Family Troubles,Troubling Families,and Family Practices

Introduction

In the course of their lives, individuals will, to varying degrees, experience and suffer from numerous troubles, misfortunes, calamities, and distressing events. These may be external (unemployment, natural disasters, war), internal (physical or mental health), or some combination of the two. However, we can quickly realize that the image that may be conjured up by this unexceptional statement, that of a lone individual battling against numerous slings and arrows, is a distorted and misleading one.

In principle, these troubles are, almost always, relational troubles. Individuals are located in social networks or configurations. The troubles may actually derive from or be about these relationships or the troubles, while originating outside these configurations, may have an impact on and interact with these relationships. Frequently there is some kind of interaction between what is found to be troubling, whatever their source, and the interrelated sets of individuals who are touched by them.

To talk of “family troubles” is to provide immediate recognition of the relational character of everyday problems. But clearly, as we see from network or configurational analysis (Widmer & Jallinoja, 2008), these sets of others might not be exclusively family members; they may include friends, neighbors, or work colleagues as well. “Family troubles,” therefore, relate to some subset of this universe of others. In my passport, I am required to provide the name of two individuals—“relatives or friends”—who may be contacted in the event of an accident. It is likely that in many cases, probably most, the persons cited will be relatives. But this is not necessarily the case.

My aims in this article are

I shall illustrate some of these arguments through a fictional example, Terence Rattigan’s play, The Winslow Boy.

In the course of this exploration, I also wish to contribute to elaborating the distinction, which runs through this set of articles and elsewhere (Ribbens McCarthy, Hooper, & Gillies, 2014), between “troubled families” and “troubling families.” Furthermore, I shall be referring to both “problems” and “troubles.” In this, I shall be following the distinction deployed by Ara Francis (2015) in her book Family Trouble. A “problem” is something identified over a period of time with an individual—in her analysis, a child in a family. Trouble refers to the ways in which this problem both disrupts the normal expectations of the full set of relevant family members, but which can also be seen as part of everyday family life.

Bracketing Family and Troubles

Oliver Goldsmith, in his novel The Vicar of Wakefield (first published, 1766), has a chapter heading (Chapter XI) that states that “the Family still resolve to hold up their Heads” in the face of numerous calamities. Note, the curious construction of Goldsmith’s chapter heading: The family is both singular and plural. This is an insight that is worth holding on to. Whatever the direction of movement from troubles to family, it is clear that in all cases there is some mutual implication and the “family” is partially constituted through the process of engaging with or confronting troubles. In the case of the Vicar of Wakefield, while many of the problems appear to have an external origin—a sudden decline in family fortunes, the abduction of a daughter—the central interest in the novel lies in the way in which the gently patriarchal father and other family members attempt to confront these problems, frequently creating further family trouble as they do so.

The idea, unintentionally suggested by Goldsmith, that the family can be both plural and individual, may be developed in the analysis of family troubles. It reminds us of the variability and flexibility of family boundaries, and who is or is not included depends on circumstances. In talking about “family troubles,” we are talking about the ways in which families are constituted and reconstituted through engagement with troubles. We may think of a billiard table where an external shock (in actual life something like unemployment or sickness) affects some balls and not others or where all the balls are affected. We may imagine situations where one person is affected and does all he or she can to keep other family members ignorant of the affliction. Or a set of family members may decide to act collectively and present something of a united front to the outside world. This is an example of what Finch (2007) calls “family display,” a set of actions carried out by a group of family members to demonstrate to others that they are a family that “works.” Whatever metaphors we wish to adopt, the unifying idea is that families and troubles are mutually implicated and that families are constituted through the ways in which they respond to and create problems.

It may be argued that this understanding is more generally true and extends beyond family relationships and that the importance of all “significant others” is constructed through the way in which they respond individually or collectively to various crises. Crises, for example, are frequently described as occasions when “you know who your friends are.” However, family relationships may have some distinct characteristics that affect this interrelationship between the constitution of families and troubles:

A key feature of these dependencies, mutualities, and obligations is that they have a temporal dimension and evolve over time. A sense of obligation may evolve out of earlier dependencies and mutualities. Family configurations (which can include nonfamily relationships such as neighbors and friends) involve the interweaving of biographies over time. The bracketing of the terms family and troubles occurs to a large extent because of this nexus of dependencies, mutualities, and obligations elaborating over time.

This section has tended to suggest that the troubles impinge on families from “outside.” This may be true in some cases, the sudden death of a parent, for example (Jamieson & Highet, 2014). Other troubles may actually emerge from within sets of family relationships as where family members are dealing with parental substance abuse (Wilson, 2014). In practice, this distinction between external and internal troubles is frequently difficult to draw and probably not very helpful. What remains the case is that family boundaries are created and recreated through the engagement of family members with troubles, whatever their source.

An Illustration: The Winslow Boy

Rattigan’s play, The Winslow Boy, was first performed in London in 1946. The play is based on a true story and is set in the period immediately before the First World War. A 14-year-old boy, Ronnie Winslow, is expelled from a naval academy for, it is alleged, having forged a signature on a postal order and by this means stealing a sum of money from another cadet. His father, once he has convinced himself of the boy’s innocence, decides to fight the case, and in this he has the support of his daughter, Catherine (Ronnie’s elder sister) and, more ambiguously, his wife, Grace. The case drags on for several months, is discussed in the press, and ends up being debated in the House of Commons even at a time of growing threats of war in Europe. After 2 years, involving the hiring of an expensive but effective barrister, the judgment is overturned and Ronnie’s innocence determined.

We can see here how what was originally an individual problem—an accusation of theft and the subsequent expulsion—quickly becomes a family trouble. We first see Ronnie returning home while other family members are at church and fearful of his father’s expected reaction. So the family dimension is built in from the start not least because the father, Arthur, is paying Ronnie’s school fees. The play can be seen as a dramatic reconstruction of an actual legal case, but it is much more an exploration of the complex ways in which the original problem reverberates throughout the members of this particular household.

Thus, what might be seen as an individual trouble facing a young boy, quickly becomes a family problem. In this, we have to consider the interrelationships over time between each family member’s individual biography and the standing of the family in the community. The elaboration into a “family trouble” is based partly on dependency (increasingly economic dependency), a growing sense of mutuality especially between the father and the daughter, and a more diffuse sense of obligation to the family name and identity. We can also see process of “family display” taking place (Finch, 2007). In the face of some negative public opinion, they attempt to present some kind of united front when dealing with the press, for example. We may also note, finally, that gender is a key, although unspoken, theme in this play. In keeping with the patriarchal character of the times (the early 20th century) and in recognition of the semipublic nature of the original problem, the prime responsibility initially rests with the father. Clearly, this is not always the case when families confront trouble (Francis, 2015).

Family Practices and Family Troubles

Over the past few years, I have elaborated an approach to family studies that focuses on “family practices” rather than on a particular institution, structure, or functions (Morgan, 2011). My aim in developing this approach was to avoid some of the theoretical and political difficulties that can arise when talking about the family while continuing to recognize that family life remains a matter of some importance to a large section of the population. The question I am asking now is how far does this approach illuminate this particular discussion of family troubles?

The practices approach seeks to move away from discussions of the Family and toward a more fluid understanding of the various ways in which people do family. Every time that someone does something—offers care or advice, sends a text, cooks a meal—for someone else who is identified as being related in family terms, then we see that particular family configuration being reconstructed and reaffirmed. It may also be argued that, in addition, we see more general ideas of “family” being reaffirmed. If we see family as being constantly constructed, renewed, and reshaped through practices, then the various responses to whatever troubles arise are centrally involved. When, in The Winslow Boy, the father decides to approach an effective and expensive barrister to prove his son’s innocence, his action not only has an impact on other family members, but it also reconstructs that family, its nexus of interconnecting relationships, and his patriarchal authority. It is not just an individual act but a family practice and one that has consequences.

In thinking about this fluidity of family relationships and practices, it may also be helpful to enlist Widmer’s ideas of family configuration (Widmer & Jallinoja, 2008). This underlines the fact that we are dealing with a fluid open-ended network of relations, some of which may not necessarily be related in conventional family terms. A particular family set may be at the heart of this network, but these other relationships may be involved and defined in the process of confronting troubling circumstances. Thus, in Rattigan’s play, the Winslows are at the heart of the drama, but the network includes a maid, an intended spouse, and his (unseen) parents and another long-standing family friend who is attracted to the sister. In real life, of course, this family-based circle will almost certainly be much larger.

It is important to see a continuous process of engagement with problems that are constituted as, in some measure, family troubles and through which family relationships are routinely constituted. Families are not inert sets of relationships passively waiting for external shocks to impact on them and for which responses are required. Families have histories of responding to difficulties, and these responses and their memories are woven into confrontations with more recent troubles. Family relationships and family troubles are constituted on a day to day basis through family practices.

The “practices” approach emphasizes the everyday and the routine. It is important to be reminded that many “problems” or troubles are themselves routine. The minor problems associated with everyday illnesses, routine problems at work or school, or the failures of public transport also have the character that they frequently impact on other family members. To this extent, they share the characteristics of more “serious” or “dramatic” problems. Of course, the degree of seriousness of a problem is in part constituted through the mode of engagement with it and the relationships that are constituted through particular modes of engagement.

It is through family practices that more everyday troubles might be woven into larger issues. For example, in The Winslow Boy, the older brother, Dickie, enjoys playing ragtime music on his gramophone, and this is clearly a source of irritation to his parents and one that predates the accusation against his brother. Exchanges about the “cacophonous hullaballoo” might be seen as part of the normal currency of family life, but they take on a new significance in light of the wider trouble accompanying the accusation of theft. The love of loud music, together with the love of gambling and late nights, highlights the contrast between the two brothers.

There is, then, a temporality and sequential character to family practices. It is rarely the case that troubles arise, are confronted in some way or another, and then are filed away and forgotten. The impact of a particular problem and the ways in which family members respond to it becomes part of that family’s history—the stock of stories and reminiscences—which redefine or reaffirm family relationships. Such sedimentations may influence the ways in which family members respond to some future troubles.

My initial aim was to ask what is “family” about “family troubles.” The short answer is that it is family practices that transmute individual troubles into family troubles and, in so doing, construct and reconstruct a sense of family. It is because of our active connections with others in family configurations that individual problems rarely remain so but become family troubles.

It is also important to note that an important aspect of family practices is the way in which they give meaning to events and activities. These meanings may be “family meanings,” defining and redefining the nature of the relationships within this particular family and the way in which gender and generation are played out in this particular context. But it may also refer to wider meanings to do with, say, the nature of suffering, of inequalities, or of good or bad fortune. Family practices are, among other things, meaning creating practices.

Clearly, many of the illustrations provided in this article may seem to be relatively trivial as compared with some of the problems that families are required to deal with. (Again, see Francis, 2015). We always need to be aware of the broader cultural frameworks within which family practices are conducted (Korbin, 2014) and the impact of global processes and movements. It is becoming increasingly important to elaborate this fluid understanding of family life to take account of relationships across national boundaries and the movements of individuals and groups across these:

In the process of migration, family members elaborate new meanings and ways of being a “mother,” “daughter,” “father,” “sister” and so on. (Erel, 2014, p. 199)

Erel goes on to elaborate the idea of “generation work”, defined as “the familial effort of making sense of the rupture and discontinuity of identity and meaning.” (p. 200). Nevertheless, by considering what might seem to be relatively small scale and trivial, we can develop ideas that might help us gain insights into more general ways of understanding the work of family practices. The work of sense making and constituting and reconstituting family boundaries and meanings takes place at all kinds of levels.

Troubling Families

“Family troubles,” varying in intensity and in terms of the numbers of people involved, are part of everyday experience. Everyday, something does not go according to plan, and other family members, even if minimally, are involved in clearing up the mess. Other troubles are much more serious and have long-term implications. However, these may still be troubles relating to and kept within a particular family constellation. But it is also the case that some troubles, and in particular the modes of confronting these troubles, go beyond the confines of a particular family configuration. Despite all efforts to the contrary, it becomes impossible to “keep it in the family.” The private becomes public as when the small figure of the 14-year-old Ronnie Winslow becomes talked about in the newspapers and even the House of Commons. At this point, troubled families become troubling families.

The notion of “problem families” has been around, in various guises, for a long time. Such families may be defined as “problems” in a variety of ways, including

The main point about these constructions is not simply that these represent sets of interlocking problems to the individual family members who are caught up in them. More important, they are seen as problems that seem to be troubling to individuals and agencies outside particular families. These individuals and agencies may include

In thinking about troubling families, therefore, we need to think not simply about the particular mixtures of troubles that give rise to this description but also about those who are using this understanding. We are talking about the processes of amplification that lead to the troubles confronting particular families being projected on to a wider screen for public scrutiny or intervention. We may be dealing with individual family configurations that are identified or constructed as such. Or we may be thinking about something more abstract, problem families in general, constructed sets of practices that serve as a kind of negative benchmark, or potent symbols of what is wrong with society as a whole.

There are frequently complex relationships between family troubles, those often everyday difficulties that reverberate through particular family configurations, and the troubling families that sometimes take on a wider significance. In a sense, we have a meeting here of practices, everyday problems, and ways of dealing with them and discourses about how families should be constituted and function. In one case, individual problems (debt and the threat of losing your family accommodation, for example) may prove to be too much for the persons concerned, and some kind of approach will be made to outside individuals or agencies. In another case, individual difficulties that present themselves to the outside world may be interpreted as being more than a matter for the individual and more a sign of family malfunctioning. Yet again, public discourses or pronouncements (on lone parents, for example) may provide some kind of external standard against which particular family configurations may evaluate themselves in order to assess their normality or to reassert their difference. The general point is that individual family members do not confront their difficulties in isolation from wider sets of practices and discourses.

As an example, we may take the case of teenage pregnancy (Brown, 2016). An unexpected (or even, sometimes, an expected) teenage pregnancy may be a trouble within particular families. The young woman concerned may be worried about how her boyfriend might respond or about how to break the news to her parents. From the start, it is not just seen as “her” problem. But, as Sally Brown argues, teenager pregnancies become an example of troubling families in the context of a wider discourse about the right time for a woman to have a baby: not too early and not too late. Teenage pregnancies are also constructed as problems because of their association with social class, particular urban areas, and the intergenerational character of such pregnancies, the way in which they seem to “run in families.” Yet Brown’s study also shows how these negative understandings may be resisted or neutralized through the everyday understandings and practices of generations of women in particular localities. An unexpected pregnancy may, after all, not be that troubling or disruptive and may be seen as an important signifier of adulthood and the taking on of responsibilities. In the words of one of her respondents, “They think just because you are a young mum, you don’t know nothing and you are talked down to.” (Brown, 2016, p. 108).

It is possible to suggest some general ideas about the relationships between family troubles, troubles within particular family configurations and troubling families:

One of the arguments of the “family practices” approach is that such practices are rarely simply family practices, but they are also, seen in another way, gender practices or class practices as well. This way of describing a set of practices in different ways is part of the essential fluidity of family practices and part also of the way in which troubled families may become, on a wider canvas, troubling families.

Conclusion

Family troubles, family practices, and troubling families are loosely related to one another in a variety of ways. Individual problems become transmuted into family troubles through practices and meaning creation, and in these interactions, family identities and belongings are reaffirmed or established. Some family troubles, again in complex ways, become seen as instances of troubling families. And troubling families enter into public discourses to rebound upon and to give particular meanings to family practices.

It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that all personal troubles are relational troubles, in terms of their origin, in terms of the responses to them, or in terms of both of these. Within this group of relational troubles are, importantly, family troubles. To talk of family troubles is to provide a particular relational way of understanding everyday problems, whatever their origin and whatever their level of seriousness.