How Language runs (in) the Family: Mapping The Enunciation Regime of a Family
In the theory and the practice of parenting, the concept oflearninghas become omnipresent, and childrearing is reframed as a task that requires particular know-how and technique (e.g., Furedi, 2002; RamaekersSuissa, 2012). Parent becomes a verb – ‘to’ parent – and ‘knowledge’ about parenting (gained from experience, books, parenting classes, and so on) is portrayed as a resource that adults can and should access in order to fulfill their duty. Various authors (e.g., Biesta, 2006; Dalhberg, 2003; Gillies, 2011) develop the similar critique, i.e. parenting is conceptualized as a goal-oriented process which is a narrow conception of what it means to raise children. The authors develop this critique on the level of the discourse, mainly focusing on how the discourse of parenting is increasingly framed in terms of duties, skills, knowledge, and so on. Our study is consistent with this critique, but we focus explicitly on the ‘practical’ level, i.e. how the emphasis on learning influences the concrete daily lives of family members. More specifically, our study focuses on the concrete language used by parents and children. In order to engage in the discussion about the current (changing) condition of the family, the main research interest of this study is to open up the language of ‘parenting’ by focusing in detail on one particular dimension, namely (verbal and non-verbal)parent-child interaction.Predominantly, the importance of parental communication is defined in a functional way, tackling issues such as what parenting techniques are associated with positive child outcomes, and how to maintain meaningful relationships with your child/teenager (Segrin & Flora, 2011). Our framework, however, adopts a perspective on parental communication that is in line with what Latour callsregimes of enunciation(Latour, 2010). Law, religion, science and politics are understood by Latour as particular regimes of enunciation – each has a particular regime of speech, a particular way of speaking. Indeed, what does it mean to talk politically or religiously? Latour wants to define the particular regimes of enunciation in order to identify “the times, places, topics and people who do actually ‘knit’ politics” (Latour, 2003, p. 145). The main research question we want to raise is whether apedagogicalregime of enunciation exists in the family and if so, to what extent is this regime affected by the contemporary learning discourse? The purpose of this study, then, is to map how a regime of enunciation of a family (a ‘traditional’ pedagogical institution) looks like through the following research questions:(1) what kind of interaction (verbal, non-verbal) takes shape within family? (2) How can this interaction inform us about the current (changing) condition of the family?
Method
We will use data of a broad ethnographic study seeking to register and to describe different kinds of pedagogical moments in the family. The sample consisted of six families; all were drawn from one area of East-Flanders. One of the aims of the research was to register and to describe in detail the family-in-practice. Therefore, a fairly small number of families were included. Three methods of inquiry were conducted: (1) videotape two family moments, (2) following one child at the time and (3) ‘interrogate’/interview each family member about his day. It was also an objective to see which methods ‘work’ in grasping the family-in-practice. Given the specific aim of this contribution, we will not go deeper into all three of the methods but only highlight the one we use. The ethnographic methodology we developed was inspired by the ‘go-along’ as described by Kusenbach (2003). We adopted the role of the silent observer who followed a child into their ‘familiar’ environment without interpellating or interviewing her. We spent an entire day with each child of a family i.e. from the moment the child woke up until the moment she went to bed. We experimented with audio-recordings (i.e. giving the child a dictaphone), at the same time taking notes and pictures. Afterwards we expanded these notes into full sets of descriptive field notes.
Expected Outcomes
As the study is still being effectuated, we can only hint at some preliminary conclusions in the form of expected outcomes. We expect the study to contribute to the field of parenting studies on at least three levels: (1) Empirical results with respect to the role of (spoken) language in the constitution of both family life and a pedagogical regime of enunciation; (2) Methodological results by sharpening ethnographic methodology and adapting it for family context; (3) Theoretical results concerning alleged dominance of ‘learning’ in contemporary families.
References
Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. Colorado: Paradigm. Dahlberg, G. (2003). Pedagogy as a loci of an ethics of an encounter. In M. Bloch, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist, & T. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families and education. Restructuring the welfare state (pp. 261 – 286). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Furedi, F. (2002). Paranoid parenting. Abandon your anxieties and be a good parent. London: Allen Lane. Gillies, V. (2011). From function to competence: Engaging with the new politics of family. Sociological Research Online, 16(4), Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street Phenomenology: The Go-Along as Ethnographic Research Tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 449-479. Latour, B. (2003). What if we talked politics a little? Contemporary Political Theory, 2(2), 143 – 164. Latour, B. (2010). The making of law. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ramaekers, S. & Suissa, J. (2012). The claims of parenting: Reasons, responsibility and society. Dordrecht: Springer. Segrin, C., & Flora, F. (Eds.) (2011). Family communication. New York: Routledge.