Tags
Anthropology, Bronislaw Malinowski, Bunny Drop, Daikichi, Family, Home, Is There A Family?, Rin, Rosaldo, Usagi Drop, Yanagisako
I want you to pause for a while and imagine what a family is composed of.
Now, I assume that most would probably describe family as a unit which consist of a male husband, female wife, and possibly, children. I’m not going to be surprised because this ideology is widespread throughout the world, which is known as “universal human institution” or The Family.
Take for instance, if you’re watching Mawaru Penguindrum, you may have noticed that the family pictures were always with dad, mom, and kids. In contrary, the argument that I’m trying to convey here—supported by realistic portrayal of single parenting in Usagi Drop—is that the notion of family’s universal existence is nothing but a misconceived idea construed by the functionalists and eventually largely accepted by the society.
Bronislaw Malinowski, a social anthropologist, is accountable for today’s popular misconception of the family as a “universal phenomenon.” In his ethnography, The Family Among The Australian Aborigines, he argued that The Family, had to be universal because it fulfilled a universal human need, especially the nurturing of the children. Wherein the family unit was preserved and sheltered by the obligation of its members to one another, by the established roles of husband (father), wife (mother) and children with a particular set of emotions or “family love”, and by the society recognition of those within the unit as a family.
Later on, modern anthropologists challenged this notion. Some even argued that a unit can be a family even without having a father, since the mother is the natural nurturer as defined by her supposed gender role. However, we know that this is not true for all cases. As exemplified in Usagi Drop, there are units that are composed of a father and a child, in which the mother is irrelevant in nurturing a child.
For instance, Rin never see Masako—her supposed birth mom—as her mother, but rather only as a maid that she had always feared of. Although in some cases, as illustrated by Daikichi’s mother, women were viewed and bounded as “mothers” first as defined by “nurturant” concerns. Thus, women are often excluded from the business competition, social ordering, and social change propelled and are dominated by their male counterparts.
In addition, Daikichi’s sacrifice—job demotion, loss of bachelor’s life, and sleep interruption (Rin’s pee issues) epitomized that one doesn’t need to be labeled or called as “dad,” in order to function as what a father can do for a child. Hence, if we are going to stick with the notion of Malinowski’s The Family, then surely Daikichi and Rin are disqualified based from the definition. But, it’s undeniable that they too function and serve as a family.
Truly, The Family is not a concrete “thing” that fulfills concrete “needs” but an ideological construct. In functionalist narrative, The Family and its constituent members “adapt” to fulfill functional requirements shaped for it by the industrialization of production—provision of food, clothing, and shelter essential for biological survival. However, it is important for us to recognize that while families represent deep and salient modern themes, for some scenarios contemporary families are unlikely to fulfill the likewise modern “nurturant” needs. As shown in Usagi Drop, family isn’t necessarily composed of father, mother, and child, but rather a certain type of relationship that involves affection and love that is based on enduring rather than temporary—something that a person is willing to sacrifice for.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Side Remarks:
- Rin’s Cat’s Cradle’s skills amazed me. I wish I’m as good as Rin.
- I just noticed that this salary woman always has her own a train moment, and her reactions are so funny.
- References:
Lemmas and Submodalities 
The thing about deconstruction is that it doesn’t expose lies or misconceptions, unless everything is a lie and a misconception.
Rather, if there is anything here, is that the privileged idea of what a family is at the expense of other possibilities is the nuclear father+mother+kids one, where usually the father is the breadwinner and the mother is the home maker.
UD deconstructs this by providing another possible familial arrangement that delivers the function of the family, the benefits of family, without adhering to the privileged version of the family.
This is GREAT. However, you asserting that this makes MY family (the one I grew up with, and the one I built now with my GUTS and LOVE) a misconceived idea — a version of the family that I will pass on to my children as ideal — is foolish, unless every construct is misconceived.
But if every construct is such, there is no need to deconstruct anything! There is no absolute in a post-structuralist world view. To declare the privileged version of the family as a lie is an absolutist lie that begs deconstructing itself. What I think you really want to say is that, possibilities for family exist and are awesome, and Usagi Drop is showing us just that.
No, what I’m trying to convey here is society still mainly acknowledges nuclear family as dad + mom + kids. Why does it always have to portray that a child who doesn’t belong to that kind of a family is helpless and inferior to the ones who have “complete” family–and I’m talking beyond Usagi Drops? If you will carefully read my article the word “universal” itself generalizes everything—the notion of dad + mom + kids. That’s why I’m arguing that it shouldn’t be like that. If one restricts the definition of The Family as defined by Malinowki’s, then it implies that single parents and same sex parents fall outside the definition, which I believe should never be the case.
I apologize if you think I’m misconceiving the definition of your family, but that’s never my intention. The only way to think that every construct is misconceived is if and only if you’re considering that the definition of your family alone—father+ mother+ kid—is the universal form of a family, that no other arrangement is suitable to fit the definition. To simplify things, modern anthropologists and feminists questioned the notion of being “universal,” because, again, it kicks everything that doesn’t comply with the description hence causing discrimination.
Indeed, that’s what I’m trying to argue here. The early works of the known philosophers and anthropologists limited our worldview, which I truly believed should never be like that. That’s why I’m presenting here that the traditional thinking about family only having dad+mom+kids, isn’t the only arrangement. Hence, I’m deconstructing the definition presented by Malinowski which is embraced largely by the society to argue that other arrangements are also valid. And FYI, this notion of “universal family” is NOT adopted by post-structuralist. I believed I made it clear that the functionalists promoted this ideology.
Thanks for reading my post and sharing your thoughts :)
I just think that having two parents just eases the burden of child rearing quite a bit. While it’s not easy by any means, one parent having to shoulder all the burden without any flexibility does take a toll.
Growing up in a single parent household and never really knowing my father, or indeed a father figure, I can comfortably say that it isn’t easy, but it doesn’t stunt a child in the slightest for there not to be one parent around, as long as that parent is involved and willing to make sacrifices.
In addition, the mother=nurturer/father=provider dynamics have been somewhat debunked in the mainstream through positive depictions in the media of households not necessarily consisting of such (Will’s family in Fresh Prince of Bel Air comes to mind).
While such figures are important (Not as far as the dynamics go, just as far as having someone of the same gender to identify with), they aren’t instrumental to having a functioning family unit. What’s more important is for children to socialize with people that they feel comfortable with and have somebody to teach them how to function in the world. As long as those two prerequisites are there, I believe that’s a family.
Of course, two is better than one, iff both are equally taking responsibility and helping each other—if not then what’s the point of being together. But of course, it’s not just providing the survival needs. It’s also about someone who’s there who can provide the emotional needs of the child. As what we have seen in Usagi Drop, Daikichi asked for demotion so that he can fully support Rin. Money is never really the issue but the emotional support. Also I believed in that notion, as long as there someone who’s willing to sacrifice regardless of that person’s relation is, then you can call that person as your family.
The idea of a nuclear family does hold water though. In the end, it’s the safest means to raise a child, but in many cases it’s just unrealistic. Still, family dynamics are as varied as can be, and many succeed and achieve the same result: A happy child, grateful for all the love their parent(s) gave them.
The views about family is highly subjective. I believe that nuclear family is the most “accepted” setup of family in the world because it’s the norm. However, I don’t think I will argue that having that kind of a family is the safest means to raise a child. For me, as long as the child is receiving the right attention, needs and love, regardless of the family setup, then that’s the safest.
But it’s pretty much accepted that a family is, in the end, a person or group of people that accept and love the child while raising them to be a productive member of society. Again, not saying that the mother=caregiver/father=breadwinner family is the only way, and the roles are intermingling about equally in the modern day, but it’s less of a challenge overall as far as actions telling more than words.
Of course there are exceptions, and single or same sex parents are no less able right off the bat to raise children.
That’s what I think though, and I know that our thoughts on the matter don’t diverge terribly.
I understand what you mean, everything that falls under the norm is easily accepted, so in general people on that curve tend to live a socially less “complicated” life. However, I don’t want equate this supposed norm to being the safest mean to raise a child because we’ve to take into consideration the unseen inner conflicts within the family. That said, we’re on the same boat in regards to thinking that a family is, in the end, a person or group of people that accept and love the child while raising them to be a productive member of society.
I think I understand where you’re getting at.
When you think of “family”, it is, by society’s standards, normally made up of a father, a mother and children. However, there are cases when this is not apparent. It is not unusual in our time, for there to be single parents (which is the case in my family), surrogate parents, and in a worst case scenario, no parents at all.
It is not the people that make a family what it is, but how they are connected as a family that they are called as such.
Or so I believe after reading your post.
Yes, exactly. Any notion of the “family,” is just socially constructed, that being said there’s no such thing as universal truth about it but rather, multiple truths. Also, the problem arises when one’s worldview is being threatened especially in accepting that there are multiple truths.
Absolutely, and that’s the main reason why I questioned Malinowski’s notion of a family—well, I just happen to take a course that discussed a bit of this and led me to the works of different scholars who are questioning the notion of The Family, so it’s not really my main idea. I just thought that it’s fun to share. ^^
Actually, the reason why society still defines “nuclear family” as dad + mom + kids is because that’s the word picked to define that situation. Which is a subset of the word “family” (which covers the myriads of other forms) and defines a set-up different then say an “extended family” which where grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. live together.
As for society portraying “a child who doesn’t belong to that kind of a family [a]s helpless and inferior”, I’d ask – have you actually watched much anime? An anime with the nuclear family as it’s focal point is exceedingly rare in anime; I can only think of Puella Magi Madoka Magica, Clannad, and Kamichu right now. The norm is either the family situation is not shown or so far removed from the goings-on that it’s irrelevant or one/both parents are died.
And I’m sorry, I honestly don’t think that “society” views the nuclear family as the only type of family, then again maybe whichever country you’re living in society does but in America, with it’s ~50% divorce rate and ~40+% children born out-of-wedlock, it’s easier finding a non-nuclear family then a nuclear one.
And really, even trying to use a strict adherence to Bronislaw Malinowski as your strawman, you don’t really prove your point that the “family” is not a universal human institution. If Usagi Drop was an anime about the real-life story of how Rin was put out in the forest the moment after birth and actually surviving to adulthood after being all completely alone all that time then you might have something that would show family is not a universal human institution but you don’t. The best you got here is that the family can take many different forms but everyone knows that – Barney the Dinosaur even sang about it decades ago.
If you’re just accepting things just the way they are, then I’m sorry but I beg to differ. I truly believed that everything has its own roots. The notion of the Family is not just something that is picked to define the situation. In almost every ethnography, even Malinowski’s, it’s argued that the view of The Family has a deep seated historicity, social attributes and gender relations. Perhaps to understand this, you should be questioning, why such different subsets exist, and why some are much more socially accepted or discriminated than the other. In analyzing that please keep in mind that we’re living in a socially constructed world.
I’m sorry but I’m afraid I haven’t seen that much anime yet, but there you go, you already said it so. You’re telling me that there are different types of family arrangements in anime, hence that disproves universality of The Family—“dad+mom+kids.” So, I don’t get what you’re trying to say here since I’m also arguing the same thing.
It’s funny that you’re saying that, and seriously did you really know who Bronislaw Malinowski? Have you ever read a page or two of his The Family Among The Australian Aborigines? FYI, his works mainly pertained and largely influenced the Western culture especially the US. As I already argued on my previous comment, if we’re going to stick with the definition of The Family then we’re delisting the single parents, same-sex parents, and even kids with no parents out of the family’s definition. Yes, lots of things have changed and that’s mainly because lots of scholars, anthropologists and feminists questioned this notion of The Family. However, we can’t totally erase such views. Why do you think it’s important for most politicians to depict a “nice” and “complete” family orientation—something that is set by the norm = dad+mom+kids?
I’m not trying to prove anything here because my claims are already raised by some scholars and everything I said here is just based and supported by the peer reviews that I’ve read. What I’m trying to express here is to share what I learned and believed to my readers—I guess that’s what blogging is all about :). And yes, I’m using Malinowski’s notion and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. However, if you’re going to raise an argument why I used him as my strawman, if you’re not convinced with what I’ve presented here, then I suggest you to read Malinowki’s article and the queries of the modern philosophers and anthropologists first before you scrutinize me. Perhaps after you read them, we can start comparing everything apples to apples. Who knows we might even end up on the same boat, because from what I can understand, you’re also dismissing the notion of “universal existence of Family,” right? That’s why I don’t understand why you’re being too negative on my post.
Btw, I used an anime particularly Usagi Drop to present my thoughts because I’m trying to show the parallels between RL and anime. Also, I enjoyed how anime rampantly depicts the taboos and exaggerating the story for a bit, that’s why I used it a my example and also because I’m not an anthropologist, there’s no way for me to do my own ethnography. If I am, then I’ll be using RL situations, but unfortunately I’m not. :(
That being said, I truly enjoyed reading your comment and I appreciate seeing new visitors on my site. Thanks for your thoughts and for giving me the chance to rant out more about this. :)
PS I just posted my references feel free to check them out.
> An anime with the nuclear family as it’s focal point is exceedingly rare in anime
I’m not convinced. I’d buy the suggestion that families in general are a rare focal point in anime. But I’ve never felt that nuclear families are *under-represented* in anime (that are set in an appropriate society and era). Anime that primarily study a family structure are rare indeed, though they frequently touch on a rough family situation as the background of a character.
> And I’m sorry, I honestly don’t think that “society” views the nuclear family as the only type of family
That’s a very good point, and one that I was going to make. The “nuclear family” is a construct that sprang up in the middle of the last century in some Americanized countries, and can be considered more of a social engineering experiment than as a predominant view (from what I’ve read).
> you don’t really prove your point that the “family” is not a universal human institution
It hasn’t been proven either way to my knowledge. Sociologists and anthropologists have been arguing over this for a long time. It is unlikely to be strictly universal unless we stretch the definition of the term “universal”, although my limited knowledge of the subject implies that exceptions are exceedingly rare. Universal is an ill-chosen word in this context.
Exactly, that’s why I never ruled out any type of family. I’m just arguing that, there shouldn’t be a so-called “universal” type of family. It’s unfortunate that the nuclear family is in this position because, its definition had been used to define what’s universal. Again, what I’m ruling out is the notion of being called universal, and I’m suggesting that there are multiple truths or arrangements of family.
Again, that’s exactly the reason why they questioned Malinowski’s notion. Having a nuclear family is the most celebrated and accepted form of a family and Malinowki’s concepts is one of the concepts responsible in promoting such ideology especially in the academia. Also, that’s why unconsciously society created negativity towards single-parents and same-sex couples. Of course this is slowly changing, however it’s undeniable that the constructed norms are still apparent.
> I’m just arguing that, there shouldn’t be a so-called “universal” type of family
That’s certainly true, and I recognized that. It’s probably just too easy to mistake your argument with the age-old question that “family (in general) is universal”, rather one given “type” of family.
> It’s unfortunate that the nuclear family is in this position
The thing is, steelbound and I aren’t convinced that it *is* in this position. Perhaps it is in some regions of the USA where there are scary factions of zealots trying to legally define a “family” as the nuclear vision of a “biological mother, biological father, and their children”. But it’s not a common view outside of those regions, is it?
Actually, I live in Canada It’s said that we’re more open-minded and liberated in terms of these views. However, because it’s so multicultural you can still feel the subtle indifferent and unaccepted views about the family, which correlates to what Malinowski’s notion.
As for the US, I can’t really speak for it. However, if I’m going to base my reasoning from US shows such as 16 and Pregnant and some other reality shows, you will hear that some kids don’t want to raise their child because they don’t want their kid to live under the roof of an “incomplete” family, so it’s pretty apparent that part of your country is still bounded by this ideology. Although it’s not common perhaps, but we can’t deny the fact that some still believe on that underlying principle (mainly because there was a time that this is the main ideology), plus we don’t really know how much is that “some.”
Family is like you said, just a construct, a fictional thing. A natural rule created with the prospect of educating young animals to become full fledged adults. Nothing more, nothing less.
Obviously it is also a very nice thing that allow us time to get ready for society and I think it should not be bound by the configuration of Biological Mother, Father, Child. Even a single mother or father can do a nice job in this regard, or even non-biological parents…
Thank you so much for paying attention to my words and my post. This is one of the main reasons why I enjoy reading your comments. It’s so simple but yet it can thrust so deeply with its straightforwardness. :)
Thanks for the thought-provoking post. One of Usagi Drop’s points of interest lies in the fact that it shows the limits of how far one is willing to “redefine” what family means to them.
Daikichi always struggles to define his “family role” beyond that of basic provider. And Rin’s character is a fascinating example of a child who is unwilling to transfer the “roles” of her biological parents, even if she doesn’t know them. To her, Daikichi isn’t “dad”. She even calls Dai’s grandfather “grandpa”.
What I like about anime is that it has a tendency to explore these things subtly. I’m used to family-study shows being blatant (and even preachy) in North American TV, but anime has a tendency to focus on the complications without making it out to be an overwrought thought experiment.
To be honest I never thought that this post will generate long comments. I thought Usagi Drop has so simple plot that people will not really care that much about. Anyway, family issues and “realistic” portrayal is what I really enjoyed when watching this anime. Also, knowing the fact that they’re portraying different culture interests me because just like you this kind of a story is something that I don’t really see in North American TV, that’s why it’s refreshing to watch it.
Btw, thanks for reading my post and sharing your thoughts. ^^
I think that anime have shown us variations of this concept of “Family” over and over. Take for instance, shounen anime such as Naruto or Fairy Tail or Ao no Exorcist where the concept of family has been redefined with how a person shares his bonds with his friends or with the adults that looked over him during their youth.
Often than not, a father figure stands to guard over his “children”, such as Makarov of Fairy Tail or Sandaime Hokage from Naruto or Father Shirou from Ao. While they are not affiliated by blood, these old-timer’s sense of responsibility of looking over the protagonist during their youth molded the notion that these guys are like fathers to them; fathers that they never had, fathers that they wished to have.
I think that by watching anime, it has educated me over and over what it meant to have a family. That it’s not necessary to be affiliated by blood but simply, by the bonds that ties us all when it comes to our experience. It may sound like a fancy ideal but nowadays, I think what most of us need is to have people to consider as “family” in order to guide us through our lives.
That’s also exactly what I’m trying to convey here. Family has no exact definition however, since we are social individuals we tend to construct our own ideologies and usually the popular ones overpower the other ones hence that’s where dilemma with the definition starts to arise.
I also enjoy watching anime because it’s not afraid to show taboos rampantly (and I’m not just talking about Usagi Drop). And, I believe it will be nice to relate anime to real life theories and concepts that’s why I shared this post, because, they really make sense, as anime mirrors society—although not exactly.
Yes, I’m also considering anime as modern literature. And, I totally agreed with you in saying that anime portrays facets of society that are lacking in reality or something that is already in reality but people find it too awkward to deal with it directly—the taboos and social issues that are difficult to explicitly explore.
Btw, thanks for visiting my site and I’m glad that you find my article enjoyable and engaging. ^^
Pingback: Anti-Social Geniuses Reference Resource Mondays | Organization Anti Social Geniuses
I guess I should’ve watched episode 3 of Usagi Drop before reading this.
I consider any group where the members are willing to make unconditional sacrifices for the others to be a family, they don’t necessarily have to have parents or children or any gender-specific roles. A company, for instance, could be considered a family if the employees all work and support each other regardless of their position in the corporate ladder.
Indeed. We have our own definition of a family. As Usagi Drop showed, even among “family” (with blood relations) they discriminate their own member, e.g. Rin being a illegitimate child, so family is really a huge context.
The original definition of the word “family” does imply blood relations between parents and children. However, as we see how the society is evolving as the time goes by, I think there’s a need to change that definition. We’re a family cuz we say so. It’s that simple.
I believed that the formal use of definition is always started in academia, that’s why researchers and philosophers are always accountable in the formulation of terms. But not all culture apply the definition of having blood relation to become a family.
Back to comment. Read this, but did not have the time to say anything.
Anyway, I have to agree with you on family, the definition itself has changed over the past few years, since people just do not live as a nuclear family anymore and more like an extended family. Other than that, family is just not people you are related too, but also you can be taken in by friends, neighbors, etc.
I remember when I was really young, since my parents worked odd hours and I was not old enough to stay by myself or my older brother was around, I used to stay with a family up the street. They had two older children and they used to push me on the swing out back. Also remember I would go everwhere with them and they would almost spoil me, buying me toys or other things. Really felt like my second family ^^ (sorry If am going off tangent).
Nonetheless, nice article and one of my favorites you have written thus far ^^
I agree with you. I remember we watched a documentary wherein there’s this tribe where children don’t really consider their parents as part of their family, but rather only their siblings, that’s why for this instance the definition of the family had been challenged.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience and for your thoughtful comment. It really made me smile. ^^
Pingback: Motherhood, a Biological and Social Construct — Idea from Usagi Drop | SnippetTee's Blog
Pingback: 7th Day of Anime: Usagi Drop, A Tale of Parenting « Lemmas and Submodalities
The differences between cultural norms and reality are very interesting. Think of the way families were practically non-existent in the “civilized” locations of Brave New World.
The books that you cited look very interesting. I’ll have to check them out.
Pingback: Lemmas and Submodalities’ Portfolio « Lemmas and Submodalities
Touche. Sound arguments. Keep up the good spirit.