up—the mother at home, the father works, you have dinner around the table. I had a very stable, conventional upbringing and that felt very safe to me. (Bennetts, 2007)

[5.39] [5.40]

[5.41]

Kimberly R. Moffitt

DRAFT

Early on in their union, she recognized that she could no longer privilege her upbringing over her husband’s. Even though it was a childhood foreign to her—Barack Obama did not grow up with his father and his mother often traveled internationally for months at a time—he assured her that he was well loved and supported by his mother, Ann Dunham, and extended family. As a result, those “notions about what children need, and what does a couple need to be happy” had to be negotiated and they eventually learned to compromise for the sake of their family (Bennetts, 2007). “Once I got a sense that the family we were creating was going to be good for our children, I realized that it wasn’t exactly what I had, but our children are thriving and they feel loved” (Bennetts, 2007). Mr. Obama’s upbringing, in addition to being diverse, was also steeped in exposing him to the reality of his biracial ancestry in the U.S. His mother often supplemented his earlier years of education with narratives that in­ spired and uplifted African Americans: “Every black man was Thurgood Marshall or Sidney Poitier; every black woman Fannie Lou Hamer or Lena Horne. . . . More than once, my mother would point out: ‘Harry Belafonte is the best­looking man on the planet’” (Obama, 2004, p. 51). Further, his mother taught him about the racial bigotry and injustice he might face by sharing books about the civil rights movement as well as Martin Luther King Jr. Such experiences occurred as early as ten­years­old when Obama recalled a classmate asking if his father was a cannibal, being called a coon by another, and someone desiring to touch his hair as though he were a spectacle to gaze upon (p. 80). While at Occidental College, Obama found himself searching for a black identity through his relationships with friends and classmates. Albeit an er­ ratic and, at times, painful process for him, he profoundly learned from one of his classmates, Regina, a black woman, “a vision of black life in all its possibility” (Obama, 2004, p. 104). She further encouraged him to see that “there was more than one way to be black [and] that difference can, indeed, be pleasurable and effective” (Ashe, 2010, p. 113). This message resonates with much of Mr. Obama’s rhetoric since the declaration of his candidacy for president in 2007. We need only to consider his riveting “A More Perfect Union” speech presented in 2008 in response to the controversial statements made by Obama’s former minister that were characterized as racial hatred. Obama spoke to issues of race often avoided in such a public setting; and he did so tactfully, yet candidly, by raising con­ cerns of inequality, black anger, and white resentment that had led to a “racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years” (Pickler & Apuzzo, 2008). However, Mr. Obama has been unwilling to remain fixated in a space that limited himself or his daughters to a racial category. This is rooted in “the teachings of his mother: honesty, fairness, straight talk, independent think­ ing”—all values that extend beyond the boundaries of race and return us to

[5.42]

[5.43]

[5.44]

[5.45]

[5.46]

DRAFT

Intercultural Parenting in the White House

[5.47]

an understanding of his shared core American values (Jones, 2010, p. 142). Cognizant of the pitfalls of his biracial identity in this racially preoccupied society, Mr. Obama still rose to embrace its promise, instead. In Of Thee I Sing he speaks of Jackie Robinson, Sitting Bull, and Martin Luther King Jr. as individuals who, too, recognized difference but did not allow it to define them. He describes these three men as “brave,” “a healer,” and one with “unyielding compassion” and, along the way, they taught us, as Obama had learned during his college days, that difference can be filled with “love,” “peace,” and “a dream that all races and creeds would walk hand in hand” (Obama, 2010). As a result of their courtship, Mrs. Obama found herself faced with ac­ knowledging her assumptions about someone culturally different than she. She has often spoken of Mr. Obama’s biracial ancestry as something unfa­ miliar to her and, in fact, odd:
I’ve got nothing in common with this guy, [I thought]. He grew up in Hawaii! Who grows up in Hawaii? He was biracial. I was like, okay, what’s that about? And then it’s a funny name, Barack Obama. Who names their child Barack Obama? (Slevin, 2007)

[5.48]

[5.49]

She admits that she made disparaging assumptions about Barack Obama without knowing much about him. For Michelle Obama, her husband’s bira­ cial background made him different and suggested they lacked a foundation of shared meaning in which to build upon. However, upon moving past her preconceived notions she learned of a man who embraced a high standard of ethics, fairness, equality, and respect for all (Yeager, 2007). And as an African­American woman with experiences that, at times, challenged her belief in those attributes, Mrs. Obama realized that she and Barack Obama had quite a bit in common. CONCLUSION Aware of the possible pitfalls that plague intercultural couples, the Obamas have strategically sought to construct a transcultural family identity that works for all. Not without missteps, this couple shares with us in a very public manner, ways to embrace their diversity while also providing a safe, loving, and empowering familial setting for their daughters. Seemingly residing in collective strategies that exist within any family, the Obamas have explicitly communicated that the themes of (1) common American values, (2) a boundless world, (3) flexibility in parenting styles, and (4) an understanding and compromise of preconceived notions are cen­ tral to the success of their family identity. The academic literature often

[5.50] [5.51]

[5.52]

Kimberly R. Moffitt

DRAFT

diminishes the promises of these families by only highlighting the pitfalls to which they may fall prey. However, their willingness to create a “third real­ ity” (Perel, 2000, p. 201) that embraces both of their cultures while also maintaining variability to the styles of parenting illustrate why such relation­ ships are full of promise. Social construction theory informs us that families have the ability to negotiate and collectively create an identity often through socialization and language. This is exemplified in the works and quotes referenced in this chapter, as the Obamas have acknowledged their biases and expectations, specifically, to construct a familial space that affirmed their values and understanding of the world we live. One expected theme that did not appear in this analysis was class as a social equalizer. Although implicit, there were no direct examples in which the Obamas spoke about social economic class as a means of bringing them together on common ground. The Obamas were borne of similar class posi­ tions even though they were structured quite differently. The modest occupa­ tions of city employees and bank managers suggest the families are alike in many ways, which might have influenced the core values that both Michelle and Barack Obama share. They both speak of integrity, hard work, education, and philanthropy as necessities for success in this country. Yet, little was found in this analysis to support the role they believed their class standing played in their success as parents. Rosenblatt (2009) alludes to this notion in an earlier study, but only from the perspective that class can become a power dynamic in intercultural relationships; hence, a pitfall. This appears to be an area in need of further exploration as scholars move in the direction of investigating the role of class in society (and our families). We have a unique opportunity with the presence of the first transcultural family in the White House. As media remain intrigued by the First Family and its perceived difference, it is clear that such explorations as this one will continue to be published. The hope is, however, that the words of the Oba­ mas on parenting will be seen as indicative of “a new world order” that includes families as multicultural as they are American. The Obamas have created a potential new space for scholars, parents and the like to gain greater understanding about such families and the strategies used for success that, in turn, broadens society’s view of these families in this country.

[5.53]

[5.54]

DRAFT

Section II

Media, Social Networks, and Intercultural Parenting

DRAFT

Chapter Six

Islam in the Midwest
Parental Values on the Learning Channel’s All‑ American Muslim Souhad Kahil

[6.0]

[6.1]

I was very happy to hear that there was a television show in the U.S. called All­American Muslim. Ten episodes of this “reality” series were shown on the Learning Channel in the fall of 2011. I wanted to learn more about this show for several reasons. First, having received my graduate degrees from Michigan and Ohio universities, I was familiar with and lived in Dearborn, Michigan, the setting for the show. Second, I have family who live in Dear­ born, so I was somewhat familiar with the Muslim community there. Finally, as a Muslim mother of two U.S.­born children who live in Lebanon but who will spend a large part of their lives in the U.S., I was very interested to observe how parents talked about and performed their Muslim identity. All­American Muslim allows for an examination of co­cultural assimila­ tion processes. In this chapter, I describe the Muslim community of Dearborn as I have experienced it. Next, I briefly describe the show and the controver­ sy it generated in the U.S. Third, I interpret the role of parents in various episodes and I ground parent behavior in Quran readings. Final, I discuss implications of the show for Muslims as a U.S. co­cultural group. MUSLIMS IN DEARBORN, MICHIGAN Diaspora is originally rooted in the Jewish history. The word “diaspora,” dates back to its Greek root from the verb diaspeir$ (I scatter), and to its appearance in the Old Testament (Deut. 28:25). It references God’s inten­

[6.2] [6.3]

Souhad Kahil

DRAFT

tions for the people of Israel to be “dispersed” across the world. “Diaspora” now also refers to “any body of people living outside their traditional home­ land” (Oxford, 1993 edition). Most population movements are the result of labor needs. Bill, Griffiths, and Tiffin (1998) further note that diasporas are of importance to postcolonial studies because the descendents have produced highly unique cultures that both maintain and build on the perceptions of their original cultures (pp. 68–70). Cohn (1997) sees a common element in all forms of diaspora; he recognized that their traditional homelands are reflected deeply in the languages they speak, religions they adopt, and the cultures they practice. Muslims in Dearborn present a diaspora that revolves around several origins; many came to the U.S. to escape the Israeli­Arab conflict. Many immigrants of Lebanese heritage came to the U.S. to escape the Muslim­ Christian civil war in the 1970s. Being the hub of the auto industry, Muslim immigrants were drawn to the relatively high­paying jobs associated with the Ford Motor Company. Dearborn, Michigan has the largest single concentra­ tion of Arab Muslims in North America. “There are 32,000 Arab Muslims from Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq living in East Dearborn, making up almost 1/ 3 of the population” (Islam in Dearborn, 2012). Along many business streets in Dearborn, it is common to see storefronts and signs written in Arabic. Dearborn holds a vast amount of diversity, as sojourners tour the city one of the most common scenes is the presence of a mosque next to a Christian church. But relations are not always pleasant and the community occasional­ ly attracts unwanted attention. Christian pastor Terry Jones went to Dearborn in 2011 with the intention of burning the Quran in front of a mosque. He returned in 2012 and held a protest against Islam outside of Dearborn’s Islamic Center of America (Warikoo, April 7, 2012). In 2012, the annual Arab International Festival was partially disrupted by Christian protestors who at one point held a pig’s head on a stick. They were gone the next day to protest a gay pride festival in Ohio (Warikoo, June 16, 2012). Most U.S. Muslims are apt to attach the generation number to their iden­ tity. “I am a third generation” and supposedly the hearer will quickly asso­ ciate certain performances that match the number. A behavior characteristic of the fresh off the boat (FOB) category is the mispronunciation of certain English Language words. For example, they will pronounce the letter “p” as a “b.” So the word “people” will sound more like “beoble,” and the host environment accommodates their “odd” behaviors. The second generation is a softer generation, they are integrated to U.S. cultures with a twist of authen­ ticity. Traditions are amended to adjust to their adopted environment and the second generation allows more flexibility in both environments. This genera­ tion is not comfortable with sharp judgments and they would feel somewhat out of place in both of the cultures. The third generation holds the badge for the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”

[6.4]

[6.5]

[6.6]

DRAFT

Islam in the Midwest

[6.7]

I view U.S. Muslims as a diaspoic and co­cultural community. This chap­ ter explores how traditional values are performed in the reality television series All­American Muslim, interprets how these values are both challenged and upheld, and describes the new mediated reality for successive genera­ tions of Muslim American children. TLC’S MUSLIM EXPERIMENT All­American Muslim is a reality television show that was broadcast on the Learning Channel in the fall of 2011. Reality television is supposed to reveal the “true” reality of a situation. The problem with All­American Muslim was the shock it created from the construction of reality in the American society about Islam, the constructed reality of that specific diaspora of American Muslims, and the reality of the root culture, Islam. The consequence of this shock is that it was not renewed after its first season. The strongest irony is that the elimination of the American Muslim from the broadcast schedule was not because the families depicted were profiled as terrorists, rather because they were not. This was evident when Lowe’s pulled its advertising from the television program and hence incited social media backlash. The Florida Family Association (FFA), a small con­ servative Christian group in Florida urged a boycott of the show’s sponsors, one of which was Lowe’s, a chain of hardware stores. An FFA email and webpost to its members charged that: “The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish” (The Learning Channel Cancels All­ American Muslim, 2012). The FFA was upset that the show did not depict American Muslims as dangerous. The organization felt this resulted in a program that was non­educational and a threat to Christian morality. The Muslim culture in the U.S. holds traditions that are inherited, mediat­ ed, transferred, altered, adapted and abstractly adopted. All­American Muslim series skims the cream of the crop of traditions, however, the deeper it went the more complex the performances became as with any culture. Of these, I discuss simple traditions that tend to be more of social values like the tradi­ tion of argeli, distribution of gender roles, marriage, dealing with in­laws, relationships corresponding to; parents, children, women labor, inlaws, soci­ ety (modern and traditional) and animals. On the other hand, the series also delved into social norms that derive from Islamic practice such as wearing the hijab, Ramadan, conversion to Islam, mosque, adoption, prayer, mater­ nity and patriarchy roles.

[6.8] [6.9]

[6.10]

[6.11]

Souhad Kahil

DRAFT

Intercultural communication results into studying how we know ourselves and how we gain access to meanings that are implicit in our action. It is clear that most often stereotypical and prejudiced assumptions can limit “intercul­ tural competence,” defined by Collier and Thomas (1988) as interactions where identities assigned to someone are in harmony with their self­image (p. 101). In my critique of this program, I am aware that I am trying to make mindful those behaviors that are “mindlessly” performed. I am aware, too, that my interpretation of the show is itself rooted in my own position be­ tween the Middle East and the West. PARENTAL VALUES IN ALL‑AMERICAN MUSLIM Argeli, or the “hubbly­bubbly” as it is sometimes described, is a tobacco pipe with a long flexible tube connected to a container where the smoke is cooled by passing through water. This is commonly known in the U.S. as the hook­ ah. Images of the argeli are often used as transitions in the show. Although the narratives in the series do not address the in depth meaning and ideologi­ cal significance of the argeli, I will be pointing out the religious meaning and the socially constructed representation of such practice. The word “smoke” (doukhan) is found in the Quran in a complete sura consisting of 59 verses. Verse 10 associates smoke with a major prophecy and has a positive connotation. “Therefore, watch for the day when the sky brings a profound smoke” (44:10). In All­American Muslim the patriarch of the Amens family, Mohsen, together with his son Bilal have revealing conversations about the future of the family while Bilal who describes himself as laid back easy going and traditional smokes argeli. Such conversations included how their future son­ in­law would be converting to Islam. While smoking the argeli works to make the Muslim men exotic and foreign, there also is a revelation embedded in smoke that is a subliminal construction of the Muslim culture. Distribution of Gender Roles The Amens family frequently negotiates gender roles. Mohsen, describes himself as the patriarch of the family while Leila the maternal figure in the family considers herself as the caregiver and nurturer of the family. Tradi­ tionally, the wife and mother’s life revolves around her children and the upbringing of the children by doing all of the cooking, shopping and dress­ ing, etc. The major decision making strategies are at the control of the father. The challenge to these traditional role distributions occurs when their oldest daughter, Suheila describes herself as active in professional and social life

[6.12]

[6.13] [6.14]

[6.15]

[6.16]

[6.17] [6.18]

DRAFT

Islam in the Midwest

[6.19]

and is not concerned about getting married. Further, she decides to move away to Washington D.C. to pursue her career as an independent woman. The second challenge is among the Aoude family, where Nader and Naw­ al challenge the gender roles through maternal and patriarchal practices. Nader, wakes up with the newly born son. In Islam, the Quran allocates many matters to the male figure and names areas of advantage over the female. For instance inheritance, testimony, and even status reside with the male. The Quran states:
Men are in charge of [or overseers of—qawwamuna] women, as Allah has given them more [strength] than the other [sometimes translated as made them superior to the other], and because they spend of their wealth [to provide for them]. Therefore women who are virtuous are obedient to God, and guard in [the husband’s] absence what God would have them guard. As for those wom­ en on whose part you fear rebellion [nushuz], admonish them and banish them to beds apart, [and last] beat [adribu] them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. For God is Most High, Great [above you all]. (4:34)

[6.20]

[6.21]

[6.22]

In view of the fact that most Muslims would find it incredible that the Prophet (pbuh) would have wanted anything that Allah had not wanted for him and for others, it is vital to examine closely the meanings of three key words—qawwamuna, nushuz and adribu. Although qawwamuna has been interpreted by some to imply that women should occupy an inferior position in Islam, this is not the intention at all. Social interpretations of the Quran suggest women to be inferior, but this is not the chief implication of the word qawwam. Rather than a domineering boss or master, it implies ‘one who stands firm in the business of others, protects their interests, and looks after their affairs (Nuh Ha Mim Keller, 1995). The same word is used elsewhere in the Quran, as later in the same sura, “O you who believe, stand out firmly [qawwamina] for justice as witnesses to Allah” (4:135). So the true Islamic sense of the word is to protect and support; Muslim men are not expected to dominate, abuse or exploit, but to take care of women and this duty and responsibility of a husband is something that Mus­ lim women are urged to accept. Acknowledgment of this value is seen in Aoude and Jafaar family relations. It does not mean that a woman should not go out to work, or earn her own money, or help to support her family. It means that in a Muslim marriage, she is not obliged to do so. It is the husband’s duty to provide, and the wife’s duty to provide the comfort and safe haven of a loving home. The tension between work and family care is illustrated when Angela Jafaar a marketing coordinator, needs to work late and cannot pick up her children from school. She expresses extreme disap­ pointment (almost shame) that she could not fulfill this task. This perspective is also evident with the Amens family although Suheila tests this value.

Souhad Kahil

DRAFT

It is important to realize that the very same word, nushuz, is used later in the very same sura in regard to the behavior of the husband, and here we may observe that the word is usually translated as ill­treatment rather than rebel­ lion.
If a wife fears ill­treatment [nushuz] or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between them­ selves, and such settlement is best. (4:128)

[6.23]

[6.24]

It is also important to note that the Quran has specifically assigned the duty and responsibility to those who can sustain the family and since providing has been socially constructed as a masculine act, superiority was referenced to men. The verse reads: “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth” (4:34). Local popular culture and urban legend favor a masculine portrayal. Dearborn residents often relate a story about the father who posted a picture of him kissing his son’s testicles and the photo was sent by the developing company to the social services, which then removed the man’s children and considered it a type of child molestation. Residents tell this story to empha­ size the deeply rooted patriarchy of Islam and to illustrate what happens when people forget that they now live in a secular society. Meanwhile, men are often in a position to transgress traditional boundar­ ies. Bilal of the Amens family replaces the deeply­rooted conflict with Juda­ ism with a tattoo marked on his skin forever, applied by a Jewish tattooist, and a statement that contains so much truth about the relationship existing among the two religions “I relate to him.” Marriage and Sex Through the show we can notice various aspects of interrelated assembly of religion and social norms. Marriage in Islam, as in most religions, is consid­ ered one of the most meaningful fulfillments of shared values. Meanwhile, divorce is considered to be the most hated but permitted deed in Islam.
And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample­giving, Knowing. (24:32)

[6.25]

[6.26]

[6.27]

[6.28] [6.29]

[6.30]

In Islam, marriage is not considered a platonic relationship between husband and wife, nor is it solely for procreation. The Islamic term for marriage, “nikah” literally means sexual intercourse. Islam has always maintained that marriage is beneficial spiritually as well as physically. Islam regards mar­ riage as a way to acquire spiritual perfection. Marriage increases Sustenance,

[6.31]

DRAFT

Islam in the Midwest

[6.32]

[6.33]

the Holy Prophet remarked, “Give spouses to your single ones, because Allah makes their morality better (improves it) (under the shadow of mar­ riage) and expands their sustenance and increases their generosity (human values)” (Importance of marriage in Islam, 2012). The major break with the teaching on marriage occurs when Suheila plans to leave her parents home not for her future groom as widely practiced with in the Islamic society but for career advancement. Transcending these strict traditions is Nina from the Bazzy Aliahmad family. She is the only one who is breaking the glass ceil­ ing; she wants to own a nightclub. Nina is an event planner and has higher aspirations that unfortunately do not conform to expectations for women. Nina’s parents are very traditional and oppose the idea of buying a nightclub. Nina’s mother declares that the family will not support her financially. Nina turns to her sister Diana for support, but Diana presents a traditional perspective. “That’s not for you,” she says, because Nina would have to work at night, there would be alcohol served and it would hurt the family reputation. The club, says Diana, would give the neighbors “something to talk about.” Disappointed, Nina thanks her sister and walks away. Still the series presented a traditional perspective to the extent that it did not include one single sexual implication, like a kiss on the lips (although Nina’s 4­inch heels are featured prominently in episodes). Whether this is part of cultural and religious practices or part of TLC guidelines I’m not sure, although I feel that displays of affection would have provided a counterpoint to the general perception in the U.S. of total repression of women in Islam. Relationships, Parents, Children, In‑Laws, Society and Animals The Quran specifically discusses codes of conduct, and it categorizes rela­ tionships with some precision. All­American Muslim seems to confirm that immigrants and their succeeding generations are more committed to their cultural heritage when they are deprived of it. It has proven the very old U.S. proverb, that says: “You can take the boy out of the country but you cannot take the country out of the boy.” The performances of the families within All­ American Muslim series reveal the fusion of cultural heritage and religion. On the religious basis, the Quran addressed relationships with parents, children, in laws, society, and animals, in verses such as:
And worship Allah and do not ascribe any partner to Him, and be good to parents, and to relatives, and orphans, and the needy, and the related neighbour and the unrelated neighbour, and the close companion and the traveller; and your bondwomen; indeed Allah does not like any boastful, proud person. (4:36)

[6.34] [6.35]

[6.36] [6.37]

[6.38]

Parents were as well given a very good status through various verses:

Souhad Kahil treat your parents with kindness; if either of them or both reach old age in your presence, do not say they are a burden to you and do not rebuff them, and speak to them with the utmost respect. And lower your wing humbly for them, with mercy, and pray, “My Lord! Have mercy on them both, the way they nursed me when I was young.” (17:23–24)

DRAFT

[6.39]

Parenting values were highlighted through the four families. However, the difference lies in the construction of these values. Daughters are not free at the age of eighteen. The decision remains within the patriarchal horizons. Women and mothers in All­American Muslim episodes are granted respect and rights, whether to be a housewife, or to have a career. This reveals the great respect Islam holds for women, but does not reveal the complete the reality of women’s choices. In the Amens family, Suheila performed the role of a traditional Muslim girl, who is the oldest in the family and presumably helps out either financial­ ly or through household errands. Meanwhile her sister Shadia is not tradition­ al and practices her American social values more openly (she is divorced, got remarried to a Christian man who converted to Islam, she has a tattoo and she has a dog which is considered not clean (najis) in Islam. Finally she tops her American assimilation when she visits the so­called ground zero mosque, stating “this is not a mosque, this is a community center, what makes it different than YMCA?” CONCLUSION Orbe (1998) developed “co­cultural” theory to acknowledge the validity and significance of values and practices among marginalized groups and to ac­ count for how these groups relate to dominant meanings and prescriptions. The primary orientations of co­cultural groups are Separation, Accommoda­ tion and Assimilation. While elements of these orientations overlap and intersect, All­American Muslim depicts parents as cultural guardians slowly losing ground to the Assimilation Orientation. At every climax of events in All­American Muslim, I noticed a twist toward more assimilation to the American society. There is no doubt for me that a Muslim mentality would not survive more than four generations. But the Muslim diaspora will not disappear. New immigrants from the Middle East and other countries (from Sub­Saharan Africa to Pakistan and Malasia) will moderate the speed of assimilation. All­American Muslim is an initial effort to demonstrate to the American social host that there is diversity among people of Islam. Interaction among co­cultures is recommended both by U.S. ideals of pluralism and the Quran. After all, the Quran says: “O mankind, indeed we have created you from

[6.40]

[6.41]

[6.42] [6.43]

[6.44]

[6.45]

DRAFT

Islam in the Midwest

male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted” (49:13).

DRAFT

Chapter Seven

Googling “Latin@”
Using Technology to Construct Cultural Identity in a Bicultural Family Jennifer Willis‑Rivera

[7.0]

[7.1]

It seems every grade in school has that project. This is the project that parents talk about, where war stories are shared among parents on soccer game sidelines, pieces of the project are held and saved for use by younger sib­ lings, and advice given to those parents with children about to enter into that grade. In 7th grade, that project was Festival of Nations. Parents are not blind. Sure, the teachers tell the kids to “use what they have at home” and that this project should not require anything extra—but we parents know. We see that the highest grades go to the most elaborate projects. The kids know it too—and my girls go after the “A” like lionesses. Patiently watching, observ­ ing, and then pouncing in to grab that “A,” using everything they have learned through observation to go after it. Of course that means the parents are roped in. Hopelessly. There have been other projects in other grades, but this one was big and we all knew it. The interesting thing about this project was how centrally it focused on culture and how much it taught us as a family about how we understand, seek to understand and represent our own heritages. Family communication, like all communication, is dynamic and living. What family communication is, and means, continually changes with the talk, the family members involved, the context, nonverbal meanings, the environment, everything. When we examine our own family lives in order to understand family communication, we end up understanding the concepts better, and perhaps we end up understanding our own families better. As I saw the Festival of Nations play out in front of me and reflected on how my

Jennifer Willis­Rivera

DRAFT

daughters, and we as a family, interacted with and around this project, I knew I wanted to try to understand how we came to understand and interpret this project. Blinn­Pike (2009) argues that technology has changed family dynamics. They certainly have changed ours. Whereas my parents used to send me to go look in the dictionary for a definition or explanation in our family if a ques­ tion is asked and no one knows the answer, inevitably someone shouts, “Google it!” We are, in some ways, a very “plugged­in” family. We have three IPads, one for each of the girls and one for my husband, and I have a laptop—which is really only mine when no one else wants it or when I physically take it out of the house. Otherwise I have to negotiate or nag. Studies have shown that Internet use has helped families communicate with other family members (Lenhart, Rainie & Lewis, 2001), but other studies have shown that technology has kept people from “richer” forms of commu­ nication where we can hear and see nonverbal and verbal communication (Cummings, Butler & Kraut, 2002). The Internet also has helped families communicate internally. Our family would go nuts without the electronic family calendar which shows who needs to be where, when. My students are always in awe when they see how the lives of two active parents and two active teens appear on one calendar as I bring up Internet usage in my family communication class. It is quite scary to look at. While there have been many studies that have examined families and media usage (Kang, 2012; Kerkhof, Finkenauer & Muusses, 2011; Shen & Williams, 2011; Warren & Bluma, 2009), and a number of studies that fo­ cused on how Latinos use the internet (Fox, 2007; Sánchez & Salazar, 2012), few studies actually look at how Latinos interact with the internet, and how the internet relates to their culture (Chesley & Fox, 2012; Leonardi, 2003; Tripp, 2010). This chapter explores how we, as an intercultural family, nego­ tiated our senses of “Latino” and culture, and how we negotiated the repre­ sentation of those cultures to others, primarily Caucasians. These experi­ ences, as I noted above, became something for all of us to reflect back on and examine. Through that examination, this piece was born. The various mediat­ ed sources on the internet became a huge part of how our family interacted with the Festival of Nations project, and helped to shape not only how we saw the project, but in some ways how we continue to see ourselves as individuals and as a family. Noted anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) argued that culture can be thought of as webs of meaning, which we have spun ourselves. I like this metaphor because I think it does a great job of showing us how embedded we are in culture(s). Unlike a flat spider web, you have to imagine it as those spider webs that cascade through a forest in the early morning. Every turn you make you run into one. If they held weight, you’d trip over them with each step. They are constantly in your face, in your hair, and clinging to

[7.2]

[7.3]

[7.4]

DRAFT

Googling “Latin@”

[7.5]

[7.6]

[7.7]

[7.8]

every piece of clothing. That is how embedded culture is. Unlike the webs in the forest, you don’t know the webs of culture are there. You don’t see or notice them until something or someone else points them out, like a fish that doesn’t realize it’s surrounded by water. As parents in an intercultural relationship, we work on pointing out that web to our girls—we’ve talked to them about culture and race since they were infants—through media, books, videos, family stories, and everyday experiences. We were consciously aware, since the day we named our chil­ dren, that we would point out the cultural webs that marked them as Latina more than those that marked them as white, because the dominant culture around them would do its best to erase those webs of Latina­ness (Willis­ Rivera, 2000). Culture shapes (and is shaped by) everything we do and everything we say, for example, in the U.S. we raise our hands in class when we have a question rather than stand up. Culture is the reason that in the U.S. you can get an Egg McMuffin at 9:00 a.m., but not 9:00 p.m. Culture shapes (and is shaped by) the language we speak, the words we use, and the vocal intona­ tions behind and around those words. Culture is omnipresent, but only visible when you look directly at it, which for most people, isn’t often. “Other” culture is much easier to spot. Those are the representations of how “other” people live (or what we think are representations of how other people live). In the U.S. there are sombreros everywhere on Cinco de Mayo, huge pretzels and tons of beer on Oktoberfest, and ample kente cloth than during Kwanzaa. But these representations of others often boil down to foods, fairs and festivals, as in these examples. And many times, they boil down to stereotypes. Cultural events and celebrations usually do not delve deeply into cultural meanings, histories or understandings they simply take artifacts and briefly exhibit them. As parents we had to negotiate the superfi­ cial as well as the heuristic aspect of the Festival of Nations. I will introduce a few of the “characters” in this story. My husband, Daniel, is Puerto Rican and Nicaraguan, but was born and raised in the United States, living first in San Francisco, then Ohio. He is a first­genera­ tion U.S. mainlander, but grew up speaking English. He lost his mother (Nicaraguan) when he was 9, and does not have contact with that side of his family. I (Jennifer) am a mix of multiple European backgrounds, but was raised to think of myself as Italian (I’m 1/4 Italian). I was raised in Midwest­ ern suburbs my entire life. We have twin daughters, Ala (Arcelia) and Mica (Micaela) who are 13­years­old. They call us Mami (pronounced just like Mommy) and Papi. We live in a small college town in west­central Wiscon­ sin that is not at all diverse. They attend public school and have a circle of friends, most of who are white, several generations in the U.S.

Jennifer Willis­Rivera

DRAFT

THE PROJECT When the assignment came through in February, Daniel and I were sitting on the couch in the family room when Ala came in. She had her “game face” on, and she was pacing. “OK guys, we got some of our Festival of Nations assignment today. This has to be good,” she said as she paced back and forth across the small room. “So what do we need?” I asked. “Well, first we have to do a poster board—you know, one of those three way things? We have to put all kinds of stuff on that. Then we have to have food and artifacts.” “So what countries did you get?” Daniel asked. Kids didn’t exactly get to choose what country they could do for the project. A list of countries was written on a large piece of paper on the classroom wall, and each student drew a number out of a hat. That was the order they were allowed to pick countries in. Ala drew number 5 and Mica drew number 22. There were about 70 students overall doing this project. Mica piped in, “I got Uruguay, oh yeah!” She fist bumped her dad. Ala smiled. “I got Nicaragua.” The first countries to go were generally the Western European countries such as England, Germany, Norway, and Ireland. Not surprising, as those areas comprise the backgrounds of most of the students in the school. Japan, Australia, and some of the “vacation countries” such as Jamaica and Barba­ dos also went fairly quickly. At the end of the day, portions of Africa, the Middle East, and South America were left in the “unchosen” pile. I wasn’t surprised or unhappy that they hadn’t chosen Italy. While both our children identified as Latina and White, they didn’t as readily think about themselves as Italian. Most of my own Italian heritage came in the form of food (which they readily identify with!). As parents, we have focused on blending some aspects of Italian culture into our lives, but most of the cultural balance we have woven has been between Latino and the dominant U.S. white culture. “We are so gonna kill this project,” exclaimed Mica. “We have tons of stuff we can use!” “Well, you do,” said Ala. Daniel had lived in Uruguay for two years while serving in the Peace Corps and had spent 3 months traveling South America. He had brought a number of items home with him: some vests, a couple of wooden pipes, some mates and bombillas (a cup and straw to drink the national drink mate out of). “Okay, enough. What’s the plan? What do you need to do first?” I said. Daniel had already run down to the basement to see if he could gather up all his memorabilia. “We need to Google,” said Mica. She grabbed the computer and we all sat together on the couch. She typed in “Uruguay.” The first things

[7.9] [7.10]

[7.11] [7.12] [7.13]

[7.14] [7.15]

[7.16] [7.17]

[7.18] [7.19] [7.20]

[7.21]

DRAFT

Googling “Latin@”

[7.22]

[7.23] [7.24]

[7.25] [7.26] [7.27]

[7.28] [7.29]

to pop up were Wikipedia entries, fútbol (soccer) results, and travel informa­ tion. “Let’s try YouTube,” said Mica. We opened up YouTube. More tourism, a bit of fútbol, and then about halfway down the first screen was a video “What Americans Think about Uruguay.” In the video, a man who appeared to be from the U.S. gave his perspective of the country. It was a limited perspective in a 2­minute video, but about half of the video commented on the mate—a drink that the Uruguayans were “addicted to” from his perspec­ tive. Yerba Mate is a steeped tea­like drink using dried leaves of yerba mate and hot water. It is a drink that, with sugar, Mica has learned to love. “Is he serious?” said Ala. “I know, right?” exclaimed Mica. “He’s sitting there saying the Uruguay­ ans are addicted to mate and there he is taking a drink from his McDonalds soda, like every minute. Who is he kidding?” “Yeah, and look at the rest of his videos,” said Ala as she scrolls through the thumbnails on the person’s video site. “He’s drinking soda all the time!” “Just like you, Mami!” said Mica with a devilish smile. I ignored her. “And how can he get these ideas about Uruguayans and their politics from talking to an Irish guy who owns the hotel he stayed at?” said Ala, exasperated. “Yeah, and he’s not even saying the name of the country right. He can’t even say the name of the capital right in English or Spanish!” said Mica. “So what else is out there?” I said. Daniel looked at me with a smile, his eyebrow raised. Clearly he was pleased with at least some of their reflection on the video. It seems that some of those conversations we have had over the years about culture were sinking in. As with all parents—one is never quite sure which messages are taking hold. The girls continued to search the Inter­ net, using keywords such as dance, climate, tradition and sports. After watch­ ing a few fútbol videos, Mica decided it was time to go practice some soccer. So goes that blurred line between family, culture and school. “TRADITIONAL” DRESS A few days later, Mica came home and announced a new development. “We have to wear traditional dress for Festival of Nations,” she said. I raised my eyebrows. “And what, exactly, is ‘traditional dress’?” I asked. “You know, a dress. With the flowers and stuff. All swooshy,” she re­ plied.

[7.30] [7.31]

[7.32] [7.33]

Jennifer Willis­Rivera

DRAFT

Daniel and I looked at each other. “Mica,” Daniel said, “people in Uru­ guay wear khakis and button up shirts most of the time, jeans and T­shirts. They don’t dress much differently than you!” Mica threw him an exasperated look and grabs the computer. She googled “Nicaragua traditional dress images.” Pictures of women dancing in volumi­ nous, flowing skirts filled with color suddenly appear. Also, there are photos of men in gaucho pants with hats to match the women’s costumes. Several beauty pageant contestants appear. A Mardi Gras picture appears. “See! This is what traditional dress is!!” I look at the pictures. My practical side wonders where in the world are we going to get something that looks like that in western Wisconsin in less than three weeks. My mother may have sewn all my clothes—I’ve sewn two outfits in my life, and that was a really long time ago. My costume designer friend would kill me if I called her up. I thought hard as I stared at all the pictures streaming down the screen in front of us. My critical side is not convinced. “Girls, people in Nicaragua and Uruguay don’t wear this stuff— not every day, and some of them never wear it. Why can’t you wear tradi­ tional everyday clothes?” “Mami, that’s not what he meant!” Ala said. “Mr. Colby said traditional clothes. That’s not traditional! At least he’s not going to think it’s tradition­ al!” I could feel the “A” lioness coming out. “Okay, then answer me this—if the country you were studying was the United States, what would be your traditional dress?” This stops them for a moment, and they think. “What about Laura Ingalls Wilder stuff? Or maybe pilgrims?” Ala asks. At the mention of the word “pilgrims,” Mica shoots her sister a warning look—a “don’t open that discussion” look. As parents, Daniel and I ignored social convention, which doesn’t really talk about culture, race, and cultural differences. When young children ask (as mine did), “Why is that man’s skin so dark brown?” social convention encourages parents to hush their children and change the subject, teaching them that talking about cultural and racial differences is a “behind the doors” conversation—if it is to happen at all. As parents of an intercultural family, Daniel and I talked openly and freely about these issues with each other and with our children. It’s also led to negotiations of cultural awareness, and how various cultures are represented in U.S. dominant culture. Hence the warning look from Mica at the mention of pilgrims. As parents we had opened up plenty of conversations around that topic. “Let’s see what Google says . . .” said Mica. We google “United States traditional dress.” The majority of the images are of Native Americans wear­ ing feathers, braids, and beads. A few are of Asians in kimonos. An image of Kim Kardashian pops up. There are photos of a person from the 1700s. There

[7.34]

[7.35]

[7.36] [7.37]

[7.38]

[7.39]

[7.40]

[7.41]

[7.42]

DRAFT

Googling “Latin@”

[7.43]

[7.44] [7.45]

[7.46]

[7.47] [7.48] [7.49] [7.50]

[7.51] [7.52] [7.53] [7.54] [7.55]

is a picture of a large, brightly decorated sombrero. A white wedding dress appears. “Hmm,” Ala said. “Try ‘American’ traditional dress instead of ‘United States.’” We do so, with similar results. In glancing at the descriptions, I realize that the words traditional dress are the key search words. We try using quotation marks in the search. It isn’t until we use “United States Traditional Dress” with quotes that we get our first pair of blue jeans, a “Just say No” T­shirt, a Hawaiian­style shirt, a person dressed in a camouflage military uniform. But in that search, we also get fewer people. There are many pictures of baseball diamonds and football stadiums, hamburgers and meatloaf. The search yields 97 results in all. “So, what do you think?” I asked them. “I think we need to get what Mr. Colby thinks of as traditional dresses to get an A on this project,” muttered Ala. Now I rolled my eyes. “OK fine, we’ll figure something out. But what do you think? You are part Nicara­ guan—when would you wear that?” “You mean other than Festival of Nations? Never!” said Mica. “I hate dresses. I know it’s a stereotype—kind of. I mean, it’s real, it is traditional, but not an every day thing. But that’s what a lot of people think of when they think of Nicaragua or Uruguay.” “If they even know what or where it is!” laughed Ala. “Yeah, I know. Valerie thought they used Rainbow Money in Uruguay,” said Mica. “She was just kidding,” said Ala. “But still, nobody knows anything about Uruguay,” Mica protested. “Most people don’t even know how to pronounce it! Even my teachers say YER­uh­gway and I have to correct them! It’s oo­roo­GWEYE. It’s a Span­ ish speaking country! I mean, people would get mad if I called our country Estados Unidos, right? Because it isn’t the right way to say the name!” “So if you correct them on that, how come you don’t correct them on the traditional dress,” I asked. “Because I want an ‘A’ mother. We have to do what the teacher says.” When she says the word “mother” instead of “Mami” with that exasperat­ ed tone, I know I am on the edge of a fight. I looked at my husband. “So what do we do?” I asked him. “Looks like we’re heading to Lake Street,” he said. I put my head in my hands and sigh. That opens up even more issues.

Jennifer Willis­Rivera

DRAFT

LAKE STREET Lake Street is a thriving main thoroughfare in Minneapolis, MN. Since we live just minutes from the Minnesota border (and about an hour away from Minneapolis) it isn’t that long of a drive. Lake Street historically has been one of the cultural centers of the city. In early years, it boasted a thriving Norwegian culture—a part of the heritage of many of the people who have lived in Minnesota. Now, it boasts a thriving Latino community, mostly of Mexican and Mexican American descent. We finally find a parking spot on Lake Street. After parking the car, we walk into a white cement building with “Mercado Central” painted on the front. The side boasts murals drawn by both professionals and school chil­ dren, warning of the dangers of drugs. The streets are quieter than I would expect for a Saturday morning, a few people are strolling into shops. The smell of the pan dulce, fresh and hot, wafted over from the bakery across the street. “Mmmmmm,” said Mica. “Can we get a doughnut?” “Later,” I say. “Let’s do what we came here to do.” We walk into Mercado Central and find few people wandering around. Except in the Panadería El Mexicano. It seems Mica wasn’t the only one the pan dulce was calling to. About 10 people were lined up along the bakery, glancing into the windows at the various sugared doughy morsels, many colored in bright pinks and greens. As we walk down a hallway, we see a shop filled with quincinera dresses. There are also some “swooshy” dresses, as the girls call them. We stop there. The shop is like a small cubicle in a row of shops—the setup reminds me of a swap meet. There are dresses hanging along the walls from floor to ceiling—some hanging above us. The bright colors and lacy skirts entrance Ala and Mica. Mica may say she hates dress­ es, but her eyes told a different story. They both stopped in front of a pale yellow dress with an elaborately layered skirt, edged in a delicate lace. For a moment, they are quiet. Soon, Ala’s eye is caught by a white dress edged in lace with sheer capped sleeves. The dress is pinned to the wall with the skirt pulled out so a customer can see the fullness of the skirt. It is definitely “swooshy.” “That one. That’s the one I want,” she stated firmly. “OK, well we have to see if it fits you—it looks like it might,” I said. Daniel asks the shop owner if we can take a look at the dress. He searches through the shelves stacked with folded dresses wrapped in plastic and takes out a size small. It seems a bit short, so we try on the medium. It fits perfectly. Ala is already accessorizing. “I can wear my hair up, and then put a big flower in it . . .” “What about me?” asks Mica.

[7.56] [7.57]

[7.58]

[7.59] [7.60] [7.61]

[7.62]

[7.63] [7.64] [7.65]

[7.66]

DRAFT

Googling “Latin@”

[7.67]

[7.68] [7.69]

[7.70]

[7.71] [7.72] [7.73] [7.74]

[7.75] [7.76]

[7.77] [7.78]

Daniel asks the shopkeeper if he has any other dresses. They are speaking Spanish, but my handle on the language is good enough where I at least get the gist of what they are saying. Daniel is asking about dresses that are flowered or a little plainer than the quinciñera dresses that fill the walls of the shop. The man thinks, then pulls out another white dress, but this one is decorated in two or three places with the flag of Mexico. “Mami, I can’t wear that!” Mica whispers to me urgently. “It’s supposed to be Nicaraguan!” I shake my head at Daniel, and he continues, talking to the shopkeeper, asking him if there are other stores that sell these kinds of dresses. He explains that these dresses are expensive for most people, and they usually only buy a couple in a lifetime, so there isn’t a big market for them. He is the only one in the area to sell them. My heart drops a little. Suddenly, he remembers a dress and digs through the shelves again. He comes out with a red dress edged in white lace. I smile, knowing red is Mica’s favorite color. We try it on—it is a tiny bit tight, but it fits. We pay for the dresses and leave the shop, heading for the panadería. As we stroll in sun outside, eating our pan dulce and walking up and down the street, we glance at the other shops. The shopkeeper was right—at least in this neighborhood, there isn’t another shop that sells dresses even slightly similar to the ones we saw. We walk past mercados, a Spanish language radio station, a school, and two other panaderías. It is early—just after 10 in the morning, so there still are not many people out on the streets. “You do realize, girls, that you are going to wear Mexican dresses to represent Nicaragua and Uruguay?” “Yeah I know,” said Ala, with regret in her voice. “But we have to do it! It’s not like there’s a Nicaraguan or Uruguayan store anywhere near here!” “So what are you going to tell Mr. Colby?” I ask. “As little as possible!” said Mica with a smile. “Look Mami, I get it. This isn’t Nicaraguan or Uruguayan. But it is Latina, and around here, it’s kind of the same thing.” Daniel looked up sharply. “No, Papi, I don’t mean that. Well, I kind of do. Around here, people do think it’s the same thing. Every­ one thinks we are Mexican if they don’t know us.” “Yeah, remember Reid thought we were Mexican?” Ala laughed. “Yeah,” Mica smiled. “But it’s also because there just aren’t a whole lot of Latinos around. So if you’re Mexican, or Puerto Rican, or Nicaraguan, or Uruguayan, you’re still Latino, and that’s what’s important around here. Not just to the white people, but to Latinos as well. So even though this is a Mexican dress, it is still kind of who we are as Latinas. Kind of. Does that make sense?” Now it was my turn to smile a little. “Yep, it kinda does.” As I said earlier, family is a living, fluid thing. So is culture. It isn’t just a pile of static photos on Google, or even videos of people dancing in

Jennifer Willis­Rivera

DRAFT

“swooshy” dresses. It is the living it, the making and remaking of it. When Geertz (1973) talked about culture as a web that we not only weave, but we are continually caught in—he was absolutely right. Here are my daughters, enacting their Latina­ness in a way that they can in the place and time they are in. They are representing countries that have a deep meaning for them and who they see themselves as (since Puerto Rico wasn’t available as a country, Uruguay was the next best choice because of Daniel’s connection to it). My girls “read” Mr. Colby as they would any other Caucasian “grown up” in the community. Latina = Mexican = Nicaraguan = Uruguayan = Puerto Rican. Could they have been wrong? Absolutely. But they knew enough about odds to place their “A” in that corner. Certainly, there were limits to enacting that reductionism. Mica knew she could not wear a dress emblazoned with a Mexican flag to represent Nicara­ gua, but both girls knew that invoking the images that so many people under­ stood as “Latino” would suffice to “pass” as Nicaraguan and Uruguayan. But they had a deeper understanding too. They understood that as Latinas in a very white community, embracing this mash up of heritages was still repre­ senting their heritage, even if the geography was wrong. It is a complex thing—understanding that on the one hand you are re­enacting stereotypes, but on the other hand, using those stereotypes to represent your own identity in a way that pretty much cannot be done on “regular” days—only for Festi­ val of Nations. We knew we would be digging further into that concept as we went along. But that wasn’t new. As parents in an intercultural family, we had been there before. “Hey Mami, can we have a quinciñera when we turn 15?” asks Ala. I look over at Daniel. We decide, silently, to let this subject fade into the background as we turn up the Top 40s station on the radio. THE FOOD “Mami—we need to have a traditional food to go along with this project. Everyone is making a dessert—I want to make a dessert too, because if I don’t no one will eat it,” said Mica. “Fine—what do you want to make?” I respond. “I wish I could make Arroz con Gandules—because that’s my favorite,” Ala said. Arroz con Gandules is a traditional dish from Puerto Rico with rice, green olives and pigeon peas. It is usually made with pork, but since we’re vegetar­ ians, we’ve developed a meat­free version, which Ala loves. Mica sticks her tongue out. She is more inclined toward the dessert end of the food pyramid. “But Arroz con Gandules is Puerto Rican,” I said.

[7.79]

[7.80]

[7.81] [7.82]

[7.83] [7.84] [7.85]

[7.86]

DRAFT

Googling “Latin@”

[7.87] [7.88] [7.89] [7.90] [7.91] [7.92] [7.93]

[7.94] [7.95] [7.96]

[7.97]

[7.98]

[7.99]

“Yeah, and no one would eat it anyway,” retorted Mica. “But then I could eat it all,” Ala grinned. “Can we have some for dinner? Pleeeeease?” “Noooo,” protested Mica. “Can we focus on the Festival of Nations first?” I asked. “So what should we make?” they asked in unison. I gestured to the computer: “Find a recipe.” The girls huddled in front of the computer. They typed in “Uruguayan Recipes,” “Nicaraguan Recipes,” “Nicaraguan desserts,” and other key phrases. After much searching, Ala has decided on Tres Leches cake, while Mica goes for Dulce de Leche. “That’s perfect, Mica,” I say. “We can spread it on some Marias cook­ ies!” “Yes, I love those!” said Mica. “Hey, we can even get Dulce de Leche down at one of the grocery stores in the cities,” said Daniel. “That is one less thing we have to do—cooking the stuff.” “No way, Papi,” Mica said, hands on her hips. “We are going to do this the real way. We are going to cook this stuff. I am going to cook this stuff. I really want to know what it’s like.” She was firm, and held true to her claim. Though her arms are not built for hours upon hours of stirring we all took turns and came out with a pretty decent batch. She said it was more authentic because she did it herself, “mostly” she corrected as I threw her an exhausted look. “In fact, it’s even most authentic because we did it together as a family,” she exclaimed. FESTIVAL OF NATIONS DAY Finally, it was Festival of Nations day. All the 7th graders had to have their items in the gym by 7:30 in the morning. Mica and Ala both set up their trifold boards, laying out their desserts in front of them. Mica also had her mate, that only she was allowed to sip on (hygiene!) and both had various artifacts. Parents and the 6th and 8th grade students (in shifts) were then allowed to wander around the gym, making their way from country to coun­ try. As Daniel and I roamed from place to place, he had a great time asking the kids questions about their selected country. They were all great at reciting facts from their trifold boards. I ask them, “What was the greatest thing you learned studying this country?” Most answered with places they learned about that they would like to visit, a few gave stock answers from their trifold boards. A few commented on the connections they had made with grandpar­

[7.100] [7.101]

Jennifer Willis­Rivera

DRAFT

ents and great grandparents. Daniel decided to ask this question of our own children. “So, what was the best think you learned in studying this country?” he asked them. “That everyone likes desserts!” exclaimed Mica. “Yeah, I have no Tres Leches cake left!” said Ala. “They tore it up—it’s a good thing I saved a piece for myself!” “So really though, what did you learn?” I persisted. They reflected for a moment. “Well, it was really cool to learn about the country where my abuela came from,” said Ala, “and to kind of learn where I came from. I mean, I knew a lot of this stuff already, but I learned more when I talked to other people about it. That’s when I really knew it. Does that make sense?” I nodded. “It was fun to see the stuff from Italy. I wish someone could have made lasagna though,” said Mica. “Did you do the quiz on Italy at Lily’s booth?” asked Ala. “When Lily gave me the quiz on Italy, I got them all right!” “I wish I could have done Puerto Rico,” said Mica. “I mean, it was really cool to do Uruguay, and people thought it was awesome that I could drink mate, but I wanted to learn more about me. But this is part of me too, because it’s part of Papi, so that makes it part of me.” “And it was cool that people asked us about this stuff,” interjected Ala. “I mean, no one ever asks us about this stuff—and we don’t talk about it, but it’s cool when we can—like when we had to use some of this stuff in the video with our friends last year.” “And we both got an ‘A,’ oh yeah!” exclaimed Mica with a grin. They gave each other a fist bump. Now, I reflect on that question for myself. As parents of an intercultural family, what did we learn? The fluidity of culture and the fluidity of family communication remind me of the importance of these stories—that sharing these stories helps us to understand more clearly who we are, where we came from, and what we want to embrace—culturally, as a family, and as individu­ als. It is only through the creation and recreation of these stories in multiple ways that we can accomplish it. Though rife with aspects that made my critical self squirm, the Festival of Nations project had given us a way to understand, discuss and recreate the cultural heritages that we aren’t always given the occasion to talk about outside of our family

[7.102] [7.103] [7.104] [7.105] [7.106]

[7.107]

[7.108]

[7.109]

[7.110] [7.112]

DRAFT

Googling “Latin@”

Figure 7.1. Tri­Boards created for the Festival of Nations Photo by Jennifer Willis­Rivera, May 2012

[7.113] [7.114] [7.115]

CONCLUSION: REFLECTING ON THE “WEB” In the conclusion of her book Latino Spin (2008), Dávila asks a sobering question:
As Latinos do “make it,” or are said to “make it” in the American mainstream, abiding questions remain. Will we remember our historical roots and help transform the destination we are starting to reach? Or will we be a part of the same problems that have long hindered our “coming of age”? (p. 161)

[7.116]

As I reflect on our family, the Festival of Nations project, and how the Internet (especially through images and videos) came to play such a signifi­ cant part of defining ourselves culturally, I wonder about how I would an­ swer this question. We have participated in those things that have hindered

Jennifer Willis­Rivera

DRAFT

the “coming of age” of Latinos. When we allowed the girls to wear dresses that were clearly Mexican American to represent other Latin countries, we were, in part, practicing the reductionism stereotype. Mexican = Nicaraguan = Uruguayan. We also played a willing part in equating learning about a culture to “foods, fairs & festivals,” along with some well­placed geographic facts, even partaking in the “culture tasting” ourselves at the Festival of Nations. We complied in the fact that no real learning about the peoples and the true histories of these countries would take place. However, I also point to Dávila’s question about transformation and re­ membering historical roots. I look at how the girls engaged in an understand­ ing of these meanings in their own lives. They reflected on the equation of Mexican, Nicaraguan and Uruguayan, understanding that it was important not to equate these things, and in many spaces and places in their lives they have made it a point to educate their friends on that. Now even their friends are the ones who correct others when the girls are assumed to be “Mexican.” I look at Ala’s refusal to “cheat” on the authentic foods—even the culturally appropriate cheat—so she could experience that piece of her own culture. I look at their reflections on the “real” Festival of Nations and I appreciate the critical eye they can bring to an event. I look at their insistence that Uruguay be pronounced correctly and their pride in telling their classmates about their countries, and how those connected to them as people. I also look at how we incorporate the Internet to supplement, illustrate, and redesign our own notions of our cultural selves. The videos and images that others had posted were available to us for both consumption and cri­ tique—and often a little of both. We reimagined what “traditional” meant through others representations. If another student was to “Google” these terms today—the images and videos will have changed, the imaginings will have changed, and how this other student understands and represents those concepts will be different from what we did. Do we as a family co­opt, stereotype, undermine and characterize other cultures—even our own? Absolutely. Do we critically reflect, analyze, seek to understand, and deconstruct on our own actions and those of others when it comes to representing culture? Without question. Does that make the co­ opting and stereotyping okay? Absolutely not. But as parents in an intercultu­ ral family, we talk about that too. Where we feel we need to bend and turn, and where we feel we can’t. Where we feel we need to “march on.” and where we feel we need to take a different path. One day our children may enact this sort of foods, fairs and festivals ritual with their children. I only hope that when they do, they engage in critical reflection before, during and after. The Festival of Nations taught our family quite a bit—but not the lessons that I think were intended. Yes, we did find out that 1.5% of Uruguay is covered with water and both girls have decided they want to visit El

[7.117]

[7.118]

[7.119]

DRAFT

Googling “Latin@”

[7.120]

Jaguar Natural Reserve in Nicaragua. But we also learned about our own familial negotiations of culture through using the media. Geertz was correct to say that we are trapped within these webs of mean­ ing that we make. People are very complex weavers of this web. It isn’t just the web we weave; it’s layered on top of the web that is woven for us. My family (and others) are trapped (and create) that web which signifies “Lati­ nos” in the United States. We are also trapped (and create) that web which means “Latinos” in the Upper Midwest. We create (and are trapped in) what “Latino” means in our own family and community, but that reflects on the other understandings of “Latino” that the Caucasian community has. The webs are so intertwined that one strand gets embedded into another, and not only can you not tell them apart, they can’t be apart—even while other strands might remain steadfastly separate from one another. In this sense, reflecting again on Dávila’s (2008) work, Latinos are “at once both living and socially imagined.” Even while a biracial Caucasian­Latino family is caught up in the webs of self and other, we are continually remaking those webs for self and other. We are helping to create our own understandings of culture within our family, within our community, and perhaps across time as these webstrands stretch through generations. Family and culture make for a complex weaver. So, look around you. What does your web look like?

DRAFT

Chapter Eight

Like Tiger Mother, Like Tiger Daughter
A Content Analysis of the Impact of Cultural Differences on Eastern and Western Parenting Styles Chin Chun (Joy) Chao and Dexin Tian

[8.0]

[8.1]

The 2011 publication of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua, a Yale University professor, and the ensuing publicity have triggered extensive attention to and heated discussions about the “tough­love” parenting style. When her prepublication excerpt entitled “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superi­ or” (Chua, January, 2011) was published in the Wall Street Journal, the topic of “the” Chinese parenting style not only stirred up a controversy in the U.S. but also evoked heated international debates. So far, the online article has been read more than one million times and has attracted more than 8,800 comments that critique Amy Chua’s “Tiger Mom” parenting style and com­ pare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of Eastern and Western parenting styles (all the comments are available at http://online.wsj.com/ article/ SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html#articleTabs%3D comments). Amy Chua was born in an academic family as the eldest of four daugh­ ters. Her father has been a successful scientist and educator, who grew up in a Chinese immigrant family from the Philippines and came to the U.S. where he earned a Ph.D. degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana­Cham­ paign. He was extremely strict with his children. For instance, “our report cards had to be perfect; while our friends were rewarded for Bs, for us getting an A­minus was unthinkable” (Chua, 2011, p. 16). Amy’s husband is a law professor at Yale University, and he “always took my side in front of the

Chin Chun (Joy) Chao and Dexin Tian

DRAFT

girls” (Chua, 2011, p. 171). Thus, Amy’s daughters were brought up in an extraordinarily academic environment. According to Wilson and Wilson (1992), the educational level of parents is one of the indicators of a family’s social status. In addition, the children whose parents have high educational levels will have high expectations of their education as well. The ideas here echo those of Chua, and that is why she made the following list that her daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do: “attend a sleepover; have a playdate; be in a school play; complain about not being in a school play; watch TV or play computer games; choose their own extracurricular activities; get any grade less than an A; not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama; play any instrument other than the piano or violin; not play the piano or violin” (Chua, 2011, para. 2). However, raising children, or parenting, is not a one­dimensional job, either with purely strict disciplines or utter permissiveness. Parenting is situ­ ated in a multi­dimensional matrix under the influence of social and cultural changes (Spera, 2005). With the mindset of integrating the seemingly differ­ ent perspectives of education and parenting styles between the U.S. and the China, this chapter analyzes the online comments posted to Chua’s article and explores the representative themes relating to Eastern and Western styles of parenting. Specifically, by quantitatively examining the selected online forum responses, this chapter aims to explore the anticipated cultural percep­ tions of success in children as a result of different parenting styles and reveal the Eastern and Western preferences to and differences in parenting ap­ proaches. LITERATURE REVIEW Parenting plays an important role in a person’s growth. It is from families that children first receive warmth, nutrition, support, and education. Parents provide the first essential environment in which children grow up and learn to socialize with others. Socialization is seen as the process by which chil­ dren become familiar with the set of social standards of the adults in a particular culture (Parke & Buriel, 1998). Other scholars (Grusec, 1997; Parke & Buriel, 1998; Spera, 2005) also claimed that socialization is the process through which parents convey their values, goals, and attitudes to their children. Thus, parents in different cultures exert a great deal of impact on the growth of their children with different parenting styles. Parenting styles have been studied for decades and have been categorized into single­dimension, two­dimension, and multi­dimension models (Ang, 2006; Baumrind, 1971; Becker, 1964; Chao, 2001; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Tam & Lam, 2003). Based on warmth,

[8.2]

[8.3] [8.4]

[8.5]

DRAFT

Like Tiger Mother, Like Tiger Daughter

[8.6]

[8.7]

[8.8]

demandingness, and autonomy granting, Baumrind (1966) proposed three major types of the single­dimensional parenting style: authoritarian, authori­ tative, and permissive. Maccoby and Martin (1983) added a conceptual fourth style, neglectful. According to Karavasilis, Doyle, and Markiewicz (2003), it is characteristic for the authoritarian parenting style to reveal low responsiveness, high demandingness, and low levels of autonomy granting while the authoritative parenting style to demonstrate high responsiveness, high demandingness, and high autonomy granting. Whereas a permissive parent manifests high levels of responsiveness, autonomy granting, and low levels of demandingness, a neglectful parent is disengaged, showing low levels of responsiveness, demandingness, and autonomy granting. Based on Baumrind’s (1966, 1971) initial model, Maccoby and Martin (1983) proposed a two­dimensional framework of parental socialization in which the dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness were mirrored with the traditional parenting dimensions of warmth and strictness. From the combination of the two dimensions—responsiveness (warmth) and demand­ ingness (strictness), they further defined four types of parenting styles: au­ thoritative—responsive and demanding; neglectful—neither responsive nor demanding; indulgent—responsive but not demanding; and authoritarian— demanding but not responsive. This two­dimensional framework reveals a continuum in parenting styles, first, with warmth/responsiveness on one end and hostility/rejection on the other, and, second, with control/restrictiveness on one end and autonomy/permissiveness on the other. With regard to multi­dimensional parenting style, Becker (1964) clas­ sified parenting styles into three dimensions: restrictiveness­permissive in­ dulgence, warmth­hostility, and anxious emotion involvement­calm detach­ ment. The these dimensions are subdivided into eight types, which are per­ missive, democratic, anxious neurotic, neglecting, strict control, authorita­ tive, organized effective, and overprotective. Although the classification of multi­dimensions is comparatively more complete, it is less practicable due to complexity. Having reviewed the three dimensions of parenting styles, we now con­ nect children’s achievements and parenting styles to cultural influence. In fact, parenting styles have been used as predictors in correlational studies of a wide variety of children characteristics, including self­concept, psychoso­ cial maturity, moral development, independence, social skills, cooperation with adults and peers, cognitive competence, and academic success (John­ son, 1998). In addition, more research attention has been paid to examine the influence of parenting styles across ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and fam­ ily structure (Steinberg et al., 1992). In terms of ethnicity, quite a few studies (Bingham & Okagaki, 2004; Chao, 2001; Pearce, 2006) have identified aca­ demic achievements with specific racial or cultural factors.

Chin Chun (Joy) Chao and Dexin Tian

DRAFT

For instance, Bingham and Okagaki (2004) found parents’ cultural values have been tied to their social cognitions, which include parenting beliefs, goals, and attitudes. Chao (2001) reaffirmed that since the typical ways in which family members relate to each other are culturally bound, “the parent­ ing style then can also be seen as a reflection of culture” (p. 1833). In his study of cultural effects on educational achievements, Pearce (2006) re­ marked, “cultural explanations tie outcomes to the beliefs and values taught and leaned at the fine unit of family” (p. 78). Although cultural generaliza­ tions and stereotyping “may appear dangerous, they are nevertheless neces­ sary if a study’s results are to have any application beyond the study’s imme­ diate participants” (Pearce, 2006, p. 77). To extend the above research and achieve the purposes of this study described above, we developed the following research questions: RQ1: Is there a difference between Eastern and Western parenting styles? RQ2: What are the main factors that affect Eastern or Western parenting style adoption? RQ3: Is there a difference between Eastern and Western parenting toward their anticipated children’s achievements? METHOD To find answers to our research questions, we used the research method of content analysis which is defined as a process of “systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics” (Naccarato & Neuendorf, 1998, p. 20). In this study, we used this research method to analyze online responses to Amy Chua’s prepublication excerpt entitled “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior” released in the Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2011. From the date of its publication to August 15, 2012, the online article has been read more than one million times and has attracted more than 8,859 comments. In order to ensure a meaningful generalization from the sample, a systematic random sample consisting of every 20th comment (Wrench et al., 2008) was coded and analyzed. For the purposes of this study, our analysis only focused on those responses regarding parenting perspectives and parent­ ing styles. Unrelated responses on issues such as racism, communism, histo­ ry, economy, criticism or duplicated comments were excluded. The starting point was chosen using the random integer calculator from the website ran­ dom.org. Thus, 440 responses were randomly selected, but only 312 in total, which met our coding standards, were coded for analysis. As mentioned in our literature review, we applied Maccoby and Martin’s (1983) parenting approach, which includes authoritarian, authoritative, indul­

[8.9]

[8.10] [8.11] [8.12] [8.13]

[8.14] [8.15]

[8.16]

[8.17]

DRAFT

Like Tiger Mother, Like Tiger Daughter

gent/permissive, and neglecting dimensions. We also took into account such potentially important variables as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and parents’ anticipations of their children’s abilities and traits, and respon­ dents’ tones to Amy Chua’s parenting style. To avoid inconsistent coding, we operationalized the independent and dependent variables, as well as the unit of analysis based on the parenting approach of Maccoby and Martin (1983).
[8.18] [8.19]

RESULTS As mentioned above, we randomly selected a total of 440 responses to the article “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior,” and 312 responses that met our coding standards were coded for analysis. Through an analysis of the vari­ ables that were identified as influencing the parenting styles, we managed to objectively investigate the factors that affect Western and Eastern parenting styles and perspectives. The examined variables included the gender of re­ spondents, ethnicity of respondents, parenting involvement, parenting styles, anticipated child’s abilities, anticipated child’s traits, and the tone of Amy Chua’s parenting style. Sample frequencies were also calculated by SPSS from the 312 responses in the sample. After each variable was analyzed, difference testing was conducted. The overall sample frequencies and diffe­ rential percentages were reported first, and then the results of the difference testing in relation to the research questions were provided. Following are the research results of or answers to the three research questions. RQ1: Is There a Difference between Eastern and Western Parenting Styles? A chi­square was conducted to assess whether Eastern and Western parents perform different parenting styles. The result for this test was significant: !2 (10, N=308) = 89.530, p < .0005. That means that a statistically significant difference occurs between Eastern and Western in their perceptions of adopted parenting approaches. As a post hoc analysis, 10 pairwise compari­ sons were calculated to determine where the actual differences are. To avoid Type 1 error in this procedure, a Dunn­Sidak procedure was conducted to correct possible compounded error due to the 10 pairwise comparisons. The new calculated alpha value is p < .005. Based on the new alpha value, only one pairwise comparison was found to be statistically significant: Authorita­ tive Style and Indulgent Style, !2 (1, N=238) = 28.756, p < .0005. Therefore, the answer to RQ1 is positive.

[8.20] [8.21]

Chin Chun (Joy) Chao and Dexin Tian

DRAFT

RQ2: What Are the Main Factors That Affect Eastern or Western Parenting Style Adoption? As discussed earlier, many variables have been examined as factors that might affect the applied parenting styles such as developmental level, gender, environmental or cultural factors (Johnson, 1998). Steinberg et al. (1991) and Baumrind (1989) also examined the influence of parenting styles across eth­ nicity, socioeconomic status, family structure, age, and involvement. We did take these variables into consideration at first, but only 3–5% of the respon­ dents revealed their education, age, child age, or socioeconomic status. Since these factors were too scarce for analysis, this study did not count them as significantly potential factors. Instead, we focused on environmental or cul­ tural factors of gender and parenting involvement. Chi­square tests were used to examine the differences between the adopted parenting styles to the categorical variables of gender and involve­ ment. While gender was not significant to parenting styles (!2=13.554; p = .094), involvement was found to be statistically significant, !2 (8, N=244) = 75.380, p < .0005. This means that, among the examined factors of the respondents’ gender and ethnicity, parenting involvement, parenting styles, and anticipated children’s abilities and traits, and the tone of Amy Chua’s parenting style, parenting involvement is a major factor that affects Eastern or Western parenting style adoption. RQ3: Is There a Difference between Eastern and Western Parenting toward Their Anticipated Children’s Achievements? A chi­square was conducted to assess the differences between parenting styles to the nominal variables of anticipated abilities and anticipated traits. This study found that the anticipated traits were not significant (!2=10.838; p=.543), but the anticipated abilities were found to be statistically significant, !2 (20, N=298) = 131.394, p < .0005. That means that a statistically signifi­ cant difference occurs between the adopted parenting styles and their antici­ pations toward their children’s abilities. Therefore, the answer to RQ 3 is also positive. As a post hoc analysis revealed, only one pairwise comparison was found to be statistically significant: Authoritative Style and Indulgent Style, !2 (1, N=230) = 43.169, p < .0005. Apart from the above, this study found that the number of male respondents is 2.45 times (69.2%) that of female respondents (28.2%), while the number of Western respondents (67.9%) is 2.4 times that of Eastern respondents (28.2%). Only 15.3% of the respondents commented on the overall parenting involvement, with 14.7% mentioning high involve­ ment in children’s learning, 0.6% mentioning intermediate involvement, and the rest providing a “Don’t know.” As for the parenting styles, the majority of the samples tend to prefer a liberal/indulgent approach (39.1%), followed

[8.22] [8.23]

[8.24]

[8.25] [8.26]

[8.27]

DRAFT

Like Tiger Mother, Like Tiger Daughter

by the authoritative style (37.2%), authoritarian (7.7%), and neglecting (1.3%). This situation shows that overall Western and Eastern respondents are either pro­permissive or pro­authoritative.
[8.28] [8.29]

DISCUSSION The overarching goal of the present study was to better understand the differ­ ence between Eastern and Western parenting styles and the factors that may influence the adopted parenting styles. The findings of this investigative study revealed that the respondents’ gender did not make a difference in the selection of parenting styles. However, their ethnicity did influence parenting perspectives. Western parents tended to apply the indulgent style most (50%), followed by authoritative style (30%), authoritarian style (8%), and neglecting style (2%). In contrast, Eastern parents tended to use the authorita­ tive style most (61%), followed by indulgent (21%) and authoritarian (9%). In addition to parenting involvement, there are also many other factors that may affect parenting approaches. For instance, Teachman and Paasch (1998) posited that, with higher income, parents can provide their children with more learning resources and create a better environment to facilitate their academic performance. According to Johnson (1998), children of au­ thoritative parents tend to be more competent and self­confident. These ex­ tant findings are reconfirmed by Chua’s case, in which both parents are professors at a prestigious university, and their two daughters have both demonstrated excellent academic achievement. Furthermore, parenting styles also have been examined as the predictor variables in correlational studies of a wide range of children’s abilities or traits, including self­concept, maturity, moral development, independence, social skills, and cooperation, competence (Putallaz & Heflin, 1990). The answer to RQ3 in the present study confirmed part of the aforesaid research findings. In our study, indulgent parents tend to value creativity most (47%), followed by confidence (29%), hard­working (18%), and competence (5%). However, authoritative parents would focus on children’s competence first (43%) for a better future, followed by hard­working (24%), confidence (21%), and creativity (12%). The findings imply that authoritative parents will require their children to have a top­grade education with marketable skills in order to succeed in the future while indulgent parents focus more on children’s personality and happiness. It is also worth pointing out here that almost half of the respondents revealed a negative tone toward Chua’s parenting style (48.1%), followed by a positive tone (28.8%), partial agreement with (10.3%), and a neutral voice (8.3%). On the one hand, many Western respondents do not want to admit

[8.30]

[8.31]

[8.32]

Chin Chun (Joy) Chao and Dexin Tian

DRAFT

that Chinese parenting style is superior; instead, they found Chua’s article in the Wall Street Journal “stupid, arrogant, and obviously provocative” (Re­ spondent 382). On the other hand, even the Eastern respondents do not think Chua’s parenting style is typically Chinese. For instance, as a Chinese immi­ grant and father of a 7­year­old, “I feel sorry about Ms. Chua, for she appar­ ently did not have the connection with Chinese culture, and she misunder­ stood many aspects of Chinese parenting. In her family, Chinese tradition has long lost” (Respondent 371). Many other respondents even claimed that this is not the debate between Chinese or Eastern and Western parenting styles. Instead, it is a conflict between an Asian American parenting approach and the dominant U.S. per­ spective on parenting. Amy Chua is a Filipino of Chinese descent. Her par­ ents immigrated to the U.S. and underwent an intense struggle to plant their roots in a foreign land that inevitably led them to adopt a more utilitarian outlook in raising their children. As she said to her daughters in her book, “We struggled to get you this new citizenship status, the best way to repay us as our children is to succeed in life” (Chua, 2011, p. 58). The Chinese, especially those Chinese Americans like the Jewish and Indian immigrants to the U.S. have had to fight for themselves and survive in the new U.S. culture. To guarantee success for their children in the U.S., these parents have been obliged to direct their children toward high standards of achievement in order to succeed in their lives beyond childhood. Chua (2011) argued:
What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something— whether it’s math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not­fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more. (para. 6)

[8.33]

[8.34]

In this quote, Chua made clear the difference between Eastern and Western parents regarding involvement with their children. Facing the ignorance and resistance of children, many Western parents might give up under the excuse of respecting their children’s free choice and independence while most East­ ern parents will tenaciously encourage, guide, and push their children to learn more and better. Here, let us share the critical remarks of two representative responses:

[8.35]

DRAFT

Like Tiger Mother, Like Tiger Daughter I am a Chinese mother. I agree with you that Chinese often produce good engineers, but not inventors, excellent piano players but not once­in­a­life time musicians. The Chinese way of parenting described by Ms. Chua tends to destroy the creativeness in a child because the parents tend to overlook the true talent and feelings of their child. (Respondent 220)

[8.36]

[8.37] [8.38]

and
I agree with you somewhat. Although I’m Caucasian, my parents raised me very similar to that of the Japanese/Chinese culture. Academics were always placed above anything else, and anything but #1 was not an option. Anything less than straight A’s prior to college was unacceptable. Math was stressed very highly at a young age. With the biggest weakness of networking and social skills, I’d not consider myself more intelligent than the others. In my short time working I have found that intelligence alone is not enough to ad­ vance. A more balanced approach seems to be better not only for future ca­ reers, but for relationships as well. (Respondent 260)

[8.39]

The two responses acknowledge the rationale of the strict parenting approach Chua advocated. However, they also point out the weaknesses of such an approach, which “tends to destroy the creativeness in a child because the parents tend to overlook the true talent and feelings of their child” (Respon­ dent 220) and produces academically strong students with “the biggest weak­ ness of networking and social skills” (Respondent 260). Therefore, a bal­ anced approach combining the merits of both Eastern and Western parenting styles might be the final answer. Just as Chua (2011) put it at the end of her book, Battle Hymn of Tiger Mother, “I’ve decided to favor a hybrid approach of the best of both worlds,” with the “Chinese way until the child is eighteen, to develop confidence and the value of excellence, and then the Western way after that” (pp. 225–26). CONCLUSION The purposes of the present study were to explore the anticipated cultural perceptions of success in children in Eastern and Western parenting styles and reveal the Eastern and Western preferences to and differences in parent­ ing approaches. To this end, we have raised three research questions. As for RQ1: “Is there a difference between Eastern and Western parenting styles?” the present study found that there is a significant difference between adopted parenting style between Eastern and Western parents. While Eastern parents would prefer authoritative practice because they wanted to cultivate their children to become competent and talented, Western parents tended to use the indulgent style with a focus on creativity. In addition, Eastern or authori­

[8.40] [8.41]

Chin Chun (Joy) Chao and Dexin Tian

DRAFT

tative parents tended to get highly involved in their children’s lives and learning, which can be supported by Chua’s parenting stories as well as the data in our study. Regarding RQ2: “What are the main factors that affect Eastern or West­ ern parenting style adoption?” this study found that, among the examined factors of the respondents’ gender and ethnicity, parenting involvement, pa­ renting styles, anticipated children’s abilities and traits, and the tone of Chua’s parenting style, parenting involvement is the most important factor that affects Eastern or Western parenting style adoption. Although other examined factors have attracted too few responses (only 3–5%) to be counted as valid determining factors, we can say that, based on previous research findings and the respondents’ experiences, there must be many factors that may have an impact on adopted parenting styles, such as culture, world view, gender, socioeconomic, intelligence, maturity, development, skills, to name a few. Moreover, parenting success can be measured in many other ways than simply the narrow scopes of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, Grade Point Average (GPA) records, places of piano competitions, or Harvard ac­ ceptance letters. Finally, with regard to RQ3: “Is there a difference between Eastern and Western parenting toward their anticipated children’s achievements?” this study found that there is a statistically significant difference between the adopted parenting styles and the parents’ anticipations toward their chil­ dren’s abilities, but the difference between the adopted parenting styles and the parents’ anticipations toward their children’s anticipated traits is not sig­ nificant. Therefore, there is neither a better nor definitive parenting style for the family education of children; what is expected of parents in both the East and West is flexibility for life­long learning. As many responses suggested, among lax, authoritative, or even authoritarian parenting styles, no one is absolutely superior to the other. What does this imply for intercultural parenting? First, be equifinality­ centered. That is, parenting can reach the same final state from differing initial conditions and via a variety of paths. Second, strive to exploit the Western/lax and the Eastern/tough­love polarity by taking advantage of both. Finally, sometimes replacing the word “parenting” with “coaching” in the parent and children relationship may actually help. The significance of our study lies in its void­filling contribution to the existent literature on Eastern and Western parenting styles from the perspective of leadership with data from online forums.

[8.42]

[8.43]

[8.44]

DRAFT

Chapter Nine

We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore
Diversity and Parenting Communication in ABC’s Modern Family Candice Thomas‑Maddox and Nicole Blau

[9.0]

[9.1]

At first glance, the promotional photo used to promote the ABC sitcom Modern Family looks like a typical U.S. American family—11 smiling faces all dressed in matching crisp, white clothing. Because of their identical attire, one may assume that this family falls into the category of the archetypal extended family posing for the annual portrait to be placed on the mantle and sent in holiday greeting cards. Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the family in the photo brings a fresh perspective to television’s portray­ al of the contemporary family. Challenging our notion of what is “typical” is the central premise of this mockumentary, through which family members share their personal stories and interpretations of interactions with both nu­ clear and extended family members. Each of the families represented in the portrait represents diverse family structures—a gay couple and their adopted Vietnamese daughter, a blended multicultural family consisting of a father and his much younger Colombian wife and stepson, and the stereotypical nuclear family with two parents and three children. Despite the fact that all family members are dressed alike, a forceful message is conveyed. Though their individual family units are structurally and culturally unique, one thing remains constant in their lives—family. Television portrayals of family life in the U.S. have evolved since the 1950s when ABC first presented to audiences the Cleavers (Leave it to Bea­ ver) and the Nelsons (The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet). While the definition of “family” is constantly in a state of flux there is a need to represent and examine the changing nature of family communication. Chang­

Candice Thomas­Maddox and Nicole Blau

DRAFT

ing U.S. demographics indicate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide a comprehensive definition of “family.” Conceptualizations of fami­ ly are often derived from social norms and are influenced by historical and political trends. Consider the following core elements used to define the traditional nuclear family as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: two parents and their children; parents are presumed to act in the best interest of the children; and parents are not required to give their children a voice (Dolgin, 2002). Definitions such as these neglect the important role that family inter­ actions play in shaping unique and diverse family structures. Trends such as decreasing family size, postponing the addition of children until parents are established in their careers, increasing life spans of family members, expand­ ing trends of migration, and the growing divorce rate all have been signifi­ cant contributors to the diverse structure of the U.S. family. In many contexts, including network television, “family” is often depicted as the traditional heterosexual nuclear family consisting of a husband, wife, and kids (Garey & Hansen, 1998). Media images perpetuate myths and stereotypes about expected or prescribed family behaviors. Domestic bliss was the primary theme of shows such as Leave it to Beaver (1950s) and continued in the 1980s with The Cosby Show. Coontz (2000) points to the fact these media portrayals of stereotypical family interactions creates a “ter­ rain of struggle” that motivates us to compare our experiences with those of families portrayed in the media. She goes on to state that nontraditional families are beginning to outnumber traditional heterosexual families and this challenges the media to incorporate more realistic portrayals of family life (Coontz, 2000). Introduced in 2009, the satirical comedy Modern Family acknowledged the challenge posed by scholars and portrayed a more realistic glimpse into the changing architecture of the contemporary U.S. family through its depic­ tion of three diverse families who are related through Jay Pritchett and his children, Claire and Mitchell. Throughout this chapter, contemporary themes of family culture and diversity as constructed and portrayed in Modern Fami­ ly will be examined. In addition, depictions of parenting styles in each of the three families will be analyzed and discussed in the context of cultural and structural diversity. OVERVIEW OF MODERN FAMILY Modern Family depicts the interactions among three families related to patri­ arch Jay Pritchett. Jay is faced with the challenge of transitioning from the traditional nuclear family as biological father to Claire and Mitchell to a new blended family experience with his second wife, Gloria, and her son, Manny.

[9.2]

[9.3]

[9.4] [9.5]

DRAFT

We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore

[9.6]

[9.7]

A significant age gap between Jay and Gloria coupled with cultural differ­ ences of Gloria’s Columbian heritage create unique communication issues for not only Jay but also his biological children. During the season three finale, Gloria and Jay announce that they are expecting a child, thus introduc­ ing the half­sibling relationship to the family equation. Jay’s daughter, Claire Dunphy and her husband, Phil, have been married for 18 years and navigate the communication challenges posed by their three teenage children: Haley, Alex, and Luke. Portrayed as the stereotypical stay­ at­home mother, Claire’s primary concern is maintaining control of both her household and her family. In contrast, Phil strives to be perceived as the “cool” father who often struggles in his quest for his father­in­law Jay’s approval. Modern Family is one of the first prime time shows to directly depict issues facing gay parents. Mitchell Pritchett and Cameron Tucker navigate the intricacies of parenthood following the addition of their adopted daugh­ ter, Lily. Like most couples, they clearly define the roles that each will play in their family, with Mitch serving as the “bread winner” attorney and Cam assuming primary childcare and household responsibilities. In fact, Mitchell and Cam could be considered the most traditional of the three couples on the show given their conservative philosophy and the conventional roles adopted by each partner. DIVERSITY AS PORTRAYED IN MODERN FAMILY Diversity is typically associated with one’s race, ethnicity, class, or gender. However, Modern Family encourages viewers to expand their conceptualiza­ tion of diversity to include not only these traditional categories of cultural diversity, but to also consider the impact of structural diversity (as evidenced by different family structures or family types) on family interactions. Consid­ er the diversity of family types in contemporary society. Three diverse family structures are represented in Modern Family: the traditional nuclear family, the multicultural stepfamily, and the gay adoptive family. The traditional challenges associated with cultural diversity are portrayed throughout the series in its depiction of the communication challenges and conventional language barriers associated with Gloria’s Columbian heritage. In “Halloween” (S. 2, Ep. 6, 2010), Gloria is offended as a result of taunting by her husband, son, and other family members regarding her thick accent. Hurt and disappointment are paramount as Gloria feels betrayed by those she trusts the most—her family. As Mitchell and Cameron choose to add Lily to their family, customary issues of cultural diversity are again seen as they address questions associated with transracial adoption. Questions regarding

[9.8] [9.9]

[9.10]

Candice Thomas­Maddox and Nicole Blau

DRAFT

their family’s new transracial status are analyzed as the parents negotiate their adopted daughter’s last name and wonder about the challenges ahead (S. 2, Ep. 17, 2011). In addition to issues associated with cultural diversity, viewers gain in­ sight into structural diversity in families. Relational vulnerabilities are ex­ pressed in “Two Monkeys and a Panda” (S. 2, Ep. 17, 2011) as Cameron and Mitchell debate whose last name to give their daughter, and they reveal their anxieties over decisions faced by both heterosexual and homosexual married couples such as the house being listed in Mitch’s name. Stepfamily boundary negotiation is witnessed as Manny and Jay attempt to share their expectations and negotiate the level of disclosure and supportive communication each is comfortable with in their relationship. During “Chirp” (S. 2, Ep. 7, 2010), Manny punishes his stepfather by giving him “the silent treatment” after an argument. However, the climate quickly changes when Jay finally reveals that he views Manny as “his kid,” thus bringing their relationship to a new level. Through its examination of the impact of cultural and structural issues, Modern Family showcases two primary themes focused on the role of diver­ sity as it influences interactions among family members. Within each epi­ sode, the effects of family, societal, and global culture are evident as audi­ ences eavesdrop on the communication among members of the Pritchett and Dunphy families. THEMES OF DIVERSITY IN MODERN FAMILY At the core of each episode of Modern Family is a theme that identifies and challenges the myths of “traditional” family life. A major premise is the show’s focus on the common experiences of four unique family structures. Each week, viewers are privy to the frequent phone conversations that occur as siblings consult one another for advice on parenting issues or as they make plans to share family meals. Despite their drastically different structures, common challenges, celebrations, and everyday experiences are shared. Crit­ ics of the show point to the stereotypical portrayal of cultural diversity, as evidenced by jokes referencing the Columbian values influencing Gloria’s communication and by Cam’s dramatic style (cite). However, Modern Fami­ ly refutes the claim that the changing structure of the family is a root cause of social problems. On the contrary, the negotiation of cultural barriers and the introduction of a fresh, all­encompassing perspective of what constitutes “family” dispels the myth of the “traditional” family experience. As opposed to viewing diversity as a challenge, Modern Family ultimately portrays it as a strength that provides unique opportunities for the family. When faced with

[9.11]

[9.12]

[9.13] [9.14]

DRAFT

We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore

[9.15]

[9.16]

the challenge of enrolling their daughter, Lily, in preschool (“Unplugged,” S. 2, Ep. 5, 2010), Mitch and Cam realize the advantage of their cultural diver­ sity (being gay parents with a Vietnamese daughter) as it increases their chances for admission. Rather than focusing solely on the barriers that must be managed as a result of diversity, the show encourages viewers to consider the benefits and assets that accompany unique family units. Another prevalent theme throughout the show is the focus on the family as the foundation for understanding and appreciating diversity. By witness­ ing family members’ responses to cultural and structural diversity, viewers are encouraged to expand their notion of how diversity both influences and is influenced by family interactions. Rather than accepting society’s reactions to their unique family structure, Pritchett and Dunphy family members coun­ sel and encourage one another to navigate the mixed messages that they encounter. In “The Kiss” (S. 2, Ep. 2, 2010), Gloria introduces traditions of her Columbian heritage in her home. While Jay’s initial reaction is to mock and reject her cultural traditions, he soon realizes their value and importance and adopts them as part of their new family culture. Modern Family high­ lights the fact that family socialization is multi­directional. Members are mutually influential in teaching one another about culture and communica­ tion. Traditionally, family socialization was addressed as being unidimen­ sional—parent to child. In many episodes, children educate their parents about cultural changes that exert influence on family interactions. This co­ creation of the family’s identity emphasizes the role of peer relationships and technological innovation in shaping family expectations for behavior. In “Unplugged” (S. 2, Ep. 5, 2010), Claire and Phil encourage their children to adhere to the cultural expectations for traditional interactions during family meals. Disturbed by their children’s focus on texting, video games, and com­ puter use, the parents issue a challenge to relinquish technology, only to discover that they are unable to meet the challenge themselves. Instead of rejecting the cultural influence of technology, they come to value and em­ brace it. This is one of several instances in the show where children are portrayed as playing an integral role in the co­creation of family identity. Through its emphasis on themes of diversity and family unity, Modern Family provides viewers with an option for exploring their own stereotypes associated with unique family structures and the impact of family members’ cultural heritage. Each of these factors plays a vital role in the creation of a new family culture. An influential factor in the shaping of this culture is the parenting style and subsequent communication between parents and children. In the following section, family types and parenting styles evident in Modern Family are discussed. As diverse families pervade mainstream America, this trend is reflected in popular culture as diverse parenting styles are portrayed in sitcoms featuring family interactions.

Candice Thomas­Maddox and Nicole Blau

DRAFT

PORTRAYAL OF PARENTING STYLES IN MODERN FAMILY As with any family, the characters in Modern Family face challenges and conflict, but continuously value the bond that ties them together. Some chal­ lenges arise from the difficulties that often accompany the art of parenting. Using the diverse family cultures illustrated in Modern Family, we will ex­ plicate the four parenting styles most commonly cited in research. Generally, a parenting style may be defined as a general approach to disciplining children. The original three parenting styles were introduced by Baumrind in 1967, and included authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative styles. In 1983, Maccoby and Martin contributed a fourth style referred to as the uninvolved or neglectful parenting style. Each style varies in two dimen­ sions: demand and responsiveness. Demand refers to amount of parental control in the relationship, and responsiveness is often associated with the level of involvement with the children. Typically, highly responsive parents engage in open communication practices and feelings of warmth. In the ensuing section, each parenting style as demonstrated in Modern Family will be reviewed. Authoritarian Style In “Good Cop, Bad Dog” (S. 2, Ep. 22, 2011), Claire attempts to intervene in a screaming match involving Alex, Haley, Luke, and Manny. She forbids them from yelling at one another again. When her daughter challenges her mother’s similar behavior, Claire wields her power and asserts that she is permitted to yell due to the fact that she provides their food, clothing, and shelter. She follows this declaration with a threat to revoke Internet and television privileges if they do not adhere to her rules. In an attempt to counteract Claire’s authoritarian parenting style, Phil attempts to adopt a more lenient style and plays the role of “fun­loving” dad. He is given orders to remain at home and monitor their daughters as they complete their chores while Claire takes the boys to go ride go­carts. Once again, her response when her instructions are challenged is to state that family members must comply “because she said so.” By claiming the fun trip with the boys, Claire attempts to adopt Phil’s more relaxed parenting style, but she quickly realizes that she cannot concede her parental control. The authoritarian parenting style is commonly characterized as low in support, but high in control (Baumrind, 1967). In other words, authoritarian parents are demanding and not excessively responsive to children. When exposed to an authoritarian parenting style, children typically follow strict rules established by parents, and failure to follow the rules may result in punishment. In this episode of Modern Family, children are threatened with the loss of privileges if they do not follow family rules. Authoritarian parents

[9.17] [9.18]

[9.19]

[9.20] [9.21]

[9.22]

DRAFT

We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore

[9.23]

expect their orders to be followed without offering a rationale or an explana­ tion. This is evidenced in Claire’s “I told you so” response to questioning by her children. While Claire adopts an authoritarian parenting style in this particular episode, this is not always characteristic of her parenting style. She is flexible and accommodating in her style as the circumstances warrant her to change. Baumrind (1967) noted that children of parents using an authoritarian style tend to be obedient, but report low levels of happiness, and self­esteem. While the Dunphy children are obedient, they are seemingly normal in their self­esteem and satisfaction with family interactions. As a result, one may conclude that Claire does not always encompass an authoritarian approach, but incorporates other styles as well. Throughout the series, the viewer sees Claire as a responsive parent who is authoritative in nature. Authoritative Style Similar to the authoritarian style, authoritative parents also value the estab­ lishment of clear rules and guidelines. However, the authoritative style is more democratic than the authoritarian style. Parents who adopt an authori­ tarian approach may be characterized as high in both parental support and parental control (Baumrind, 1967). In “Baby on Board” (S. 3, Ep. 24, 2012), Claire and Phil worry about their oldest daughter, Alex, who is nearing high school graduation but has not yet decided if she wants to attend college and who has decided to forego attending her senior prom. Her parents attempt to talk her into going to prom, focusing on the memories that she will miss by skipping this momentous occasion. Despite the points raised by her parents, Alex remains committed to her decision not to attend the prom. While Phil and Claire believe that she is making a mistake that she may later regret, they support their daughter’s decision. By doing so, they exhibit their commit­ ment to open communication and their responsiveness to the emotional needs of their daughter. In the same episode, Alex and her boyfriend reveal their decision to move in together after Alex graduates from high school. After their initial shock and disappointment, Claire and Phil focus on dissuading their daughter from this decision. They communicate that despite the fact that their expectations have been violated, they will continue to provide nurturing and support. In comedic fashion, they attempt to control Alex’s decision by illustrating the challenges and disappointments she could potentially face if she were to move in with her boyfriend instead of furthering her education. This episode, like many others, demonstrates the authoritative style of pa­ renting often practiced by the Dunphys. Phil and Claire clearly provided clear expectations and standards for chil­ dren, but are more forgiving and nurturing when Alex does not meet their expectations. In true authoritative fashion, they exhibit flexibility in adopting

[9.24] [9.25]

[9.26]

Candice Thomas­Maddox and Nicole Blau

DRAFT

assertive and supportive communication as the situation warrants. Research indicates that authoritative parenting styles regularly result in children who are happy, capable, and successful (Maccoby, 1992). In true sitcom fashion, the conclusion of the episode shows Alex receiving her college acceptance letter and her subsequent decision to forego her plans to move in with her boyfriend. Not only do parenting styles fluctuate depending on the situation, but conflict may ensue when each parent may chooses to adopt different parent­ ing styles for the same situation. In “Dance Dance Revelation” (S. 2, Ep. 10, 2010), Mitch and Cam encounter disciplinary issues with their daughter, Lily. Initially, when it is brought to their attention that Lily bit another child on the playground, Mitch and Cam vehemently deny that their “perfect an­ gel” could possibly hurt another child. A short time later, Lily bites Cam in the car on their way home and forces the parents to realize that they must deal with her behavior. While Mitch is focused on identifying the reason Lily has started biting people, Cam defends and justifies her behavior as a normal reaction that is the result of toddler teething. While both men agree that they must discourage Lily’s behavior, they differ in their parenting styles for addressing the situation. Mitch researches anti­biting techniques and sug­ gests they put pepper in her mouth to teach her a lesson. His authoritarian approach emphasizes high demand and control, while Cam insists they show­ er Lily with love in the hope that this will deter her biting, and he shares a song he wrote that discourages biting to persuade Lily in a loving, highly responsive style. The episode illustrates the competing styles asserted by each of Lily’s dads. Throughout the series, Mitch leans toward an authorita­ tive style with authoritarian tendencies in certain situations, and Cam favors a more permissive style of parenting. Permissive Style In “Tableau Vivant” (S. 3, Ep. 23, 2012), Cam and Lily visit Claire. Like many young girls her age, Lily has a mind of her own and keeps turning on and off the lights. Annoyed, Claire tells Lily to stop playing with the light switches, and Cam informs Claire that they are trying a new parenting meth­ od in which refrain from using the word “no.” Rather, their goal is to redirect Lily toward a new activity, in this case it is to refocus her attention to music. After their attempt to get Lily to listen to music fails, Claire suggests she take a nap. Cam’s permissive style is evidenced once again as he informs Claire that Lily is permitted to make her own decisions, and they should refrain from directing her to nap until she chooses to do so. Permissive parents impart few demands upon children and may be de­ scribed as high in parental support, but low in parental control (Baumrind, 1967). Moreover, permissive parents infrequently discipline children. As evi­

[9.27]

[9.28] [9.29]

[9.30]

DRAFT

We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore

[9.31]

denced in Cam’s parenting style, he is extremely supportive of his daughter and encourages her to make her own decisions. Through his promotion of her autonomy, he exhibits low parental control by neglecting to implement disci­ plinary actions for her poor behavior. By not imparting demands on Lily, Cam attempts to nurture his daughter and responds to her wishes by permit­ ting her to behave as she chooses. This is consistent with past research (see Baumrind, 1967) that describes permissive parents as being extremely nur­ turing and often perceived as attempting to be a child’s friend, more so than a parent figure. While a permissive parenting style may be effective when a child is older, there are potential negative effects when the child is small. In fact, Baumrind (1967) found that permissive parenting styles might result in children reporting low levels of happiness and self­regulation. In the case of Modern Family, and Lily’s upbringing specifically, Cam’s nurturing style and lack of parental control could result in behavioral challenges as she grows older. Fortunately, Mitch’s authoritative style provides the balance required to provide Lily with a loving, nurturing childhood that teaches the value of discipline. When Baumrind (1967) initially advanced the three parenting styles pre­ viously addressed, many parents fit into one or more of the styles. In many families, each parent will practice a different style, balancing out the overall upbringing of the child. One style that did not receive much research, howev­ er, included the most “hands off” parenting style: neglectful. Uninvolved/Neglectful Style More than a decade later than the formative work in parenting styles, Macco­ by and Martin (1983) added on a fourth style. This style is referred to as uninvolved or neglectful. The uninvolved parenting style may be depicted as low in both parental demand and communicative responsiveness with chil­ dren. When parents are uninvolved or neglectful, the basic needs of the child are fulfilled, but involvement in a child’s life is minimal. As a consequence, many children of uninvolved parents are inclined to be low in self­esteem and self­control. It is fortunate that given the widespread viewership of Modern Family, few examples of uninvolved or neglectful parenting are depicted. Parents are portrayed as involved in their relationships with children in each of the family units. Only one instance of the uninvolved parenting style has been alluded to in the series—that is represented by the biological mother of Claire and Mitch. While this may be due to the fact that she is not a primary character in the series, comments made by Claire allude to the fact that she perceives her mother as adopting the neglectful style during her formative years. In “Princess Party” (S. 2, Ep. 15, 2011), Claire and Mitch’s mother brings an announced guest with her during a visit with her family—Claire’s

[9.32] [9.33]

[9.34]

Candice Thomas­Maddox and Nicole Blau

DRAFT

high school boyfriend, Rob. Not only does she invite Rob to dinner, she also fails to inform him that Claire is now married with three children. This is only one example of the lack of emotional responsiveness that Claire’s moth­ er exhibits throughout the episode. Statements are made that allude to the fact that her mother was somewhat uninvolved in Claire’s life. In fact, her mother describes her inability to communicate with Claire when she was younger, resulting in her reading Claire’s diary and later using the information against her. In Modern Family a variety of parenting styles are portrayed. While there may be overlap between styles depending on the context or situation, one parent may demonstrate a preference for one parenting style, while the other parent practices another. Parenting styles can certainly have an impact on both the nuclear and extended family systems. McFarlane, Bellissimo, and Norman (1995) reported that parenting styles have been recognized as the main predictor of family functioning and wellbeing in adolescents. An im­ portant element to consider is that one’s parenting style will reflect his or her cultural background, personal experience, and belief system. In the final segment of this chapter, the influence of culture will be examined as por­ trayed in Modern Family. Gay Parenting Styles As the U.S. embraces more liberal philosophical perspectives, the traditional communication challenges facing gay and lesbian couples are experiencing a transition. Such diversity in the family system is more accepted than it was twenty years ago, but to some, there is still stigma attached to families including homosexual parents. Questions often surface regarding the parent­ ing style of gay parents as compared to heterosexual couples. Fortuitously, research has been conducted to investigate such comparisons (Lewin, 1981). Considering said research, there is no evidence to suggest that gay partners parent differently or with less competence than heterosexual parents (Lewin, 1981; Patterson, 1992; Tasker & Patterson, 2007). Gay parents often turn to adoption to build their families. Leung, Erich, and Kanenberg conducted a study in 2005 comparing homosexual and heterosexual families, and found no negative effects for children adopted by gay parents. Thus, support to combat antiquated myths about the impact of gay culture on children was presented. No matter the amount of existing evidence suggesting gay parenting does not present developmental problems for children, people often do not know how to identify with gay parents. We see this happening throughout the series with Mitch and Cam, gay parents to daughter Lily. One instance oc­ curs in season two of Modern Family (“Mothers Day,” 2011), Mitch sur­ prises Cam with breakfast in bed on Mother’s Day. Quickly, Cam becomes

[9.35]

[9.36] [9.37]

[9.38]

DRAFT

We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore

[9.39]

upset because he thinks Mitch perceives him as the “mother” in the relation­ ship. Later that day, the two meet up with their playgroup in the park and, again, Cam is treated like the “mom” while Mitch is treated like the “dad.” Mitch explains to Cam that they are not the traditional family, and as a result outsiders have a difficult time understanding them. To make sense of both parents being male, others need to label them as they would heterosexual mothers and fathers. Whether parents are gay, lesbian, or heterosexual, scholars have argued that what matters most is love and caring of the parents, as opposed to sexual orientation (Patterson, 1992; Tasker & Patterson, 2007). In another season two episode (“Princess Party,” 2011), Mitch and Cam are preparing for their daughter, Lily’s, birthday party. Cam wants to attend the princess­theme party dressed as a clown. Mitch vehemently disagrees and begs Cam to attend the party simply as Lily’s parent, as opposed to an entertainer. Instead, Mitch hires a princess to entertain the children and Cam is annoyed during the entire party. The party is a humorous dramatization of two parents at­ tempting to give their daughter a fabulous birthday party, as parents of all types do on a daily basis. In the end, Lily’s happiness is the ultimate goal for both Mitch and Cam and they are successful in providing a happy birthday for their daughter. Latino Parenting Styles In Modern Family, we see cultural diversity within one extended family. We have the traditional, nuclear Dunphy family, the homosexual Tucker­Pritch­ ett family, and the intercultural Pritchett family. Perhaps the most intriguing family dynamic of them all, Jay and Gloria Pritchett are not close in age, and Gloria introduces her Latino culture to the family at every available opportu­ nity. According to Bigner and Jacobsen (1989), it has been reported that by the year 2056, today's ethnic minorities will comprise the majority of the U.S. population. Unfortunately, research on parenting styles of Latino samples has been sparse and equivocal in nature (Rodriguez, Donovick & Crowley, 2009). Moreover, available literature on Latino parenting is inconsistent. While some researchers characterize Latinos as permissive (Julian, McKenry & McKelvey, 1994), others claim that Latino parents are more authoritarian (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Hammer & Turner, 1990). The beautiful and humorous Gloria in Modern Family is 100% Colum­ bian. Through her thick accent and interesting ways of communicating, clear­ ly Gloria is proud to be Latino. She consistently dotes on her son, Manny, and is always urging her husband to also be sensitive when interacting with her son. As illustrated in the show, Gloria uses a permissive parenting style since her son behaves very maturely for his age. In an attempt to protect her

[9.40] [9.41]

[9.42]

[9.43]

Candice Thomas­Maddox and Nicole Blau

DRAFT

son from any emotional struggle, she rarely speaks negatively or points out flaws to him. In “Mother’s Day” (S. 2, Ep. 21, 2011), Claire and Gloria take the chil­ dren hiking on Mother’s Day to spend a peaceful day outside with nature. Throughout the hike the children continuously whine and complain of bore­ dom. As a result, Claire and Gloria become frustrated and decide to finish their hike sans the children. When they reach the top of the canyon, Claire confides to Gloria her periodic frustration with her children. True to her style, Gloria becomes extremely protective of Manny and states that they should refrain from talking negatively about their children. Moreover, Gloria points out that Manny is the perfect child and denies ever experiencing any irritation with his behavior. Claire disagrees with Gloria, and after a pause Gloria admits that her son annoys her sometimes. As she vents a bit about Manny, she comes to the realization that he eavesdropped, and she has hurt his feelings. Instantly, Gloria tries to backtrack and explain away what Man­ ny had just heard her say about him. She quickly reverts to her typical nurturing style and tries to overcompensate by communicating warmth. Con­ sistent with past research, Gloria may be characterized as protective, both physically and emotionally, of Manny. Rodriguez and colleagues (2009) found that approximately 61% of Latino parents are considered “protective parents.” When applying the four tradi­ tional parenting styles addressed in this chapter, only one­third of Latino families could be accounted for. As a result, it was suggested that the tradi­ tional parenting styles do not adequately capture Latino families. Perhaps a more accurate way to conceptualize parenting styles of Latinos would be to use the dimensions of parting styles: warmth, level of demand, and autonomy (Barber, 1997; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Stewart and Bond (2002) argued that parenting dimensions (as opposed to parenting styles) are universal; thus, may be superior indicators of parenting behaviors particularly when examining parenting styles in diverse family systems. As seen through the framework of the popular television show Modern Family, family systems are becoming more diverse each day, and parenting styles will differ not only from culture to culture, but within the context of one family. CONCLUSION Throughout this chapter, issues of diversity as portrayed on ABC’s Modern Family have been discussed. In particular, the importance of examining the influences of both cultural diversity as well as structural diversity have been emphasized, as they have substantial influence on the creation of the core family culture and resulting interactions among its members. Considered to

[9.44]

[9.45]

[9.46] [9.47]

DRAFT

We’re Not Like the Cleavers Anymore

be innovative in its willingness to address the communicative challenges facing diverse families, the sitcom presents viewers with options for adapting parenting styles to accommodate the needs of diverse family structures and cultural foundations. Considering a specific context, there may be advantages and disadvantages attributed to each style. No matter which parenting style chosen, parenting may be considered the single most important undertaking in a person’s life. As the appearance of the family system is constantly in flux, the importance of the value and importance of parenting in diverse families remains unchanged.

DRAFT

Epilogue

The Future and Multicultural Parenting

DRAFT

Chapter Ten

“Do!mam"# Çocu!a Don Biçmek”
Visions of a Multicultural Family Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

[10.0]

[10.1]

Do!mam"# ço!cu!a don biçmek is a Turkish idiom, which when transliterat­ ed, would mean “to measure underwear for the unborn child.” In Turkey, this idiom usually refers to a premature behavior or a conversation on a very uncertain subject. One simply cannot “measure” underwear for the unborn child, since that child does not yet exist and cannot have measurements, rendering the very thought or act of doing so, pointless. What we would learn from this idiom, then, is that talking about something that has not yet hap­ pened is meaningless, useless, and stupid. This chapter, however, aims to contest the idiom by doing precisely what it condemns: talk about an unborn child in length and in detail. It not only attempts to dissolve the myth the Turkish idiom suggests, but it also demonstrates how useful and necessary the talk about an unborn child can be for couples—especially those with very diverse cultural backgrounds. This chapter presents the contemplation of an intercultural couple—we the authors—on the transition to parenthood. As we are writing this chapter, we are approaching our first wedding anniversary, and the social pressure on having a baby, as if it was a natural outcome of being married, is only increasing over time. Being a family with children feels like a big transition for us, especially for the husband. That is why, to be prepared, we started talking about it. In this chapter, we share with you our conversations, and argue that delineating a common vision of the family with a child before actually making that transition is crucial for any future parent, especially for partners with very different cultural backgrounds. A Turkish Muslim hus­ band (Ali) and an Albanian Christian wife (Joris) living and working in the U.S. seem to present a couple with an overwhelming conjuncture of differ­

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

ences and not many similarities. Nevertheless, our contemplations and con­ versations taught us that the identification of similarities is the foundation of the whole implicit or explicit negotiation of differences. This realization came from addressing the following questions: What does the transition to parenthood look like for us? What scares and what excites us in this process? What problems do we anticipate as an intercultural couple and how do we envision our solutions? The chapter is organized in two main parts. In the first part, we examine the meaning of culture for us through autoethnographic narratives: what it means to be Albanian Christian for Joris and what it means to be Turkish Muslim for Ali. In these self­reflective stories we present our interpretations of culture and the cultural or intercultural context, as well as identity. The second part briefly reviews relevant literature on intercultural couples and the challenges they face as parents, especially when they want to transmit certain cultural values and practices. While scholars have hinted at attempts of inter­ cultural couples to create and transmit a new blended culture, they have not elaborated extensively on the conditions for, processes to and meaning of this blending. With our vision of “blended heritage,” informed by the reflections in the first part of the chapter, we propose a new conceptualization of the phenomenon. We conclude with our critical reflection on couplehood: what it entails, and how and when parenthood starts. This conversation made us question the assumption that the transition from couplehood to parenthood happens always when the child is born, and urged us to call for more close examination of when and how intercultural couples experience this transi­ tion. The conversations and reflections we present in this chapter recommend the usefulness and necessity of taking measures for an unborn child. They address the complexity of cultural construction through blended heritage, and suggest identifying a common vision of a family to better manage potential conflicts and problems in the future when raising the child. JORIS: BEING ALBANIAN‑CHRISTIAN I am not comfortable talking about culture and defining derived terms like intercultural or multicultural. My irritation with this term comes from an immense literature on the phenomenon that uses the term inconsistently and mainly treats culture as a special process, different and separate from others. Culture is around us and we owe who we think we are, and what we think we know, to culture. However, we could say the same thing for the social. It is not helpful using the term culture without clarifying what makes it so differ­ ent, unique and special from other social processes. How does the cultural

[10.2]

[10.3]

[10.4] [10.5]

DRAFT

“Do"mam#$ Çocu"a Don Biçmek”

[10.6]

[10.7]

[10.8]

differ from the social? Can we say that there are things that are social but not cultural and others that are cultural but not social? Is everything social also cultural and everything cultural also social? One way of making them differ­ ent, analytically, and perhaps to some degree artificially, is to think of the cultural as the result of social processes in the past, and the social as that of processes in the present that build over the cultural and shape it too. The analogy of a river may help clarify the cultural and the social as time­ bound processes. The river could be seen as having three components: the earth, the water, and the living organisms. I would like to think of the earth as the cultural, the water as the social and the living organisms as us, the human beings. The living organisms owe their life form and shape to the earth and the water but these two also affect one another since the earth is not fixed—it is changing as the result of the sedimentations brought by the flowing water. The water carries nutrients from the earth and also other places but it gains much of its properties and compositional elements as river water from the earth. And the living beings may be more tied to the earth (plants) but also more mobile and linked to the water (fish) and normally both are key to what the organism is and sees itself to be. While I might be going too far with this metaphor, I want to draw attention to how problematic and difficult it is to define “culture” and the cultural: “It is impossible to separate the cultural from the personal” (Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005, p. 130). It might be more useful to think of culture as a process. It is the river itself as a whole: a set of social processes in time with elements having some more sedimentary features as a result of past processes, and others more fluid as a result of present everyday ongoing interactions. Though all is a flow, we reduce it, knowingly or unknowingly, into fixities, parts, elements and points in time, to make our life comprehensible. In this context, I see my husband and I as an intercultural union not only because we have a different language, religion, and ethnicity—what most scholars in intercultural communication have focused on (McFadden & Moore, 2001; Molina, Estrada & Burnett, 2004; Baltas & Steptoe, 2000; Joanides, Mayhew & Mamalakis, 2002)—but because of “differences in levels of acculturation, social class, and emigra­ tion” and immigration status. The notion of “cultural surround” helps me to understand how it is an interaction of a set of processes in time that shapes us as individuals, and our relationships. Ali and I emerge from different cultural surrounds from the past that still shape our identity and selves in interaction with our present “cultural surround” (Falicov, 1995; Perel, 2000; Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005, pp. 229–30). Before talking about the intercultural, I want to make sure that I acknowl­ edge this is a term used to highlight an increasing awareness of differences, or awareness of a more diverse set of differences. The emphasis on differ­ ences is the result of the change in the quantity and quality of human contact, as technology has made contact with the unknown and interaction with it

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

more frequent and less avoidable. Making sense of these transformations does not necessarily imply the understanding of culture as something one has, fixed and unchanging. It means recognizing that civilizations have had to notice and manage contact with the “unknown” and make sense of differ­ ences for centuries, and today it is not necessarily more difficult to do this than before—it is just different. Thus, the term ‘intercultural’ is one way of exploring the extent to which the nature of challenges parents face has changed through time. In this context, it would not make sense for me to talk about my identity and my culture as objects that are formed, fixed and not changing. There are probably many aspects of me—my self as a cultural creation—of which I am not aware. Knowing oneself is the ultimate aim of our lives and as we are always becoming, it is an unrealizable goal. I will let my understanding of culture and identity emerge from and even be shaped by this self­reflection and the deliberations I have with Ali and my imagined audience. I will tell a story of my culture, and myself, using a language that reduces processes into objects and time into instances and periods. But, hopefully this will not overshadow the idea that it is my story as a whole (how I talk about events and which events I talk about) that will make you see my culture, as a woman, a wife, and future mother. My background in terms of facts and events reflects a lot of diversity. I was born in Korce, Albania, on July 20, 1986. At the time, my mother worked as an accountant and my father was a university professor. I am the older child of the family; my younger sister was born in 1990. My father died when I was 14 years old. That same year I won a scholarship to go to a private high school in the capital Tirana. My mother decided that we would all move to Tirana since my grandparents (her parents) were also there. I went to a four­year Turkish girls­only boarding school, where all sciences were taught in English, humanities in Albanian, and there were compulsory foreign language courses in Turkish, English, and German (in the final two years). After graduating from high school, I went to Ankara, Turkey, with a government scholarship to study International Relations. At the end of my undergraduate studies, I received a scholarship for a master’s program in International Political Economy at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). I met my future husband in Turkey but our relation­ ship developed through Skype, as we were far apart for one year. The sum­ mer before graduating from LSE, Ali’s parents asked for my hand in Tirana, Albania, and we got engaged. That year I went to the United States as a visiting researcher at the Central Asia and Caucasus Institute (CACI), SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. In 2010, I started a Ph.D. program in Sociology at the University of Virginia (UVA), and at the end of my first year we got married in Ankara, Turkey. We have been living together for two­and­a­half

[10.9]

[10.10]

DRAFT

“Do"mam#$ Çocu"a Don Biçmek”

[10.11]

[10.12]

years; both doctoral students with diverse backgrounds and rich life experi­ ences. Despite this rich diverse background, my understanding of family has strong shades of the bright colors of my childhood experience: full of warmth, love, joy, and happiness. I remember and appreciate a number of family rituals even today: going to church (Greek Orthodox) on Thursday nights with my mother and on Sundays with my father, eating nearly all meals together, having the Turkish coffee time after lunch, and going out to parks, shopping in the city’s market and preparing special meals on week­ ends with my mother. When it came to cooking, my father’s specials were papare (dry bread pieces fried with butter, water to soften them, and cheese when available) for breakfast, fried eggs and omelets, cheese plates, and tomato sauce. My mother was the main cook, and her specials were trehana (soup from a dried yoghurt­tomato sauce­flour mixture) for breakfast, lakror (Albanian regional pie where dough was worked and opened by hand with different type of fillings), pasta with minced meat and tomato sauce, and fried qofte (special kind of Albanian hand­made meatballs). When my sister and I were still young, in order to have more regular and shorter working hours and to be closer to us, my mother finished a second degree in pedagogy and started working as a schoolteacher. It was also a kind of family tradition to be in the education field. Both my parents’ families were full of educators: my grandmother a kindergarten instructor, my grandfather a biology teacher, my father’s uncle a university professor, my aunt a math teacher, my uncle a physics teacher, etc. My family was not very outgoing, and I remember rarely eating outside or going on long vacations. I remember a small family, which cared a lot about what others would say, following traditions, and working hard for the best and to be the best. My mother was the one follow­ ing us closely, staying by our side when we did homework, and she was the tough judge that gave permission to go or not go somewhere but she also was a strong woman with a spirit of initiative, great courage, and classic taste. On the other side, I remember my father being the one you would go for full support, moderation, and understanding; he was modest, hard working, hon­ est, and calm. My relationships with people from different backgrounds and my every­ day life experiences in different countries have made me reflect carefully on my identity and think critically about differences. I have understood that reference categories used to describe who somebody is like nationality, race, religious belief, or occupation, are too restrictive, narrow, static, and defi­ cient to tell anything about the fluidity of identity. Though they still contain some “truth”—that of my embeddedness in society and social processes—it has become much more helpful for me to understand these identity categories as temporary strategic communicative tools in my interactions with others, and my self without clear boundaries/borders/definitions, constantly chang­

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

ing—whether I notice it or not. I see “who I am” as the result of a continuous process of becoming not being. The notion of “becoming”—the idea that one is never fully formed or an unchanging self—in contrast to that of “being,” which implies the completeness and static nature of the self, helps me be aware of the temporality of identity and understand it as process in time (Macann, 2007). But, it is not easy to live with the understanding that each individual is a process and selves are constantly changing especially when human learning happens through objectifications and fixities. The tendency to classify, cate­ gorize, define through establishing similarities and differences for most peo­ ple is difficult to resist. We do this most of the time trying to classify our­ selves and understand who we are in fixed essentialist terms, within certain given supposedly eternal boundaries. The problem is that even if one be­ comes aware of the fallacy of reducing processes into objects, it is still very difficult to teach other people not to classify, judge you and ignore your potentiality for change and development; in other words, to treat you as a process, a being becoming. How do you translate your experience of becom­ ing to others when they chase understanding through objectification, stabil­ ization, and normalization of everything? What could help avoid the reductionism of categories will be the recogni­ tion that nationality, religion, profession, and marital status as classifications tell only a small part of my story. I would be typically identified as Albanian, Christian Orthodox, doctoral student, living in the United States married to a Turkish person; and would be expected to highlight the uniqueness of each of these categories. Differences, though, are relative, and my life experience informs my perception of differences that matter and the meaning of each category I could use to describe myself. For example, I do not see myself first and foremost as Albanian, or Christian Orthodox, or married, or a gradu­ ate student. While being Albanian and Christian mean something to me, I have come to see myself more as an intellectual, a thinker, and a lover above all. And this is the result of several experiences: disappointment with the system in Albania, its politics and politicians who seem to care little about constructive change; recognizing the commonalities of different religious beliefs and respecting their humanity instead of different denominations; being successful as an independent woman; enjoying learning overall; and as a student of life, appreciating the beauty of small things. As my child will be expected to talk and know about these categories wherever we live, here is what I would like him/her to know about my being Albanian and Christian Orthodox. Being Albanian for me is speaking the language—Albanian. This also means singing its songs, dancing its folk dances, tasting and appreciating its food, and valuing sincere friendship, being a good host, keeping your promises, and finding courage in any situa­ tion. So I will cook, sing and dance for my children the Albanian ways, and

[10.13]

[10.14]

[10.15]

DRAFT

“Do"mam#$ Çocu"a Don Biçmek”

[10.16]

[10.17]

[10.18]

teach them to join me in these traditions, of cooking Albanian food, singing Albanian songs, and dancing some folk dances. Living for some time in Albania would be helpful in this regard. As a Christian Orthodox, however, I would present myself as a believer in God—a force we as human beings cannot understand but that knows best and works to help us all. I would explain to my child that his/her mother goes to a space called a Greek Ortho­ dox Church because that was where she used to go with her mother, to pray and concentrate their communication with God. Nevertheless, the child will be exposed to many other voices besides mine: grandparents, aunts, friends in school, the neighborhood, which will not make easy for us to be an influential force shaping his/her culture. He/she will be pressured to talk about differences in a different way not as his family taught him, to see differences as similarities in a “blended heritage.” To what extent will our teachings at early age influence his/her perceptions of differ­ ences and reactions to them we cannot know for sure, as society, the times and space he/she lives in, can extensively shape his/her cultural being. What may help strengthen our presence as parents in our child’s cultural becoming is the ability to establish family rituals and traditions/practices (Bennett, Wolin & McAvity, 1988), things we do and enjoy together on a regular basis. In this process, I think it is important not to see our couple identity as being transformed into a completely new identity—parent iden­ tity. Instead, we could see this only as an extension of the existing family identity we as a couple started to establish when we got married. In Turkish a married couple is told to think of itself as having become a “cekirdek aile”— the nuclear family, which will grow and gain new dimensions when it has children. But the point is that the idea of being a family starts with that of being a couple. Albanian families would traditionally view relationships with this understanding of a serious commitment that is signaled especially by marriage. This might be a starting point: creating a space and environment through rituals out of the similarities we value and the blended heritage we see in our cekirdek aile, as a couple and a family. Within this environment built on the awareness and realization of similarities it would be ideal to teach and com­ municate to the child our understanding, interpretation, and perception of differences. Such a space we co­create through common practices and re­ peated family interactions will hopefully provide a context for communicat­ ing respect for differences, and their perception as opportunities to learn and grow spiritually as well as socially, in peace with others.

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

ALI: BEING TURKISH‑MUSLIM The most important aspect of my self­concept rests on being a critical scholar and a thinker. Being Turkish and Muslim, while these influence my life, are not primary aspects of my daily consciousness. While it was not always like this, and there was a time where I was first a Turkish­Muslim, then every­ thing else, this changed over time. I lived through series of events that shaped my identity, culture and sense of self toward opposing directions in the timeframe of ten years. I realized that I was indeed Turkish and Muslim when I first came to the U.S. after finishing high school in 2002. I was accepted to Penn State Univer­ sity to study electrical engineering (a mistake, which I later corrected by switching to philosophy) and the immediate lack of a “Muslim­Turkish envi­ ronment” started affecting me. Although I did not explicitly think either of religion or my nationality up to that moment in my life, something was missing in Central Pennsylvania. I realized that I did not hear the calls for prayer five times a day, there was not an overabundance of kebob shops on the streets, and, very interestingly, everyone was obeying traffic rules. The loud calls for prayer and the overly chaotic traffic, which are usually sources of complaint in Turkey, became sources of longing as well as a different lens through which I saw myself and the world: I first realized that I was in a different culture. At the time, I was interpreting these differences as something fixed and permanent. I saw these differences as if they were engrained in us, as inert objects. I thought they were static and the best we could do was to tolerate these differences between us, the environment and other people. This view of culture not only equated culture with nation­state, but also treated it “as an instrumental set of rules” (Moon, 2010, p. 35). The misperception I had then depicted culture as a fixed, unchanging collective and personal mental space (Starosta, 2006, p. 65). This lead me to feel trapped in a Hofstedian dystopia. I was just too collectivistic compared to the individualistic culture in the U.S.: I was seek­ ing companionship as I was used to experiencing it back home, but people in the U.S. were solitary. I missed the food, the music, and, admittedly, the traffic. Questions from my classmates regarding if I was used to riding cam­ els or if I treated women as slaves only helped to further solidify my under­ standing of culture as series of fixed and irreconcilable differences. Toward the end of my graduation, I even began defending a strong nationalistic stance and ideology, informed by my interpretation of experiences I had in the last four­and­a­half years. However, my interpretation of who I am began to change after I began studying conflict analysis for my master’s degree. Through the classes I took

[10.19] [10.20]

[10.21]

[10.22]

[10.23]

[10.24]

DRAFT

“Do"mam#$ Çocu"a Don Biçmek”

[10.25]

[10.26]

on identity, culture, and conflict, I learned that my feelings of longing toward Turkey, belonging, protection, and sacrifice were very predictable. Social psychologists called these feelings “salience of social identity” and empha­ sized factors such as intergroup comparisons, intra­group boundaries, per­ ception of difference, and socialization (Korostelina, 2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), that increased or decreased the salience. At that time, I believed that my perception of difference between my environment and myself increased the saliency of my Turkish­Muslim identity. Consequently, I was more in­ clined have positive ingroup evaluation (Phinney, 1991) and negative out­ group perception (Volkan, 1998; 2004). As a result of my studies in social psychology and ethnic and cultural conflicts—and after seeing the accurate predictability of emotions that I thought were mine and thus unique—I began a period of vigorous self­ deconstruction. This stage, where I tried to unlearn every bit of knowledge and reverse the feelings of longing and belonging toward my nationality, was indeed quite painful. The most important moment within this period hap­ pened during a field study in Cyprus. Although it is impossible to summarize the conflict in Cyprus in couple of sentences, it is important only to mention that currently the island is physically divided into two due to a dispute between Turkey and Greece. While the Turkish Republic claims that North­ ern Cyprus is a separate state, Greece does not recognize this separation and suggests that Turkish forces have been standing on the island as invaders. That being said, throughout my childhood, I was raised with the stories of how Greek­Cypriots were massacring Cypriot­Turks and how our brave army rushed in and saved our kin when the time came. We were innocent and they were guilty. We were brave and they were cowards. We were right and they were wrong. My field study in Cyprus took place in both sides of the border. During my interviews not only have I learned that Turkish­Cypriots also regarded Turkish Army as an invading force, but also I have seen nu­ merous mass graves on both sides of the border. This was but one example of how I was misled and misinformed by my own country’s education system. This further meant that I couldn’t trust any other information I was fed over the years. My senses of love, trust, and belonging were turning into senses of outrage, betrayal, and separation. This resulted in my disassociation with the Turkish identity, and the adop­ tion on my side of a critical stance toward Turkish politics, society, and culture. My critical stance also altered my understanding of culture. Based on mentioned experiences of ideological impositions through the historical sto­ ries in the education system and how the environment enforces these imposi­ tions in day­to­day interaction, culture makes more sense as a rhetorical process (Oliver, 1971; Starosta, 2006; Strecker & Tyler, 2009) in which relations of power, ongoing contestations of identity, and struggles of defin­ ing as well as shaping the culture unfold in a given context (Nakayama &

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

Halualani, 2011; Martin & Nakayama, 2009). Culture as a rhetorical process means that cultural practices, unwritten rules and dos and don’ts, are modes of persuasion, shared and practiced rhetorics—which might compel our envi­ ronment to marginalize or to other us if we do not display obedience and compliance to dominance. Therefore, the person who asks any variation of the question “what is Turkish culture?” to me might not receive the cookie cutter answer he or she was looking for. Instead, they might first hear a statement regarding how there is not one single Turkish culture, but variety of cultures depending on how people interpret and live the process of being Turkish based on their own contexts. Later, they might hear a personalized version of how I interpret Turkish culture in my day­to­day life, which is based on food, friendship, and criticism. Food and friendship are seldom apart in Turkey. Turkish word for “friend” is arkada#. While arka literally means “back,” ­da# is a suffix that marks commonality. If you are ada# with someone, where ad means name, it signifies that you share the same name. If you are vatanda# with a person or with a group of people, where vatan means country, it signifies you are from the same country. Arkada# is a bit more metaphorical in its use of the root word arka, or “back.” “Back” signifies reliability in worst circumstances. To turn your back to someone suggests you trust him or her not to stab you in the back. That is, if you lean your back against someone, metaphorically, it means you trust that person with your life. If that person does the same to you and, therefore, you “share a back,” in other words “stand back to back,” you become arkada#, you mutually lean your backs against each other. This implies high degree of trust, love, and understanding. Moreover, in almost all geographical and cultural regions of Turkey, it is nearly impossible to eat alone. Most recipes call for food made “for the table,” later to be shared. It is also rare to come across traditional recipes in which one person, by herself, can eat the amount of the final product. The experience of eating and drink­ ing, with its rituals, calls for a multitude of “friends.” Therefore, the most important aspects of my interpretation of Turkish culture suggest intimacy, trust, love, and sharing with a close group of people. This interpretation of Turkish culture, undoubtedly, is a trait I have learned from my family. As I was growing up, we always either had guests at home for dinner or went to dinners at homes of friends and family. So much so that, try as might, I hardly recall a weekend where we sat at home and ate by ourselves. This cultural heritage I inherited from my family will be one of the most important that I will strive to communicate to our children. While most Turkish people do not separate religion from their national identity, for me those are two very distinct parts of who I am. Although I was raised Muslim, and memorized few prayers over the years, I got involved in religion as a side effect of my studies in philosophy. I was mostly reading Hegel and his writings inspired me to take interest in Sufism, in other words,

[10.27]

[10.28]

DRAFT

“Do"mam#$ Çocu"a Don Biçmek”

[10.29]

Islamic mysticism. I started reading Sufi scholars who date back to 10th and 13th centuries and got captivated in their language as well as their profound interpretation of Quranic verses. Not only they were different from the com­ mon wisdom of religion revolving around othering and polarizing discourses, but also they were suggesting interpretations of verses that promoted under­ standing, peace, and acceptance of the Other as oneself. Studying Sufi think­ ers, mainly Ibn­Arabi, Bektash­i Veli, Yunus Emre, Edip Harabi, and Rumi, did propel me toward having a life­goal of promoting coexistence and social harmony. Therefore, my understanding of Turkish culture is based on friendship and food; and my interpretation of Islam rests on working toward peace. How I interpret Turkish culture stems from my parents. While it might seem as if the other half of what I consider to be my cultural influence comes from my studies, my parents again have a big role. Their critical and skeptical stance toward political events, which they would talk around the dinner table, helped me through my transition period. Many conversations we had at the dinner table when I was much younger provided a model for me in which all of the above aspects of culture come together: being critical of power struc­ tures, thinking about politics, family life, sharing food, and love. (OUR) BLENDED HERITAGE The literature on intercultural couples has focused on two main tasks: iden­ tifying differences that become a source of conflict and marital distress, as well as recording strategies couples use to manage these problematic differ­ ences. Scholars notice that differences do not necessarily lead to conflict and distress. It is their perception as sources of problem or opportunity (Breger & Hill, 1998; Falicov, 1995; Perel, 2000; Karis & Killian, 2009; Romano, 2008; Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005; Heller & Wood, 2007) that makes some “differences making a difference” (Bateson, 1979, p. 6). When recognized as important in the process of everyday life, these differences are negotiated both within the couple as well as outside it, in interactions with the broader social environment like families, acquaintances, and others circles in com­ munity and neighborhood (Bystydzienski, 2011). Research in intercultural communication and marital counseling has drawn attention to different ways in which couples negotiate and even reinvent differences under varying circumstances (Bustamante, Nelson, Henriksen & Monakes, 2011; Bystyd­ zienski, 2011; Crippen & Brew, 2007). While existing research helps understand the complexity of intercultural relationships, it does not adequately address the role awareness and identifi­ cation of similarities play in establishing and developing a couple/family

[10.30] [10.31]

[10.32]

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

identity or culture. This is the ultimate basis over which any constructive negotiation and reinvention or reframing of differences is possible. Noting down similarities needs to be seen as a way of creating a common vision about the future—parenting included. It should be much more emphasized as it offers the opportunity for couples to face the challenge of managing differ­ ences with a stronger sense of unity and couple identity. This first step is essential to establishing what Falicov (1995, p. 245) called a “balanced inter­ cultural couple” by further integrating cultural differences, seeing them as opportunities to learn and grow, and ideally “creating a new set of values or new frameworks for interacting” that blend, expand, or transform cultural perspectives within their unique relationship (Bustamante et al., 2011, p. 160). In other words, by highlighting similarities and talking about their common vision as a family, partners build on their capabilities to successful­ ly construct a “third culture” (Casmir, 1993), a “transcultural family system” (Crohn, 1998; Falicov, 1995; Perel, 2000; Crippen & Brew, 2007, p. 112), a distinct “relational culture” (Wood, 2000), or “coconstruct their unique mari­ tal subculture” (Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005, pp. 239–40). This is vital to the process of developing a new family identity that integrates and reflects both partners (Bennett et al., 1988) without loss or assimilation of identity for any of them (Bystydzienski, 2011). It is also a reminder of the fact that couples use more than one strategy to cope with differences, and emphasiz­ ing similarities is more than just one of them. A previously delineated com­ mon vision of the family can help better tackle “any unfinished business in defining the family identity” that is revealed by the birth of the child and the childrearing phase (Crohn, 1995, p. 169; Ho, 1990; Mackey & O’Brien, 1998; Crippen & Brew, 2007). This can explain why in some cases children minimize, not exacerbate, the impact of cultural differences (Romano, 2008; Tseng & Hsu, 1991) on couples. In this context, we propose blended heritage as the space or subjective reality parents/couples create, for themselves and for their children, through an ongoing process of emphasizing/using similarities and negotiating differ­ ences between their cultures. This is a dynamic fluid cultural space/environ­ ment (think of the river)—an ongoing process of change—through which cultural transmission to a child becomes possible. Such conceptualization of blended heritage aims to bring forth the idea that talking about the process of parenting itself in advance, identifying the similarities and differences be­ tween each partner’s understanding of parenting attitudes, beliefs, style, practices, and parent­child interactions in different contexts, is key to making the best of the process of parenting as “the primary mechanism for the transmission of cultural values and practices between generations” (Keller et al., 2004; Crippen & Brew, 2007, p. 112). By creating blended heritage, the couple, and in our case the cerkirdek aile, can have a greater impact on the nature and dynamics of the process of cultural education, while at the same

[10.33]

DRAFT

“Do"mam#$ Çocu"a Don Biçmek”

[10.34]

[10.35]

[10.36]

time recognize that this cannot lead to an exact replication of culture in its successive generation (Schonpflug, 2001). The first aspect of our take on blended heritage suggests a process of emphasizing the similarities within the cultural differences. These similar­ ities can be implicit or explicit. Implicit similarities are the ones that appear as differences, especially for an observer unfamiliar with us. Explicit ones, on the other hand, do not need further clarification and are overtly similar. Explicit similarities are quite easy to spot in our narratives. The most impor­ tant component of identity for both of us rests on being a scholar and a thinker. Another explicit similarity is our take on culture as a process, instead of a fixed essentialism. This similarity rests on our shared experience of studying abroad and being international students for almost over 10 years. In addition, we both emphasize the importance of homemade food, friendship, trust, and sincerity as the most important aspects of our cultural heritage. On the other hand, there are implicit similarities. An example to these implicit similarities is our interpretation of our national heritage. While at a first glance there might be a perception of difference between being Turkish or being Albanian, these national identities are not the most salient compo­ nents of our senses of selves. Moreover, we are both skeptical and untrusting toward power structures and systems of control. Therefore, this apparent difference in actuality is an important similarity. For instance, when Joris wants to go to church, Ali does not mind coming along despite the fact that most Turkish­Muslim people would reject going to a temple other than a mosque. Similarly, when Ali wants to fast or read Quran, Joris joins him, although her action might have been considered out­of­the­line in her com­ munity. Since we are both critical toward nationalistic aspect of our identities and treat our religious identities as more spiritual, these apparent differences turn into important similarities. In addition to emphasizing similarities, another aspect of the blended heritage is to deliberate on the differences that are important for us. There are two differences that we negotiated and came to a solution: language and religious practice. We both have different mother tongues, Turkish and Alba­ nian, and we want to raise our future children in the U.S. This, at first, suggests three languages the children must learn as they grow up. Our pri­ mary concern revolved around the question: will the children forget the Alba­ nian and Turkish that are spoken in the house for the English they will use to communicate with friends. After our deliberation, we referred to some of the literature on pedagogy of multilingual children (Barron­Hauwaert, 2004; Bi­ alystok, 1991; Bialystok & Hakuta, 1995; Nicol, 2001). At the end of this research, we decided to employ a “one­person­one­language” (Barron­Hau­ waert, 2004) model. This model suggests that each parent speak his or her own language at home and the child will naturally pick up the language of the environment. In our case, this means mother speaking only Albanian,

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

father speaking only Turkish and the child picking up English as s/he goes along to play. Another important difference for us was religious practices. While one of us is an Orthodox Christian, the other is a Muslim. While we are not so keen regarding which religion should be taught to the future child, the disagreement unfolded mainly about the institutional aspect of the relig­ ious practice. We both agree that the most important part of religious life and teachings are more spiritual than institutional. Joris wishes to go to the church on Sundays with the future child—as a way of keeping alive the tradition she had with her mother. Ali does not trust any religious institution and believes even the act of going to a physical space acknowledges many of the assumptions that are present in the imposing ideology of a religious institution—such as the created need for religious space, clergy, and all the power dynamics these constructions bring. After our deliberation and negoti­ ation of this delicate topic, we agreed on religious practices within the con­ fines of a formal religious institution was acceptable, as long as it was pre­ ceded by a home education regarding both the spiritual aspect of religion and the importance of thinking critically about structures of power. The prospect of a blended heritage, however, needs to place a larger role to the environment beyond parents, particularly with grandparents. Interac­ tions with grandparents are important for the child due to several reasons. Unlike us, neither grandparent lived abroad for the majority of their lives. For that reason, grandparents will be able to better communicate certain traditions and values of their respective cultures to the children that we might not feel necessarily important. Moreover, neither Turkish nor Albanian grandparents can speak any other language than their native languages. Therefore, child­grandparent interaction might be an important factor regard­ ing the language difference we were concerned about. But how is this pos­ sible when grandparents live in their home countries, Albania and Turkey? Here, the importance of communication technologies comes into play. For that end, we will heavily rely on videoconference software. It is not a mys­ tery that such software brings people together who are at different continents and time zones, bending time and space. A more important question for us, however, is how to use this technology. Similar with learning the culture, we both agree that ritualized practices are important part of environment interac­ tion—similar to play and study times. Ritualized video conference call, a certain day of the week for instance, will most likely help the children with language as well as with other aspects of culture.

[10.37]

DRAFT

“Do"mam#$ Çocu"a Don Biçmek”

[10.38] [10.39]

CONCLUSION: WHOSE BLENDED HERITAGE FOR WHOM? It is important to question the general assumption that the will and desire to communicate certain values and practices to the child is a natural and com­ mon tendency to the human species that needs no reflection or close exam­ ination. While there is some truth in saying that all humans want to have children and pass onto them their culture, we argue it is dangerous to leave this assumption unexamined. It leads to an understanding of the process of cultural teaching as a must, imposing it to all kind of couples and not recog­ nizing that even the desire and will for a particular kind of cultural transmis­ sion are culturally constructed. Why do we as partners in a couple and as future parents want, need to, and insist on transmitting our culture to our children? In the process of thinking about our future as parents, we ended up notic­ ing that we did not create blended heritage only for the child, but primarily for ourselves—as beings becoming. Ho (1990) indicated that the birth of a child reactivated each parent’s own childhood experiences, shaping their respective beliefs about childrearing. However, in our experience even an unborn child, in other words, the idea of a future child that emerges when the couple sees itself as a family, activate similar memories of partners’ past. Thus, blended heritage is a crucial process through which we construct and reconstruct our selves—part of the cultural process of becoming we as indi­ viduals are going through in our search for identity. The success of cultural transmission seems to mean more for us—the parents—than for the unborn child, as a way of reminding and teaching and reaffirming to us who we think we are. There is little natural in our will, desire, and commitment to transmit certain cultural values and practices through blended heritage. It is a reflec­ tion of our respective acculturation in our own families and in our respective nation­states. That is why we feel the transmission of culture as a kind of duty that good children and good citizens are supposed to do. But, there is evidence that not all couples work for cultural transmission with the same intensity and persistence. This is a reflection of intercultural couple’s cultural surrounds, and may have negative consequences on their children (Crohn, 1998; Ho, 1990) depending on the other voices/influences in the child’s cultural surround. Still, more needs to be done on this subject, as it will enable scholars to think critically on cultural processes within the family and recognize that even the transition to parenthood is culturally constructed and that moment or period may be perceived differently by different couples/ cultures. This reflection allows for a broader and modest approach to cultural transmission through blended heritage, acknowledging that in our child’s

[10.40]

[10.41]

[10.42]

Ali E. Erol and Joris Gjata

DRAFT

process of acculturation we are an important, loud, but only one, voice among many others (the environment). It can help us keep a balanced parent­ ing style, in Berg­Cross’s (2001) terms, authoritative not authoritarian. How­ ever, most importantly, it should encourage scholars and counseling practi­ tioners to examine more carefully their assumptions about culture, and con­ sider the perceptions intercultural couples themselves have of life­time tran­ sitions like that from couplehood to parenthood: when, why it happens, and what it means for them (for a similar point, see Waldman & Rubalcava, 2005). To sum up, we view blended heritage as an ongoing process of emphasiz­ ing similarities and using them to negotiate differences among us as partners within our couple or cekirdek aile (nuclear family). This will help us as future parents to transmit more successfully some of our culture to the child and be an influential voice in his becoming. Recognizing that not only the child’s but our own becoming is at stake in this process of cultural transmis­ sion and blended heritage, one of the main challenges of this enterprise becomes to manage the conversation between our family and the other voices surrounding it that have different understandings of what and how heritage must be transmitted. Time will be our teacher and judge.

[10.43]

DRAFT

References

Alemán, J. (2003). The politics of representation: Reading Chicano/a narratives as cultural ethnographies. In D.J. Anderson & J.S. Kuhnhiem (Eds.), Cultural studies in the curricu­ lum: Teac hing Latin America (pp. 41–59). New York: Modern Language Association. Alemán, M.W., & Helfrich, K.W. (2010). Inheriting the narratives of dementia: A collaborative tale of a daughter and mother. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 7–23. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (Ed.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 87–128). New York: Monthly Review Press. Andrew, A (2007). China’s abandoned children and transnational adoption: Issues and prob­ lems for U.S.­China relations, adoption agencies, and adoptive parents. Journal of Women’s Health, 19, 123–31. Andujo. E. (2001). Ethnic identity of transethnically adopted Hispanic adolescents. Social Work, 33, 531–35. Ang, R.P. (2006). Effects of parenting style on personal and social variables for Asian adoles­ cents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(4), 503–11. Anzaldúa, G. (2007). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza, 3rd ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books. Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1998). Key concepts in post­colonial studies. London and New York: Routledge. Ashe, B. (2010). Post­soul president: Dreams from My Father and the post­soul aesthetic. In H.E. Harris, K.R. Moffitt & C.R. Squires (Eds.), The Obama effect: Multidisciplinary ren­ derings of the 2008 campaign (pp. 131–52). New York: SUNY Press. Bialystok, E. (Ed.). (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1995). In other words: The science and psychology of second­ language acquisition. New York: Basic Books. Ballard, R.L. & Ballard, S.J. (2011). From narrative inheritance to narrative momentum: Past, present, and future stories in an international adoptive family. The Journal of Family Com­ munication, 11, 69–84. Baltas, Z., & Steptoe, A. (2000). Migration, culture conflict and psychological well­being among Turkish­British married couples. Ethnicity & Health, 5(2), 173–80. Bamberg, M. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development, 47, 366–69. Baptiste, D.A. (2005). Family therapy with East Indian immigrant parents rearing children in the United States: Parental concerns, therapeutic issues, and recommendations. Contempo­ rary Family Therapy, 27, 345–66.

References
Barber, B. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5–11. Retrieved from EBSCO­ host. Bardhan, N. (2011). Slumdog Millionaire meets “India Shining”: (Trans)national narratives of identity in south Asian diaspora. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4, 42–61. Bardhan, N., & Orbe, M.P. (2012). Introduction: Identity research in intercultural communica­ tion. In N. Bardhan & M. P. Orbe (Eds.), Identity research and communication: Intercultu­ ral reflections and future directions (pp. xviii–xxv). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Barron­Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one­parent­one­ language approach. Clevedon, UK: Mulitlingual Matters. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: Bantam Books. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Devel­ opment, 37, 887–907. Baumrind, D.(1967). Child­care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Baumrind, D. (1971). Harmonious parents and their preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 4, 99–102. Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow, (pp. 349–78). San Francisco: Jossey­Bass. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. Baxter, L.A. (2010). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Becker, G.S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special refer­ ence to education. New York: Columbia University Press. Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthemum and the sword: Patterns of Japanese culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Benett, L.A., Wolin, S.J., & McAvity, K.J. (1988). Family identity, ritual, and myth: A cultural perspective on life cycle transitions. In C.J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the life cycle (pp. 211–233). New York: Guilford. Bennetts, L. (2007, December 27). First lady in waiting. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from http:// www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/michelle_obama200712 on July 31, 2012. Benson, P.L., Sharma, A.R., & Roehlkepartain, E.C.(1994). Growing up adopted: A portrait of adolescents and their families. Minneapolis: Search Institute. Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An Inter­ national Review, 46, 5–68. Berry, J.W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615–31. Berry, J.W., Phinney, J.S., Sam, D.L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303–32. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge. Bhugra, D., & De Silva, P. (2000). Couple therapy across cultures. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15, 184–92. Bigner, J.J., & Jacobsen, R. (1989). Parenting behaviors of homosexual and heterosexual fathers. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 173–86. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Bikel & Mandarano, LLP (2012, June 12). When intercultural relations fail—What happens to the children? Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.uncg.edu/hottopics/lnaca­ demic/?verb=sr&csi=222091&sr=HLEAD(When+Intercultural+Relations+Fail+­ +What+Happens+to+the+Children%3F)+AND+DATE+IS+june+12+2012 on July 28, 2012. Bingham, G.E., & Okagaki, L. (2004). Parents’ social cognitions and parenting behaviors. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association. Blinn­Pike, L. (2009). Technology and the family: An overview from the 1980s to the present. Marriage & Family Review, 45(6), 567–75. doi: 10.1080/01494920903224459. Blundell, J. (2010). TV ratings: Wednesday overnight Nielsen ratings. Broadcast and Cable Magazine.

DRAFT

DRAFT

References
Bochner, A.P., Ellis, C., & Tillmann­Healy, L.M. (1997). Relationships as stories. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 308–24). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code de­ velopment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Breger, R.A., & Hill, R. (1998). Cross­cultural marriage: identity and choice. London: Berg Publishers. Budhwar, P.S., & Baruch, Y. (2003). Career management practices in India: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 24, 699–719. Burt­Murray, A. (2009, May). A mother’s love. Essence, 113. Bustamante, R.M., Nelson, J.A., Henriksen, Jr., R.C. & Monakes, S. (2011). Intercultural couples: Coping with culture­related stressors. The Family Journal: Counseling and Thera­ py for Couples and Families, 19(2), 154–64. Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: The politics of the performative. New York: Routledge. Bystydzienski, J.M. (2011). Intercultural couples: Crossing boundaries, negotiating difference. New York: NYU Press. Carey, J. (1985). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Casmir, F.L. (1993). Third­culture building: A. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16 (pp. 407–28). New York: Routledge. Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the norm of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–19. Chao, R.K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72(6), 1832–43. Chawla, D. (2011). Between solids/monologues in brown: A mystory performance. Cultural Studies: Critical Methodologies, 11(1), 47–58. Chawla, D., & Rodriguez, A. (2007). New imaginations of difference: On teaching writing, and culturing. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5–6), 697–708. Chen, V. (2010). Authenticity and identity in the portable homeland. In T. Nakayama & R.T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 283–94). Mal­ den, MA: Blackwell. Chesley, N., & Fox, B. (2012). E­mail’s use and perceived effect on family relationship quality: Variations by gender and race/ethnicity. Sociological Focus, 45(1), 63–84. Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother [Barnes & Noble Nook E­book Version]. Chua, A. (2011). Why Chinese mothers are superior. Wall Street Journal, January 11. Re­ trieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html#articleTabs%3Darticle Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York: Penguin Press. Cohen, R. (1997). Global diasporas: An introduction. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Collier, M.J. (2002). Negotiating intercultural alliance relationship: Towards transformation. In M.J. Collier (Ed.), Intercultural alliances: Critical transformation (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collier, M.J., Hegde, R.S., Lee, W., Nakayama, T.K., & Yep, G.A. (2002). Dialogue on the edges: Ferment in communication and culture. In M.J. Collier (Ed.), Transforming commu­ nication about culture: Critical new directions (pp. 219–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collier, M.J., & Thomas, M. (1988). Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y.Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 99–120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coontz, S. (2000). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap, rev. ed. New York: Basic Books. Crippen, C., & Brew, L. (2007). Intercultural parenting and the transcultural family: A litera­ ture review. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15(2), 101–15. Crohn, J. (1995). Mixed matches: how to create successful interracial, interethnic, and inter­ faith relationships. New York: Fawcett Columbine.

References
Crohn, J. (1998). Intercultural couples. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Revisioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice. New York: Guilford. Cummings, J.M., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 47(7), 103–8. Dainton, M. (1999). African American, European­American, and biracial couples’ meanings for and experiences in marriage. In T.S. Socha and R.C. Diggs (Eds.), Communication race and family: Exploring communication is black, white, and biracial families (pp. 147–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psycho­ logical Bulletin, 113(3), 487–96. Dasgupta, M. (1997). “What is Indian about you?”: A gendered, transnational approach to ethnicity. Gender and Society, 11(5), 572–96. Dasgupta, M. (1998). Gender roles and cultural continuity in the Asian Indian immigrant community in the U.S. Sex Roles, 38, 953–74. Dávila, A.M. (2008). Latino spin: Public image and the whitewashing of race. New York: NYU Press. Dion, K.K., & Dion, K.L. (2001). Gender and cultural adaptation in immigrant families. Jour­ nal of Social Issues, 57, 511–21. Dolgin, J.L. (2002). The constitution as family arbiter: A moral in the mess? Columbia Law Review, 102, 337–407. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Dorow, S. (2006). Racialized choices: Chinese adoption and the “white noise” of blackness. Critical Sociology , 32, 357–79. doi: 10.1163/156916306777835277. Durvasula, R.S., & Mylvaganam, G.A. (1994). Mental health of Asian Indians: Relevant issues and community implications. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 97–108. Ellis, C. (2004). The ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute (2009, Nov.). Beyond culture camp: Promoting healthy identity formation in adoption. New York: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Evans, K. (2000). The lost daughters of China: Abandoned girls, their journey to America, and the search for a missing past. New York: J.P. Tarcher/Putnam. Falicov, C.J. (1995). Cross­cultural marriages. In N.S. Jacobson & A.S. Gurman (Eds.), Clini­ cal handbook of couple therapy (pp. 231–46). New York: Guilford. Falicov, C.J. (1995). Training to think culturally: A multidimensional comparative framework. Family Process, 34(4), 373–88. Farver, J.M., Bhadha, B.R., & Narang, S.K. (2002). Acculturation and psychological function­ ing in Asian Indian adolescents. Social Development, 11, 11–29. Farver, J.M., Xu, Y., Bhadha, B.R., Narang, S., & Lieber, E. (2007). Ethnic identity, accultura­ tion, parenting beliefs, and adolescent adjustment. Merrill­Palmer Quarterly, 53, 184–215. Fiese, B.H., & Bickham, N.L. (2004). Pin­curling grandpa’s hair in the comfy chair: Parents’ stories of growing up and potential links to socialization in the preschool years. In M.W. Pratt & B.H. Fiese (Eds.), Family stories and the life course across time and generations (pp. 259–77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fiese, B.H., Hooker, K.A., Kotary, L., Schwagler, J., & Rimmer, M. (1995). Family stories in the early stages of parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 633–42. First Lady Obama Raises the Bar. (2009, April 9). Sacramento Observer, p. A1. Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Vangelisti, A.L. (Eds.) (1995). Explaining family interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Judd, J. (2006). Defining the family through relationships. In L.H. Turner & R.L. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 21–39). Thou­ sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Foeman, A., & Nance, T. (2002). Building new cultures, reframing old images: Success strate­ gies of interracial couples. The Howard Journal of Communications, 13, 237–49. Fox, S., & Livingston, G. (2007, March 14). Hispanics with lower levels of education and English proficiency remain largely disconnected from the internet. (Rep.). Retrieved May 14, 2102, from Pew Hispanic Center website: http://pewhispanic.org/reports/ (ERIC Docu­ ment Reproduction Service No. ED495954).

DRAFT

DRAFT

References
Friedlander, M.L.(1999). Ethnic identity development of internationally adopted children and adolescents: Implications for family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 43–60. Friedlander, M.L., Larney, L.C., Skau, M., Hotaling, M., Cutting, M.L., & Schwam, M. (2000). Bicultural identification: Experiences of internationally adopted children and their parents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 187–98. Gaines, S.O., & Brennan, K.A. (2001). Establishing and maintaining satisfaction in multicultu­ ral relationships. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Mainte­ nance and enhancement (pp. 237–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Galvin, K.M. (2006a). Diversity’s impact on defining family: Discourse dependence and iden­ tity. In L.H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galvin, K.M. (2006b). Joined by hearts and words: Adoptive family relationships. In K. Floyd & M.T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle: New research on family communication (pp. 137–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galvin, K.M., Bylund, C.L., & Brommel, B.J. (2004). Family communication: Cohesion and change. Boston, MA: Pearson. Garey, A.I., & Hansen, K.V. (1998). Introduction: Analyzing families with a feminist sociolog­ ical imagination. In K.V. Hansen & A.I. Garey (Eds.), Families in the U.S.: Kinship and domestic politics (pp. xv–xxi). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Genesee, F. (2006). Bilingual first language acquisition in perspective. In E. Hoff & P. McCar­ dle (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism (pp. 45–67). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Glover, M. (2007, May 22). Michelle Obama makes it clear she’s not husband’s top adviser. Retrieved from http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=119962 on July 25, 2012. Goodall, H.L. (2006). A need to know: The clandestine history of a CIA Family. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Grusec, J.E. (1997). A history of research on parenting strategies and children’s internalization of values. In J.E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 3–22). New York: Wiley. Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond culture: Space, identity and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6–23. Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs identity? In S. Hall & P. de Guy (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hammer, T.J., & Turner, P.H. (1990). Parenting in contemporary society. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Harris, T.M., & Trego, A. (2009). Something old, something new: A cinematic representation of interracial romance in the 21st century. In L.A. Flores, M.P. Orbe & B.J. Allen (Eds.), Intercultural communication in a transnational world: International and Intercultural Com­ munication Annual, 31 (pp. 227–53). Washington, D.C.: National Communication Associa­ tion. Hecht, M.L.(1993). A research odyssey: Towards the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60, 76–82. Hecht, M.L., Warren, J.R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J.L. (2005). A communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heintz, P.H. (2007, December 6). Wife touts Obama’s achievements. Retrieved from http:// reformer.com/ci_7647895 on August 1, 2012. Heller, P.E., & Wood, B. (2007). The influence of religious and ethnic differences on marital intimacy: Intermarriage versus intramarriage. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26(2), 241–52. Hess, G.R. (1974). The forgotten Asian Americans: The East Indian community in the United States. Pacific Historical Review, 43, 576–96.

References
Higginbotham, A. (Writer) & Ellis, S. (Director). The kiss [2]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Ho, M.K. (1990). Intermarried couples in therapy. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw­Hill. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, rev. ed. New York: McGraw­Hill. Holstein, J.A. & Gubrium, J. (1999). What is family? Marriage and Family Review, 28, 3–20. Hopper, D. (2008, May 21). The dreaded question: Where are you from? Retrieved from National Public Radio: http://www.npr.org/blogs/tellmemore/2008/05/the_dreaded_ question_where_are.html . Horowitz, J.A. (1999). Negotiating couplehood: The process of resolving the December dilem­ ma among interfaith couples. Family Process, 38, 303–23. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Leadership, culture, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hurwitz, A. (2003). The adoption of Chinese girls by American families. The National Re­ source Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning at the Hunter College School of Social Work. Ifill, G. (2008, September). The Obamas. Essence, 39, pp. 150–214. Importance of marriage in Islam. Retrieved from: http://www.al­islam.org/marriage­handbook/ 3.htm. Inman, A G., Howard, E.E., Beaumont, R.L., & Walker, J.A. (2007). Cultural transmission: Influence of contextual factors in Asian Indian immigrant parents’ experiences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 93–100. Islam in Dearborn, Michigan: Ford, Muslims and mosques in Dearborn, Michigan. (Thirty Days Prayer Network). Retrieved from http://www.30­days.net/muslims/muslims­in/ameri­ ca­north/islam­in­dearborn­michigan/. Jago, B.J. (2011). Shacking up: An autoethnographic tale of cohabitation. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 204–19. Joanides, C., Mayhew, M., & Mamalakis, P.M. (2002). Investigating inter­Christian and inter­ cultural couples associated with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: A qualitative research project. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(4), 373–83. Johnson M.M. (1998). Applying a modified situational leadership model to residential group care settings. Child & Youth Care Forum, 27(6), 383–98. Jones, E. (2012, February 9). In praise of languages of internationalization. Chronicle of High­ er Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/worldwise/in­praise­of­languages­ for­internationalization/29132?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en. Jones, S.W. (2010). The Obama effect on American discourse about racial identity: Dreams from My Father (and mother), Barack Obama’s search for self. In H.E. Harris, K.R. Moffitt & C.R. Squires (Eds.), The Obama effect: Multidisciplinary renderings of the 2008 cam­ paign (pp. 131–52). New York: SUNY Press. Jorgenson, J., & Bochner, A.P. (2004). Imagining families through stories and rituals. In A.L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 513–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Julian, T.W., McKenny, P.C., & Mckelvey, M.W. (1994). Cultural variations in parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, African­American, Hispanic, and Asian­American parents. Fami­ ly Relations Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 43, 30–37. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Kakar S. (1981). The inner world: A psycho­analytic study of childhood and society in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kang, T. (2012). Gendered media, changing intimacy: Internet­mediated transnational commu­ nication in the family sphere. Media, Culture & Society, 34(2), 146–61. doi: 10.1177/ 0163443711430755.

DRAFT

DRAFT

References
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A.B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mothers in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 153–75. Karis, T., & Killian, K.D. (2009). Intercultural couples: Exploring diversity in intimate rela­ tionships. New York: Routledge. Keller, H., Lohaus, A., Kuensemueller, P., Abels, M., Yovsi, R., Voelker, S., Jensen, H., et al. (2004). The bio­culture of parenting: Evidence from five cultural communities. Parenting, 4(1), 25–50. Keller, N. (1995). What is the meaning of qawwamuna as used in Surat al­Nisa’, verse 34? Retrieved from http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/qawamuna.htm. Kendall, S. (2007). Introduction: Family talk. In D. Tannen, S. Kendall & C. Gordon (Eds.), Family talk: Discourse and identity in four American families (pp. 3–23). New York: Ox­ ford University Press. Kerkhof, P., Finkenauer, C., & Muusses, L. (2011). Relational consequences of compulsive internet use: A longitudinal study among newlyweds. Human Communication Research, 37, 147–73. Kim, Y.Y. (2007). Ideology, identity, and intercultural communication: An analysis of different academic conceptions of cultural identity. Journal of Intercultural Communication Re­ search, 36, 237–53. Kinefuchi, E. (2010). Finding home in migration: Montagnard refugees and post­migration identity. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, (3), 228–48. Ko, E. (Writer), & Spiller, M. (Director). (2011). Princess party [15]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Koenig Kellas, J. (2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family stories. Communication Monographs, 7, 365–89. Koenig Kellas, J., & Trees, A.R. (2006). Finding meaning in difficult family experiences: Sense­making and interaction processes during joint family storytelling. The Journal of Family Communication, 6, 49–76. Korostelina, K.V. (2007). Social identity and conflict: Structures, dynamics, and implications. New York: Macmillan. Kothari, G. (1993). Where are you from? New England Review, 15(3), 80–84. Langellier, K.M. (2002). Performing family stories, forming cultural identity: Franco American mémère stories. Communication Studies, 53, 56–73. Langellier, K.M., & Peterson, E.E. (2006a). Family storytelling as communication practice. In L.H. Turner & R. West (Ed.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 109–28). Thou­ sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Langellier, K.M., & Peterson, E.E. (2006b). Narrative performance theory: Telling stories, doing family. In D.O. Braithwaite & L.A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family com­ munication (pp. 99–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lara, I. (2008). Daughter of coatlicue: An interview with Gloria Anzaldua. In A. Keating (Ed.), EntreMundos/AmongWorlds: New Perspectives on Gloria Anzaldua (pp. 41–55). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Leeds­Hurwitz, W. (1995). Social approaches to communication. New York: Guilford Press. Leifer, C. (Writer), & McCarthy­Miller, B. (Director). (2011). Two monkeys and a panda [17]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Lenhart, A., Rainie, L., & Lewis, O. (2001, June 20). Teenage life online: The rise of the instant­message generation and the internet’s impact on friendships and family relationships (Rep.). Retrieved May 5, 2012, from Pew Internet and American Life Project website: www.pewinternet.org. Leonardi, P.M. (2003). Problematizing “new media”: Culturally based perceptions of cell phones, computers, and the internet among United States Latinos. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(2), 160–79. doi: 10.1080/07393180302778. Leung, P., Erich, S., & Kanenberg, H. (2005). A comparison of family functioning in gay/ lesbian, heterosexual and special needs adoptions. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 1031–44. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

References
Levitan, S., & Lloyd, C. (Producers) (2010). Modern family [Television Series]. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Levitan, S. (Writer), Lloyd, C. (Writer), Ko, E. (Writer), Richman, J. (Writer), Wrubel, B. (Writer), & Mancuso, G. (Director) (2012). Tableau vivant [23]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Levitan, S. (Writer), Lloyd, C. (Writer), O’Shannon, D. (Writer), Wernick, I. (Writer), Ko, E. (Writer), & Spiller, M. (Director) (2011). Mother’s day [21]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Levitan, S. (Writer), Lloyd, C. (Writer), Wernick, I. (Writer), Ko, E. (Writer), & Mancuso, G. (Director) (2010). Dance dance revelation [10]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Levitan, S. (Writer) & Spiller, M. (Director) (2010). Unplugged [5]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Lewin, E. (1981). Lesbianism and motherhood: Implications for child custody. Human Organ­ ization, 40, 6–14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Li, D.L. (2004). On ascriptive and acquisitional Americanness: The accidental Asian and the illogic of assimilation. Contemporary Literature , 45, 106–34. Limón, J.E. (1994). Dancing with the devil: Society and cultural poetics in Mexican­American south Texas. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Lloyd, C. (Writer), Levitan, S. (Writer), Higginbotharn, A. (Writer), Richman, J. (Writer), Ko, E. (Writer), & Savage, F. (Director) (2011). Good cop, bad dog [22]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Lloyd, C. (Writer), Levitan, S. (Writer), Higginbotharn, A. (Writer), & Levitan, S. (Director) (2012). Baby on board [24]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Lloyd, C. (Writer), Levitan, S. (Writer), Ko, E. (Writer), & Spiller, M. (Director) (2011). Princess party [Television series episode]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Ludden, J. (2006, May). 1965 immigration law changed face of America. Retrieved from National Public Radio website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto­ ry.php?storyId=5391395. Luke, C., & Luke, A. (1999). Theorizing interracial families and hybrid identity: An Australian perspective. Educational Theory, 49, 223–49. Lull, J. (2000). Media, communication, and culture. New York: Columbia University Press. Maccoby, E.E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical over­ view. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006–17. Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization within the context of the family: Parent­ child interaction. In P.H. Mussen & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psycholo­ gy, Vol. 4, Socialization, personality and social development, 4th ed. (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley Macann, C.E. (2007). Being and becoming. Retrieved from Online Originals: http:// www.onlineoriginals.com/showitem.asp?itemID=109. Mackey, R.A., & O’Brien, B.A. (1998). Marital conflict management: Gender and ethnic differences. Social Work, 43(2), 128–41. Maiter, S., & George, U. (2003). Understanding context and culture in the parenting ap­ proaches of immigrant South Asian mothers. Affilia, 18, 411–28. Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2009). Intercultural communication in contexts, 5th ed. New York: McGraw­Hill. Martin, J.N., & Nakayama, T.K. (2012). Intercultural communication in contexts, 6th ed. New York: McGraw­Hill. Marvin, L.­E. (2004). Why Mamiji cried: Telling stories and defining family. Storytelling, Self, Society, 1, 28–43. McFarlane, A.H., Bellissimo, A., & Norman, G.R. (1995). Family structure, family function­ ing, and adolescent well­being: The transcendent influence of parenting style. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 847–64. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

DRAFT

DRAFT

References
McFadden, J., & Moore, J.L. (2001). Intercultural marriage and intimacy: Beyond the continen­ tal divide. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 23(4), 261–68. Merida, K. (2007, December 14). The ghost of a father. Washington Post. Retrieved from http:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/wp­dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/ AR2007121301784.html?nav=emailpage. Michelle and Barack Obama (2008, August). Ladies’ Home Journal. Des Moines, IA: Meredith Corporation. Miller, P.J., Sandel, T.L., Liang, C.­H., & Fung, H. (2001). Narrating transgressions in Long­ wood: The discourses, meanings and paradoxes of an American socializing practice. Ethos, 29, 159–86. Miller­Loessi, K., & Kilic, Z (2001). A unique diaspora? The case of adopted girls from the People’s Republic of China. Diaspora, 10, 243–60. Mitchell, M. (2007, August 5). Michelle Obama. Retrieved from http://www.suntimes.com/ news/mitchell/497478,CST­NWS­mitch05x.article on July 25, 2012. Mohanty, J., Keokse, G., & Sales, E. (2006). Family cultural socialization, ethnic identity, and self­esteem: Web­based survey of international adult adoptees. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 15(3–4), 153–72. Molina, B., Estrada, D., & Burnett, J.A. (2004). Cultural communities: Challenges and oppor­ tunities in the creation of “happily ever after” stories of intercultural couplehood. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 12(2), 139–47. Moon, D.G. (2010). Critical reflections on culture and critical intercultural communication. In T.K. Nakayama & R.T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communica­ tion (pp. 34–52). Malden, MA: Wiley­Blackwell. Moriizumi, S. (2011). Exploring identity negotiations: An analysis of intercultural Japanese­ U.S. American families living in the United States. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 85–104. Naccarato, J., & Neuendorf, K. (1998). Content analysis as a predictive methodology: Recall, readership, and evaluations of business­to­business print advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(3), 19–31. Nakayama, T.K., & Halualani, R.T. (2011). The handbook of critical intercultural communica­ tion. Malden, MA: Wiley­Blackwell. Nicol, J. (2001). One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing. Malden, MA: Wiley­Blackwell. Obama, B. (2004). Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press. Obama, B. (2010). Of thee I sing: A letter to my daughters. New York: Random House. Oliver, R.T. (1971). Communication and culture in ancient India and China. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Ono, K.A. (1998). Problematizing “nation” in intercultural communication research. In D.T. Tanno & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Communication and identity across cultures: International and Intercultural Communication Annual, 21 (pp. 193–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ono, K.A. (1999). Communicating about “race” in interracial families. In T.J. Socha, & R.C. Diggs (Eds.), Communication, race, and family: Exploring communication in black, white, and biracial families (pp. 167–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ono, K.A. (2010). Reflections on “Problematizing ‘nation’ in intercultural communication research.” In T. Nakayama & R.T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 84–96). Malden, MA: Wiley­Blackwell. Orbe, M.P. (1998). Constructing co­cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Orbe, M., & Harris, T.M. (2007). Interracial communication: Theory into practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O’Shannon, D. (Writer), & Spiller, M. (Director). (2010). Chirp [7]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Parke, R.D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspec­ tives. In N. Eisenberg & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotion­ al, and personality development (pp. 463–532). New York: Wiley.

References
Patel, N., Power, T.G., & Bhavnagri, N.P. (1996). Socialization values and practices of Indian immigrant parents: Correlates of modernity and acculturation. Child Development, 67, 302–13. Patel­Amin, N., & Power, T.G. (2002). Modernity and childrearing in families of Gujrati Indian adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 239–45. Patterson, C. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025–42. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Pearce, R.R. (2006). Effects of cultural and social structural factors on the achievement of white and Chinese American students at school transition points. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 75–101. Perel, E. (2000). A tourist’s view of marriage: Cross­cultural couples. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line: New directions for therapists (pp. 178–204). New York: Guilford. Perregaard, B. (2010). “Luckily it was only for 10 minutes”: Ideology, discursive positions and language socialization in family interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14, 370–98. Pew Research Center. (2012). The rise of Asian Americans. Retrieved from http:// www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the­rise­of­asian­americans/. Phinney, J.S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 34–49. Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychologi­ cal Bulletin, 108, 499–514. Phinney, J.S. (1991). Ethnic identity and self­esteem: A review and integration. Hi spanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 193–208. Phinney, J.S., & Alipuria, L.L. (1990). Ethnic identity in college students from four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 171–83. Phinney, J.S., & Rosenthal, D.A. (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence: Process, context, and outcome. In G. Adams, T. Gullota & R. Montemayor (Eds.), A dolescent identity formation (pp. 145–72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pickler, N., & Apuzzo, M. (2008, March 25). Obama confronts racial division. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20080325041031/http://ap.google.com/ar­ ticle/ALeqM5gRloD01UY7O­mlm7HkoTEgFcoPJgD8VGDFC01 on August 1, 2012. Poulos, C.N. (2009). Accidental ethnography: An inquiry into family secrecy. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Poulsen, S.S. (2009). East Indian families raising ABCD adolescents: Cultural and generational challenges. The Family Journal, 17, 168–74. Prashad, V. (2001). The karma of brown folk. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press. Putallaz, M., & Heflin, A.H. (1990). Parent­child interaction. In S. Asher & J. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 189–216). New York: Cambridge University Press. Rao, N., McHale, J.P., Pearson, E. (2003). Links between socialization goals and child­rearing practices in Chinese and Indian mothers. Infant and Child Development, 12, 475–92. Remarks by the President on the nomination of Dr. Jim Kim for World Bank President. (March 23, 2012). Retrieved from the White House website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the­press­ office/2012/03/23/remarks­president­nomination­dr­jim­kim­world­bank­president. Richman, J. (Writer), & Spiller, M. (Director). (2010). Halloween [6]. In S. Levitan & C. Lloyd (Producers), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Television. Rodriguez, M., Donovick, M.R., & Crowley, S.L. (2009). Parenting styles in a cultural context: Observations of “protective parenting” in first­generation Latinos. Family Process, 48, 195–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1545­5300.2009.01277.x. Rojewski, J.W., Shapiro, M., & Shapiro, M. (2000). Parental assessment of behavior in Chinese adoptees during early childhood. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31, 79–96. Rojewski, J.W. (2005). A typical American family? How adoptive families acknowledge and incorporate Chinese cultural heritage in their lives. Child and Adolescent Social Work Jour­ nal, 22, 133–64. Romano, D. (2001). Intercultural marriage: Promises and pitfalls, 2nd ed. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.

DRAFT

DRAFT

References
Rosenblatt, D.C. (2009). A systems theory analysis of intercultural couple relationships. In T.A. Karis & K.D. Killian (Eds.), Intercultural couples: Exploring diversity in intimate relationships. New York: Routledge. Rothenbuhler, E.W. (2006). Communication as ritual. In G.J. Shepherd, J. St. John & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as . . . : Perspectives on theory (pp. 13–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sabourin, T.C. (2003). The contemporary American family: A dialectical perspective on com­ munication and relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sabourin, T.C. (2006). Theories and metatheories to explain family communication: An over­ view. In L.H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 43–60). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sánchez, P., & Salazar, M. (2012). Transnational computer use in urban Latino immigrant communities: Implications for schooling. Urban Education, 47(1), 90–116. doi: 10.1177/ 0042085911427740. Sandel, T.L. (2010). Tales of bitter and sweet: A study of Taiwanese master story and trans­ gression narratives as shared cross­generationally in Taiwanese families. Narrative Inquiry, 20, 325–48. Schonpflug, U. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of values: The role of transmission belts. Journal of Cross­Cultural Psychology, 32(2), 174–85. Shen, C., & Williams, D. (2011). Unpacking time online: Connecting internet and massive multiplayer online game use with psychosocial well­being. Communication Research, 38(1), 123–49. doi: 10.1177/0093650210377196. Sillars, A.L. (1995). Communication and Family Culture. In M.A. Fitzpatrick and A.L. Vange­ listi (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 375–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Simpson, J. (Ed.).(1993). Oxford English Dictionary. OED Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com on April 30, 2012. Slevin, P. (2007, November 28). Her heart’s in the race. Washington Post. Retrieved from http:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/wp­dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/ AR2007112702670.html?sid=ST2007112800626 on July 31, 2012. Socha, T.J., & Diggs, R.C. (1999). Communication, race, and family: Exploring communica­ tion in black, white, and biracial families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Socha, T.J., & Yingling, J. (2010). Families communicating with children. Cambridge: Polity Press. Social Security Administration (2011, March 11). Popular baby names. Retrieved from http:// www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/ on November 14, 2011. Sonawat, R. (2001). Understanding families in India: A reflection of societal changes. Psicolo­ gia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 17, 177–86. Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 125–46. Srivastava, S. (2009). Nobody’s model minority. Retrieved from http://www.theroot.com/ views/nobodys­model­minority. Stamp, G.H. (2004). Theories of family relationships and a family relationships theoretical model. In A.L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 1–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Starosta, W.J. (2006). Rhetoric and culture: An integrative view. China Media Research, 2(4), 65–74. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encourage­ ment to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–81. Stewart, S.M., Bond, M.H., McBride­Chang, C., Fielding, R., Deeds, O., & Westrick, J. (1998). Parent and adolescent contributors to teenage misconduct in western and Asian high school students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 847–69. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Stone, E. (1988/2008). Black sheep and kissing cousins: How our family stories shape us. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Strecker, I.A., & Tyler, S.A. (2009). Culture and rhetoric. New York: Berghahn Books.

References
Subramanian, A. (2012). Those Indian kids sure spell well: Yes, they’re inspiring, but don’t buy into the “model minority” myth. Retrieved from http://www.post­gazette.com/stories/ opinion/perspectives/those­indian­kids­sure­spell­well­yes­theyre­inspiring­but­dont­buy­ into­the­model­minority­myth­640496/. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup rela­ tions (pp. 33–47). London and New York: Academic Press in cooperation with European Association of Experimental Social Psychology. Tam, V.C.W., & Lam, R.S.Y. (2003). Parenting style of Chinese fathers in Hong Kong: Correlates with children’s school­related performance. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 15(1), 51–62. Tasker, F., & Patterson, C. (2007). Research on lesbian and gay parenting: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 9–34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Teachman, J.D., & Paasch, K. (1998). The family and educational aspirations. Journal of Marriage & Family, 60(3), 704–15. The Learning Channel officially cancels All­American Muslim. Florida Family Association. Retrieved from http://floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=108. Thomas, E. (2012, June 12). President Obama disproves the “broken home” theory. The Huff­ ington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/etan­thomas/single­parent­ households_b_1616509.html. Thomas, K.A., & Tessler, R.C. (2007). Bicultural socialization among adoptive families: Where there is a will, there is a way. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1189–1219. Thompson, B. (Interviewer), & Obama, B. (Interviewee) (2008). Dreams from my father. [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.eyeonbooks.com/obama_transcript.pdf on July 25, 2012. Thornborrow, J., & Coates, J. (Eds.) (2005). The sociolinguistics of narrative. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Thorne, A., McLean, K., & Dasbach, A. (2004). When parents’ stories go to pot: Telling personal transgressions to teenage kids. In M.W. Pratt & B.H. Fiese (Eds.), Family stories and the life course across time and generations (pp. 187–209). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thurlow, C. (2010). Speaking of difference. In T. Nakayama & R T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 227–47). Malden, MA: Wiley­Black­ well. Ting­Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211–33).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ting­Toomey, S., & Chung, L.C. (2012). Understanding intercultural communication, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Trees, A.R., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2009). Telling tales: Enacting family relationships in joint storytelling about difficult family experiences. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 91–111. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Trice, D.T. (2012, June 18). First lady’s ancestry an American story. Chicago Tribune. Re­ trieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct­met­trice­obama­book­ 0618­20120618,0,5871706.column. Tripp, L.M. (2010). “The computer is not for you to be looking around, it is for schoolwork”: Challenges for digital inclusion as Latino immigrant families negotiate children’s access to the internet. New Media & Society, 13(4), 552–67. doi: 10.1177/1461444810375293. Triseliotis, J. (1993). Inter­country adoption: In whose best interest? In M. Humphrey & H. Humphrey (Eds.), Inter­country adoption: Practical experiences (pp. 129–37). London: Routledge. Trujillo, N. (2002). In search of Naunny’s history: Reproducing gender ideology in family stories. Women’s Studies in Communication, 25, 88–118. Trujillo, N. (2004). In search of Naunny’s grave: Age, class, gender and ethnicity in an American family. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

DRAFT

DRAFT

References
Tseng, W.S., & Xu, J. (1991). Culture and family: Problems and therapy. New York: Psychol­ ogy Press. Turner, L.H., & West, R. (2006). Perspectives on family communication, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw­Hill. United States Census (2010). 2010 census shows Asians are fastest­growing race group. Re­ trieved from http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb12­cn22.html. Volkan, V.D. (1998). Bloodlines: From ethnic pride to ethnic terrorism. New York: Basic Books. Volkan, V.D. (2004). Blind trust: Large groups and their leaders in times of crisis and terror. Charlottesville, VA: Pitchstone Publishing. Wakil, P., Siddique, C.M., & Wakil, F.A. (1981). Between two cultures: A study of socializa­ tion of children immigrants. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43, 929–40. Waldman, K., & Rubalcava, L. (2005). Psychotherapy with intercultural couples: A contempo­ rary psychodynamic approach. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 59(3), 227–45. Wang, X. (2008). Growing up with three languages: Birth to eleven. Tonawanda, NY: Multi­ lingual Matters. Warikoo, N. (2012, June 16). Christian missionary group with pig’s head taunt Arab­ Americans at Dearborn festival. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.freep.com/ article/20120616/NEWS05/120616015/Christian­missionaries­with­pig­s­head­taunt­Arab­ Americans­at­Dearborn­festival. Warikoo, N. (2012, April 7). Florida pastor at Dearborn protest: Islam has one goal: That is world domination. Retrieved from http://www.freep.com/article/20120407/NEWS02/ 120407023/Terry­Jones­Dearborn­Quran­Islam. Warren, J. (2004). Performing purity: Whiteness, pedagogy, and the reconstitution of power. New York: Peter Lang. Warren, R., & Bluma, A. (2002). Parental mediation of children’s Internet use: The influence of established media. Communication Research Reports, 19(1), 8–17. doi: 10.1080/ 08824090209384827. Weber, A.L., & Harvey, J.H. (1994). Accounts in coping with relationship loss. In A.L. Weber & J.H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 285–306) Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–51. Willis­Rivera, J.L. (2000). Parental boundaries: Mothering in multiple cultures. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 27(2), 61–67. Wilson, P.M., & Wilson, J.R. (1992). Environmental influences on adolescent educational aspirations: A logistic transform model. Youth & Society, 24, 52–70. Wood, J.T. (2000). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal relation­ ships. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning. Wrench, J., Thomas­Maddox, C., Richmond, V., & McCroskey, J. (2008). Qualitative research methods for communication: A hands­on approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Yeager, H. (2007, November). The heart and mind of Michelle Obama. O, The Oprah Maga­ zine. Retrieved from http://www.oprah.com/world/The­Heart­and­Mind­of­Michelle­Oba­ ma on July 28, 2012. Yerby, J., Buerkel­Rothfuss, N.L., & Bochner, A.P. (1995). Understanding family Communica­ tion, 2nd ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick. Zhang, W. (2006). Who adopts girls and why? Domestic adoption of female children in con­ temporary rural China. The China Journal, 56, 1–82.

DRAFT

About the Editors and Contributors

[J01.0]

[J01.1]

[J01.2]

[J01.3]

[J01.4]

Alberto González (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is professor of Media and Communication at Bowling Green State University. He teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in intercultural communication and rhetorical criti­ cism. He is co­editor of Our Voices: Essays in Culture, Ethnicity and Com­ munication, 5th edition. Tina Maria Harris is professor of Speech Communication at the Univer­ sity of Georgia. Her research and teaching interests are in the areas of interra­ cial communication, interracial dating, race relations, racial representations and the media, race and ethnic disparities in health, genetics and religious frameworks, and Christian identity and communication. Carlos Galvan Alemán (Ph.D., University of Iowa) is an associate pro­ fessor of Communication Studies at James Madison University. He teaches courses in interpersonal and cultural communication and performs diversity outreach at public middle schools. His writing on communication and iden­ tity has been published in Human Communication Research, the Journal International and Intercultural Communication, Communication Teacher, and the International Communication Association’s Encyclopedia of Com­ munication. Melissa Wood Alemán (Ph.D., University of Iowa) is professor of Com­ munication Studies at James Madison University. She teaches undergraduate courses in family communication, cultural communication, and qualitative research methodologies. Her research uses a variety of qualitative methodol­ ogies to examine communication processes and identity in aging families and appears in journals such as the Journal of Family Communication, the Jour­ nal of Social and Personal Relationships, and the Journal of Communication. Nicole Blau (Ph.D., University of Kentucky) is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Ohio University Lancaster. She teaches graduate

About the Editors and Contributors

DRAFT

and undergraduate courses in empirical research methods, communication theory, and interpersonal communication. Her research centers on the inter­ section of interpersonal and instructional communication, and she is current­ ly co­authoring a textbook on family communication. Chin­Chung Chao (Ph.D., Bowling Green State University) is an assist­ ant professor of Communication at University of Nebraska at Omaha. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in organizational communica­ tion, leadership, intercultural communication, and research methods. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Chinese Journal of Communication, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, and Leadership & Organizational Development Journal. She is the recipient of the 2009 Emerald/EFMD Outstanding Doctoral Re­ search Award and top paper award in the Chinese Communication Division at NCA. Ali E. Erol is a Ph.D. student in the Communication and Culture Depart­ ment at Howard University. His research focuses on intercultural communi­ cation and rhetoric, with a specific interest in narrative, critical discourse analysis, and political rhetorical criticism. He teaches undergraduate courses in communication and persuasion. His dissertation focuses on narrative bridging in intercultural conflicts. May Hongmei Gao (Ph.D., University of South Florida) is an associate professor of Communication and Asian Studies at Kennesaw State Univer­ sity. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in intercultural commu­ nication, organizational communication, and conflict management. She has published in communication, management, business, and Asian studies jour­ nals such as Global Business Languages, China Media Research, Journal of Chinese Culture and Management, and East West Connections. Joris Gjata is a Ph.D. student in the Sociology Department at the Univer­ sity of Virginia. Her research focuses on organizations, economic sociology, innovation, and comparative historical approaches in political sociology. She has taught undergraduate courses in social theory, criminology, and law and society. Her current work examines the implementation of evidence­based medical practices. Souhad Kahil (Ph.D., Bowling Green State University) is assistant pro­ fessor of Information and Documentation at Lebanese University in Beirut. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in media production news writing and reporting, electronic journalism, and public relations. She is the coordinator of American academic relations at Lebanese University. Her research examines Arab media and social networking in the Arab world. Tara Kulkarni (Ph.D., Florida State University) is assistant professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Norwich University. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in geo­environmental engineering, fluid mechanics, and water and wastewater treatment. Her research interests in­

[J01.5]

[J01.6]

[J01.7]

[J01.8]

[J01.9]

[J01.10]

DRAFT

About the Editors and Contributors

[J01.11]

[J01.12]

[J01.13]

[J01.14]

[J01.15]

[J01.16]

clude developing engineering strategies to clean polluted environments based on human and ecological risk assessments and engineering education. Kimberly R. Moffitt (Ph.D., Howard University) is assistant professor of American Studies and affiliate assistant professor of Africana Studies at University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Her teaching interests include media studies/criticism, sports and media, and popular culture. Dr. Moffitt’s research focuses on mediated representations of marginalized groups as well as the politicized nature of black hair and the body. She has published three co­edited volumes, including The Obama Effect: Multidisciplinary Render­ ings of the 2008 Campaign (SUNY Press, 2010). Natalia Rybas (Ph.D., Bowling Green State University) is an assistant professor of Communication Studies at Indiana University East. She does research at the intersections of critical cyber culture and feminist studies, and she teaches intercultural communication, new media, and other undergradu­ ate courses. Her most recent publications appear in the volumes New Media and Intercultural Communication: Identity, Community and Politics and Cy­ berfeminism 2.0. Suchitra Shenoy (Ph.D., Purdue University) is an assistant professor in the College of Communication at DePaul University. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in organizational and multicultural communica­ tion. Her research interests include the intersections of multiple social iden­ tities (e.g., religion, class, gender, immigration status) in the (co)construction of career discourses; influences of socialization, culture, and agency on indi­ viduals’ relational and professional sense making and negotiation processes; and family communication. Candice Thomas­Maddox (Ed.D., West Virginia University) is profes­ sor of Communication Studies at Ohio University–Lancaster. She teaches courses in family communication, organizational communication, and inter­ cultural communication. She is the co­author of six textbooks and has pub­ lished in Communication Research Reports, Communication Teacher, and Western Journal of Communication. Dexin Tian (Ph.D., Bowling Green State University) teaches liberal arts at Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah. His teaching and research interests lie in intercultural communication, mass communication, and com­ munication research methods. He also examines the cultural roots of intellec­ tual property rights. Jennifer Willis­Rivera (Ph.D., Bowling Green State University) is asso­ ciate professor of Communication at the University of Wisconsin–River Falls. She teaches undergraduate courses in intercultural communication and communication theory. She has published in Communication Studies, Wom­ en and Language, and Communication Teacher. Her research interests in­ clude Latin@ communication in families and pedagogy in higher education.

About the Editors and Contributors

DRAFT

Deanna F. Womack (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is professor of Com­ munication at Kennesaw State University. She teaches graduate and under­ graduate courses in communication theory and organizational communica­ tion. She has conducted research on conflict management, health communi­ cation, and organizational communication and is currently writing an intro­ ductory communication theory textbook.

[J01.17]