Family as a nexus of material-discursive practices

Within the last decades the concept of family was subject to constant redefinition. Who and what is family was steadily questioned. Top down definitions of family appear in family research, statistics, legal texts and political definitions. While Family was defined by Parsons and Bales (1956) as a formation that includes a men, a women and their biological child, to date several more assemblages of humans are considered to be a family: e.g divorced parents with their new partners and their children, single mothers with their children, same sex couples with our without children or couples that live together apart. Despite many forms of close relationships exist today, the importance of the institution family has not declined. If we look at self definitions (bottom up definitions) of family in interviews a certain closeness within a relationship and certain activities are used to attach the meaning `family` to a relationship (e.g. Jalinoja, 2008; Roseneil, 2006; Pahl and Spencer, 2010). These definitions do often not fit structural or legal definitions of family. Informants also define a group of long-term roommates or a couple with their two cats as family. Research on bottom up definitions of family investigates the narratives of informants about their family ties (e.g. Pahl and Spencer, 2010) and the meaning of family, which is attached to certain family activities (e.g. Morgan, 1996). In my research I want to bring top down and bottom up definitions of family together by perceiving both of them as parts of practices, which constitute families. I am interested in those practices and how family is established within practices and how boundaries to other relationships are drawn. Thus, by employing a new materialist framework (Barad, 2003, 2007; Braidotti, 2003, 2006, 2007; Haraway, 2004, 2008, Hirschauer, 1999, 2004), I consider families, their members and their boundaries as made in material-discursive practices. This leads to the following research questions: Which practices form a family? Which practices form boundaries between family members and non family members? Which participants besides humans are included in those practices (e.g. animals, things, definitions, documents, discourses.)? The methodological consequence of investigating everyday practices is ethnographic research on micro-relations between participants and the embodiment of family (Schadler, 2013; Villa, 2010). A substantial definition that is faithful to everyday family practices must be empirically grounded. The ethnographic study will show which family members and relations appear that form a family. This process will enrich the theoretical definition of family. The aim of my research is an ethnographic description of family that encompasses the everyday practices that humans and their companions participate in.

Within the past few decades, the definition family has come to include diverse living arrangements and the notion of family member has been extended to animals or even artefacts. Simultaneously, traditional definitions of family persist and remain a powerful structure. So how should family scholars define family? The scholarly discussion of family definitions so far focused either on structural definitions (legal or statistical definitions) or individual definitions (self-descriptions in interviews). My research showed that both definitions can be integrated into a third strategy to define family: defining family by everyday practices. I hypothesized that I can find similar practices in a great variety of relationships with a great variety of definitions. Empirically I researched various forms of relationships (non-monogamous relationships, couples, nuclear Families, Humans with pets, nomads, singles, room- and workmates). Within these various forms of relationships I searched for practices that define the boundaries of family. According to my hypothesis I found rather similar practices. Lets look at this example: Two adults live with a child. In the morning another grown up, who is living next door, joins them and helps with the care for the child. The joint breakfast, their collective care for the child and their shared plans for the day and future define them as a family. I found this practice in two cases that define themselves very different: one formation defines itself as a polyamorous network and all three grown ups define themselves as parents of the child. In the second case two grown ups define themselves as nuclear family and the third grown up as an aunt that helps out. So, if we ask for a self-definition both families would answer differently. If we look at structural definitions, the first case would not be recognized as a family and in the second case only the carework of the mother and the father would be visible. However, both cases are part of the same practices. I show that a glance at practices includes a great variety of different forms of living without the need to categorize them as specific forms of family. Unlike current definitions of family, this approach does not overlook humans and animals and things that structure family live. The empirical aim of this explorative project was to document the practices that define togetherness and family across a great variety of cases. For scholars this research provides a new definition of family as a sequence of boundary making practices that deconstructs the opposition and ambivalence between structural and self-definitions.