Relational Communication About Religious Differences Among In- Laws: a Case Study About the Quality and Health of In-Law Relationships in Orthodox Christian Families

Home , Anastasia, I Will Get There, Methodism, Religious denomination

RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION ABOUT RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES AMONG IN- LAWS: A CASE STUDY ABOUT THE QUALITY AND HEALTH OF IN-LAW RELATIONSHIPS IN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FAMILIES

Anastasia A. Widmer

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

December 2013

Committee:

Dr. Sandra L. Faulkner, Advisor

Dr. Judy L. Adams Graduate Faculty Representative

Dr. Lynda D. Dixon

Dr. Laura Martin Lengel

Anastasia A. Widmer

iii ABSTRACT

Sandra L. Faulkner, Advisor

This dissertation explores relational communication of in-laws in multi-religious

families of American Orthodox Christians and represents an interpretive analysis of

collected personal narratives. These narratives describe American Orthodox Christian

identity in in-law relationships that is directly tied to ethnic identity. Thus, the

presented research is built on the findings about multi-religious and multiethnic family

relationships in the fields of relational communication, family therapy, and religious

studies. I argue that religion and ethnicity are fundamental bases for the formation of

family identity and family culture. Therefore, this dissertation focuses on how religious

differences impact the relational health and quality of communication among the in-

laws. The theoretical framework of the study is Relational Dialectic Theory; I focus on

its two major premises: (1) relationships are products of cultures in which they develop

and (2) the broader cultures offer a variety of meanings that we attach to our

relationships, many of them are oppositional to each other. To explain relational

dialectics in in-law relationships, I used the concept family culture and adopted the

critical perspective on acculturation. I argue that there exists a natural connection

between acculturation and relational dialectical tensions: people find themselves in

constant push towards and pull away from a non-native family culture. (For example,

identified in my research dialectical tensions of integration – separation, closedness –

openness, which constitute discursive oppositions of wanting to preserve old family

culture – wanting to develop independent new family culture and stigmatized –

iv stigmatizing Orthodox identity, provide support for my argument.) The combination of these theoretical frameworks allowed me to offer another perspective on existing research of in-law relationships. Particularly, I provide a critique to Morr Serewicz’ in- law love triangle and argue that it is an amorphous structure in which the composition of its relationships perpetually changes in the relational contexts defined by constantly fluctuating dialectical tensions. In addition, this dissertation focuses on the intersections of religious, ethnic, and gender identities in in-law relationships. The attention to these intersections helped to reveal that the meanings participants attach to their faith are influenced by the larger political discourses about ethnicity, faith, and gender.

For Dave and Nicholas.

I love you both very much!

vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not be possible without an immense support of the people around me. First, I would like to thank my advisor and my mentor Dr. Sandra Faulkner. It is after her two amazing courses of Philosophical Foundations and Relational

Communication that my dissertation started shaping into something real. I thank her for pushing me to the best of myself in thinking and writing. She taught me what it means to make an argument and defend it – the best skill training one could ask for in academic career and in life. She showed social sciences to me in a whole different light. From her, I learned that social science work is a creative process that can turn into a work of art, poetry. Dr. Faulkner’s approach to research, teaching, and advising remains an inspiration for me. I thank her for all her time and dedication! I am a better person, scholar, and teacher because of her.

Second, I am honored to have worked with amazing committee members Drs.

Lynda Dixon, Laura Lengel, and Judy Adams. They supported and encouraged me throughout this project. Their wisdom and unique talents shaped me as a writer and as a scholar in a variety of ways. Their insightful feedback pushed me in directions I did not think possible.

This dissertation also belongs to my friends and family. I would like specially thank my mentor and my friend Karen for her enormous help with editing the final draft of my dissertation. Karen is a very special person for me: I feel happy when I am with her. Also, my friends Alex, Marne, and Michelle would keep me from going insane and would save me from occasional drowning in my own despair. I thank Alex for asking me some great questions; the answers to these questions became a part of this dissertation and guide me in my career. I thank Marne for her never-ending positive vibes, warmth,

vii and smiles. I thank Michelle for her friendship, optimism, and advice. I also thank my mother- and father-in-law for their patience and support in my process of understanding of what it means to be an in-law.

I now want to thank the very special people in my life: my Mom, my Dad, and my son Nicholas. I thank my Mom and my Dad for always believing in me, loving me, and sending their support from far-far away. Hours spent with them on skype venting my frustrations or sharing my successes became an imperative part of the dissertation writing process. My baby Nicholas, although he is almost as old as my dissertation, has managed to teach me many lessons. Above all, he taught me to let things go and be happy at a moment. I do not think I can clearly articulate my gratitude and love to them.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my amazing husband Dave who deserves an honorary PhD for his never-ending love, patience, and support. It took a lot of courage and patience to deal with me constantly talking, and sometimes screaming and crying, about relational dialectics and discursive oppositions. He was always there with the right words to tell me when I had to leave our little baby at night, in the morning, during the day and go work on my dissertation. He helped me to believe in myself, and I am forever grateful for his love and dedication. Love you!

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION: RATIONALE ...... 1

CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 16

Introduction ...... 16

Theoretical View of In-law Relationships ...... 16

Intergroup Perspective: Definitions of Culture, Identity, and Acculturation ...... 23

Identity ...... 25

Culture ...... 30

Culture, Identity, and Acculturation ...... 34

Ethnicity, Religion, and Family Culture ...... 36

Relational Dialectic Theory: History, Current State, and Future Directions ...... 41

RDT’s View of Meaning Production ...... 44

Narrative Approach to In-law Relationships ...... 48

Narrative inquiry ...... 48

Family Culture and Family Narratives ...... 50

Research of Relational Communication in American Orthodox Christian Families:

Rationale ...... 52

History of American Orthodox Christianity: A Brief Review ...... 54

The Orthodox Church of America Today ...... 60

Gender Identity in the Context of American Orthodox Christianity ...... 62

Research Questions ...... 67

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...... 71

ix Introduction ...... 71

The OCA Parish of the Midwest: A Brief Historical Overview ...... 73

Theoretical Framework ...... 81

Methods ...... 82

Participant Observation and Field Note-Taking ...... 84

Narrative Interviewing ...... 91

Procedures: The Challenges and Revelations of Self Reflexive Work ...... 93

Personal Journey to the American Orthodoxy ...... 93

Challenges of Conducting Ethnographic Research ...... 97

Solicitation of the Research Participants ...... 99

The Arrangements of the Visits for Data Collection ...... 100

Logistics ...... 100

Analysis ...... 100

CHAPTER IV. RELATIONAL COMMUNICATION ABOUT RELIGION AMONG

AMERICAN ORTHODOX IN-LAWS: FINDINGS ...... 105

Introduction ...... 105

Relational Dialectics ...... 106

Case Study Profile ...... 107

Discursive Opposition of Stigmatized – Stigmatizing Orthodox Identity and the

Relational Health and Quality of In-law Relationships ...... 109

Stigmatized Orthodox and the Relational Health and Quality of In-law

Relationships ...... 110

x Stigmatizing Orthodox Identity and the Relational Health and Quality of In-law

Relationships ...... 135

The In-law Love Triangle: Relational Health and Quality of In-law Relationships

in the Clash of Family Cultures ...... 143

In-law and Spousal Identities Within and Outside of the In-law Love Triangle: Discursive

Opposition of Preservation of Old – Development of New Family Cultures ...... 157

Management of Discursive Oppositions Integration – Privacy and Openness –

Closedness In and Out of the In-law Love Triangle ...... 189

The Discourse of Real (Natural) In-law Relationships ...... 190

The Discourse of Stages (Fake) In-law Relationships: Cordial In-laws and

the Quality of Spousal Relationship ...... 198

Discursive Opposition of Staged (Fake) – Real (Natural) In-law

Relationships Through the Lens of the Church Discourse ...... 205

The Children/Grandchildren Discourse in the In-law Love Triangle ...... 220

Religion in In-law Relationships through the Gender Lens ...... 229

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION ...... 257

Introduction ...... 257

Theoretical Framework ...... 259

Discourses About Development and Maintenance of Orthodox Christian Identity ...... 262

Discourses About Points of Connection and Disconnection in In-law Relationships...... 266

Discourses that Represent the Intersections of Gender and Religious Identities in

In-law Relationships of the Orthodox Christians ...... 270

Limitations and Future Directions ...... 273

REFERENCES ...... 278

APPENDIX A...... 296

APPENDIX B...... 297

APPENDIX C...... 300

APPENDIX D...... 302

APPENDIX E...... 303

xii

LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES

Figure/Table Page

1 Figure 4.1 ...... 144

2 Figure 4.2...... 147

3 Figure 4.3...... 215

4 Figure 4.4...... 217

5 Figure 4.5...... 222

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION: RATIONALE

In-law relationships remain among the most ambiguous and challenging of family relationships (Horsley, 1996; Merrill, 2009; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Prentice, 2009; Rittenour,

2009) and have even been called maladaptive (Limary, 2002). The term in-laws refers to distinct relationships that are formed through marriage (Horsely, 1996; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009).

Horsley (1996) points out that in-law relationships constantly, directly or indirectly, influence newly formed families. The in-laws show the couple where they have come from as well as preview where the couple may be going. In-law relationships become an arena for

(re)negotiation and (re)establishment of various traditions, rituals, and values that derive from the families of the in-laws and the newly formed family of spouses/children/children-in-law

(Horsley, 1996; Walsh, 1999). As Meyerstein (1996) argues, the challenge of balancing different relational norms and standards of families-in-law create a major backdrop for the emergence of in-law relationship challenges.

There are several explanations for the challenges in in-law relationships. For example, some (Horsley, 1996; Limary, 2002; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Rittenour, 2009) argue that challenges arise when people find themselves in involuntary relationships. The in-laws are forced to adjust to family dynamics which are caused by the entrance of new members into the family circle. According to Morr Serewicz and Canary (2006), one of the reasons why Western families tend to form troublesome relationships with in-laws is because family normally has less involvement into the mate selection process than is the case in other cultures and, further, less involvement in the formation of the relationship that leads to marriage. Lopata (1999) also observes that in the United States, most modern family relationships are not built around kinship

2 relations of either descent line. Moreover, Lopata adds, kin relationships are developed by choice of the mates, which makes the in-law relationship seem contingent and involuntary.

Other researchers (Duvall, 1954; Limary, 2002; Merrill, 2009; Rittenour, 2009) blame popular culture for creating relational challenges for the in-laws. They argue that the perception of in-law identity is profoundly affected by the negative stereotypes about in-laws that are promulgated in the media. For example, Rittenour (2009) and Merrill (2009) provide evidence that the formation of in-law identity is accompanied by the negative cultural perceptions of controlling mothers-in-law and disrespectful, distant daughters-in-law. At the same time, the researchers note, there is an almost complete absence of practical, efficient information to guide in-laws in the development of their newly acquired identities and maintenance of healthy and pleasant relationships with each other. Besides, Horsley (1996) adds, the main challenge for the newlyweds becomes the management of their understanding of marriage roles together with their roles as in-laws. These roles are usually based on that the in-laws, both parents- and children-in- law, model off the relationships they observed in their families of origin. Both Horsley and

Rittenour (2009) assert that, besides negative stereotypes acquired from the popular culture, the families of origin serve as the only guiding source for the newlyweds during the formation of their in-law identity and maintenance of their in-law relationships.

Despite all the evidence of the importance of in-law relationships, their complexity, ambiguity, and challenges, together with positive or negative impacts on marital health and quality, contemporary communication research about in-law relationships still considers this type of relationship as the one that has not received enough of research attention (Morr Serewicz &

Canary, 2006; Prentice, 2008; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009; Yoshimura, 2006). There has been more research about this kind of relationship in the field of family therapy, which views families as

3 social units with their own cultures. According to Meyerstein (1996), the family therapy approach to in-law relationships is based on the idea that “the clash of cultures in each marriage underscores the phenomenon that mates select for themselves not only their spouse, but also their in-laws, and perhaps even their conflicts as well” (pp. 469-470). In addition, Lopata (1999) has observed that the in-law relationships are complicated by heterogeneous cultural norms as “the spouses come from different backgrounds accentuated in their parents’ generation, which may clash over ritualistic of day-by-day life styles” (p. 167). Lopata together with other researchers of family communication on whose works I build my study (e.g., Caughlin, 2003;

Jorgensen,1989; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Prentice, 2008; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2008;

Vangelisti, Crumley, & Baker, 1999) approach family relationships with systemic lens. They describe communication patterns in families and explore family relational dynamics using terms such as family traditions, routines, rituals, standards, roles, and history which are elements of family system, family circle, or family identity. For example, Jorgensen (1989) views family “as a system of relationships that come about as individuals define those relationships in everyday communication with one another” (pp. 27-28). This systemic approach to family is central to my study because I see relationships as products of a system in which they develop. Therefore, I am convinced that there is a place for the term family culture when the goal is to describe in-law relationships. I view family culture as a set of beliefs about the reality and traditions of enacting these beliefs as documented in family stories and performed through communication rituals among family members. For the purpose of this study, this term seems to be more capacious and encompassing than the ones used previously in the research mentioned above. I view in-law relationships as the arena where the interaction of family cultures takes place. Baxter (2004;

2010) argues that relationships are multivocal, which means they represent voices of many

4 people and cultures with whom relational parties interact while (re)developing their relationship.

In the in-law relationships, we hear voices of persons who belong to the cultures of at least three families: the families of origin of both spouses and the (re)developing culture of the family of the spouses themselves.

The context of my exploration of in-law relationships is religion. Religion dictates a certain world view to worshippers. In my study, I argue that this world view can be traced in family relational dynamics as well as in communication patterns between the family members.

For example, the participants in this study note that each religion distinctly influences how people communicate with each other. The participants hold certain stereotypes about their and others’ religions and the worshippers. These stereotypes are generated within their religious cultures. For example, many Orthodox Christians attribute openness and sincerity to the relationships they have with others, because they believe that their faith, being the only true and right one, inspires people to be open and sincere with people around them. On the other hand, the participants observe, their relatives by marriage who practice different Christian religions seem to be reserved, distant, and insincere in their relationships with others because their religions are faulty and lead them to incorrect perceptions of themselves and others.

Since I study religious identities in in-law relationships and view these relationships as the arena where family cultures interact, I find it relevant to explore the body of intercultural communication research that focuses on the phenomenon of acculturation (Collier et al., 2002;

Chuang, 2003; Kim, 2007; Starosta & Chen, 2003; Ngo, 2008; Padilla & Perez, 2003; Stone et al., 2005). In my research, I argue that the in-law relationship is a continuous process of

(re)acculturation of the in-laws to each other.

Communication scholars rarely consider acculturation approach to explain in-law relationships. Nevertheless, there are some studies that advance our understanding of how the interaction between the family cultures impacts the quality and health of in-law relationships. For example, Prentice (2008) utilizes the conceptual toolkit of acculturation research and implements assimilation as a term to explain the positive dynamic and maintenance of relationships between the in-laws.

I approach acculturation between in-laws from the intergroup perspective. Intergroup research (Collier et al., 2002; Harwood, 2006; Harwood, Giles, & Palomares, 2005; Sluth &

Ashforth, 2007) regard a cultural groups as having its own group identity that is complicated by the various individual identities of its members. Similarly, the researchers of in-law relationships

(Morr Serewicz, 2006; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2008; Yoshimura, 2006) view a family as a group in which members have both their group (or family) identity, and their individual identities that they obtain in other spheres of their social life. These identities are altered by the full scope of relational identities that family members develop with each other over the life span. For example, Morr Serewicz (2006) looks at in-law relationships through the lens of in-law love triangle between parents- and children-in-law who share their child/spouse.

Morr Serewicz argues that the relational health and quality of in-law relationships directly depends on other relationships within the love triangle such as the spousal and the parent–child relationship. Other researchers (Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2008; Yoshimura, 2006) argue that in-law identity is manifested in unique, unrepeatable ways among different types of in-laws and is managed with a variety of communication strategies on different socialization stages. This creates its complexity and difficulties in managing this relationship. For example,

Yoshimura (2006) states that the relationship between siblings-in-law may be significantly

6 different from the ones between parents- and children-in-law, which adds to the complexity of the formation and maintenance of one’s in-law identity. Following suggestions of the previous research, I argue that the relational identities that family members develop within their family circle constitute their family culture.

Flax (1990) notes that any research that does not take gender into account is incomplete.

In my study, I place strong emphasis on how the gender and gender roles are played out in the studied context. Therefore, this study also introduces the readers to the understanding of gender and the performance of gender roles among American Orthodox Christians. Sterk (2010) argues that the foci of religious studies on the intersection of gender and religious identities that is popular today adds depth to the description of the American religious mosaic and offers a better understanding of how this intersection is lived by contemporary Americans. I contribute to this body of research by introducing the description of intersections between Orthodox Christian and gender identities and their impact on the relational health and quality of in-law relationships in contemporary American families. For example, participants in my study report that they develop in-law relationships of different quality and health with in-laws of different genders. Gender defines the perceptions of the qualities of in-laws. Many female participants reported that they feel closer to their mothers-in-law because they share the same chores and worries. Female participants often reported that they do not have any relationships with their fathers-in-law because they simply do not have any commonalities that would help them to develop a relationship. Similarly, the majority of male participants chose to talk about their in-law relationships with fathers-in-law or brothers-in-law arguing that they have no connections with their mothers- or sisters-in-law or the connections are not strong enough to be relationships.

Thus, gender becomes another lens through which I analyze my data.

Acculturation represents a bidirectional process that occurs when two cultures interact and accommodate each other with reciprocal influence (Padilla & Perez, 2003). Moreover, , acculturation is never a finite process, nor is it even a process that people aim to complete (Ngo,

2008; Stone et al., 2005). Cultural identities, or group identities, that are activated in acculturation are in constant flux because there is always an ongoing interplay of growth and decline of one cultural identity over another (Collier et al., 2002; Chuang, 2003; Starosta &

Chen, 2003). I follow these researchers’ suggestions and view acculturation of the in-laws to each other as an ongoing process that influences both sides of the in-law relationships reciprocally. The in-laws negotiate their family cultural identities with each other by performing family rituals, following family traditions, and adhering to family customs. The continuity of acculturation between relational parties speaks to the fundamental premise of the relational dialectics framework.

There are three major premises of Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT) as developed by

Baxter (1994, 2004, 2010) and her colleagues (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006; 2008; 2010; Baxter

& Montgomery, 1996). First, the theory argues that relationships are managed by dialectical tensions, which I define as simultaneous opposing desires for relational qualities and relational outcomes. Secondly, these dialectical tensions represent a configuration of opposing discursive systems that are culturally bound. Thirdly, interpersonal relationships are products of culture because they are guided and assessed by the utilization of meanings that circulate in one or another culture.

Researchers of in-law relationships (Morr Serewicz, 2006; Prentice, 2008; Rittenour,

2009) observe that there are two major scenarios for the development of in-law relationships in which the in-laws either overcome their relational challenges and integrate their relationships or

8 the challenges make the in-laws drift apart and their relationships dissolve. The dialectical perspective on in-law relationships helps to demonstrate that the scenarios offered by these researchers are interchangeable in in-law relationships and never finite. The in-laws fluctuate between being integrated and disintegrated at given moments in their relationships. In my dissertation, I capture this fluctuation and describe situations in which in-law relationships integrate and disintegrate. This I describe as points of connection and disconnection between the in-laws.

Researchers of in-law relationships often focus on negative sides of these relationships

(Limary, 2002; Merrill, 2009; Rittenour, 2009) explaining why these relationships become challenging and even maladaptive. However, they argue that over time challenges decline or even disappear because the relationships between the in-laws improve. In addition, Morr

Serewicz (2006) argues that in-law relationships may become a source of support. For example, she notes that parents-in-law can affect the spousal relationships of their children/children-in-law in positive ways when the relationship reaches its integration point. In my dissertation, I argue that the length of in-law relationships does not necessarily only positively impacts the quality of in-law relationships, over time the in-law relationships can also dissolve. The relational dialectic perspective on in-law relationships provides opportunities to see how in-law relationships may fluctuate at any given moment of their lives: the in-laws integrate and drift apart at given moments and contexts in which they communicate.

In this research, I study in-law relationships in multicultural families where the in-laws have different religious identities. Thus, it is important for me to recognize and describe the larger cultures in which these relationships develop. Here, RDT again becomes very useful as it views relationships as products of larger cultures and argues that meanings of larger cultures

9 enter the domain of relationships and guide their relational qualities and outcomes. Since, RTD works with meanings of larger cultures, it operates with discourses, systems of meanings, in order to organize the meanings into more observable units of analysis. For example, in my dissertation, I describe dialectical tensions that are dictated by opposing meanings about relational health and quality of in-law relationships that are products of the larger cultures. For example, I describe communicative situations of in-law relationships in which the meanings of

Orthodox Christian and American popular cultures dictate two sets of opposing meanings about the quality of in-law relationships (e.g., “in-laws are the family and need to be treated as second parents” verses “in-laws are strangers and it is better to keep a distance to remain cordial to each other”) and create a tension for the relational parties in which they simultaneously want to remain distant in their in-law relationships and develop more intimate “family-like” bonding relationships (This is what Baxter calls the dialectical tension of separation – integration.)

In the exploration of the intersections of gay and Jewish identities, Faulkner (2006) utilizes the notion of four layers of identity (personal, group, relational, and enacted) from the

Communication Theory of Identity. Keeping this structure of identity in mind, I argue that RDT makes it possible to see how the interplay of family group identity together with personal (e.g.: female/male identities), relational (spouse, mother-/daughter-in-law, father-/son-in-law, parent, child identities), and enacted in particular communication situations (e.g.: ethnic, American,

Orthodox/non-Orthodox) identities formed through the membership in broader cultures (e.g., ethnic, religious, gender, pop cultures) of the in-laws impact quality and health of their relationships. As it works with discourses, the RDT approach also enables me to describe those moments when one identity overlays another in these relationships. These different identities of relational parties evoke different, often opposing, hopes and expectations for the relationships

10 that they build with each other. Relational dialectics allows me also to rationalize and organize the muddle of in-law relationships by describing when and how different relational identities evoke different expectations and desires. In my dissertation, I describe how the communication of these hopes and desires affect relationships between the in-laws. For example, some participants in the study report that they may simultaneously want to be open with and closed from their in-laws (This is what in Baxter’s works is called dialectical tension of openness – closedness). The participants observe that it depends on how they define themselves at a given communicative situation: when they define themselves as spouses, they often desire closedness in their in-law relationships; when they view themselves as daughters-/sons-in-law they want to have their own independent and close relationship with their in-laws. The same dialectical tension is present when the participants talk about their love for God and ability to experience the presence of God in their lives. This is when they wish to improve their in-law relationships by getting closer and more open with with their in-laws. When the same participants follow the meanings of personal space in relationships, they desire cordial, closed, and non-intrusive in-law relationships that are perceived as positive in popular culture outlets.

With the examples provided above, I want to draw attention to how important it is to look at particular family relationships as products of broader cultures. With this study, I want to provide evidence that in-law relationships are complex because their participants use meanings of broader cultures to assess the relational quality and health of their in-law relationships and to navigate the relational outcomes. Some of these broader cultures generate meanings that are directly opposed to one another.. The dialectical perspective allows me to identify these opposing meanings and describe how in-laws experience them in their relationships.

When I combine all three of the approaches discussed above, I argue that in-law relationships represent a continuous process of (re)acculturation between family cultures of the in-laws. Situated in the context of broader cultures, this acculturation process is accompanied by dialectical tensions that the participants experience as a result of holding divergent meanings about the quality and health of their in-law relationships. While looking at how in-laws communicate their religious identities, I keep in mind that religious discourse is political discourse. This focus provides me with opportunities to explore how the politics of religious cultures in America are lived in interpersonal relationships, what meanings about one or another religion get activated when people talk about their religious differences, and how these meanings affect the relational health and quality of already complex in-law relationships. I study a particular religious group formed through various interrelations of ethnicities and nationalities embedded in a broader contemporary American cultural milieu. Harwood (2006) and Goulborne et al. (2010) make it clear that it is imperative to contextualize research about family relationships within multiculturalism. Therefore, the site of my research seems ideal since it represents the intersections of ethnic, national, and/or religious identities situated within particular family cultures. With my research, I want to demonstrate that religious discourses play important roles in the formation and maintenance of in-law relationships in American families.

Following Prentice (2008), I argue that there is a great need for extensive study of the in-law relationship, as it yields advanced understanding of a diversity of American families. To understand how these approaches advance our knowledge and understanding of this diversity, I next provide a brief description of the research site.

For this case study, I recruited participants from American Orthodox Christian parish that belongs to the Orthodox Church of America (OCA). This community represents a complex mix

12 in which a large number of believers come from multiethnic, multinational, and/or multi- religious families of current and former immigrants to the United States, as well as a large number of American converts to the faith. I look at the relational communication between in- laws through the lens of religious differences. In particular, I study how American Orthodox

Christians present and negotiate their religious identity to their non-Orthodox in-laws and how their religious differences affect the relational health and quality of their in-law relationships.

This dissertation is also a means to raise awareness of the importance of studying

American Orthodox Christianity in the social sciences. This body of research is largely underrepresented despite omnipresence of this cultural group on American soil (Krindatch, 2008;

Prodromou & Papanikolaou, 2008; Raboteau, 2008). The number of American Orthodox

Christians exceeds 6 percent of the entire national population (Krindatch, 2010). The history of

American Orthodoxy dates back to 1794 when the first monks of the Russian mission settled in

Alaska and had a great religious influence on the native population (Stokoe & Kishkovsky,

1995). The cultural heritage of Orthodox traditions was brought into the cultural milieu of the

United States during the following two hundred years as the country welcomed a large number of Orthodox immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Middle East (Tarasar, 1975). Moreover,

Makris (2008) argues, despite the fact that the majority of Orthodox parishes in the country identify themselves as American and conduct their services and interpersonal communications according to the English speaking culture conventions, the media advance stereotypes that

American Orthodox communities serve only the interests of ethnic groups and represent a foreign immigrant culture. With this study, I contribute to the existing research and suggest that

Orthodoxy is indeed a part of the American cultural milieu and that Orthodox believers, despite

13 their ethnic heritage, are inseparably connected to American culture and that Orthodox Christian traditions are deeply rooted in American soil.

Orthodox Church of America (OCA), to which the studied community belongs, has been an autocephalous religious institution since 1970. This means that OCA has been an autonomous organization without any financial, political, or cultural links to other Orthodox Churches around the world for almost 50 years. The politics of the OCA have been aimed toward the unification of all Orthodox Churches in America and toward proclaiming American Orthodoxy as its own cultural phenomenon with a rich history and a significant number of Orthodox believers who were born and raised in the United States. The current politics of OCA represent a constant struggle in managing the multicultural body of Orthodox believers because there is no single understanding among the believers of the traditions of worship professed by the Orthodox doctrines. Moreover, there are still a significant number of so called ethnic Orthodox Churches which refuse to cooperate with OCA and wish to maintain their immigrant, or ethnic, identity.

There is no unified understanding of the future of American Orthodoxy even within the organization itself. This is so because Orthodox clergy and believers may change their parish membership for various reasons: some move and have to find the closest Orthodox parish, some leave because they are not satisfied with the governance of the parish or its interpretation of

Orthodox traditions. Many reasons for this, so called, “parish hopping”, the researchers

(Krindatch, 2010; Raboteau, 2008) argue, are linked to American religious pluralism. In addition, the participants in my study also refer to this tendency when they explain how the current politics of their church influence the perceptions of their religious identity. In my findings, I provide examples of the observations my participants made regarding this phenomenon.

The experiences of being an American Orthodox are crucial to my understanding of family dynamics, because Orthodox doctrine prescribes the direct transition of traditions of worship from Church to home. As Raboteau (2008) observes, religion in the United States frequently does not provide a stable cultural identity. Religious pluralism in the United States creates conditions in which one gets involved in “a continuous conversion to the faith in the face of myriad alternatives” (Raboteau, 2008, p. 10). This conversion assumes constant appropriation, internalization, and living out the religious identity inherited or obtained through family relationships and performed in various forms of relational communication including the communication between the in-laws. The contribution that this research makes to the body of literature covered in the second chapter is not only that it allows us to learn more about in-law relationships in these multicultural families, but also that it provides insights and deeper understanding on the experiences of enacting Orthodox identity in contemporary America.

In Chapter 2, I provide literature review on the subject of in-law relationships. I also introduce the body of intergroup research as well as research on acculturation and identity. The core of the chapter is the overview of the premises of RDT and its implementation in relational communication research. I also explore the history of American Orthodox Christianity and provide a brief overview of contemporary state of the OCA. The literature review culminates with research questions for the study.

The theoretical framework of this study aligns with the method I chose to collect and analyze data. The data for this study was collected through narrative interviews designed to inspire participnats to share personal stories about how Orthodox Christians live their relationships with their non-Orthodox in-laws. Bakhtin (1990) argues that dialogue is fundamental to narrative. Narratives represent a polyphony of voices that constitute a dialogue.

For the purpose of this study, it is specifically important to document the multiplicity of voices in these interviews. For example, the multiplicity of voices in the collected narratives allow us to learn not only about the perceptions of the Orthodox identity by the Orthodox Christians but also by their non-Orthodox in-laws. Collected narratives often include examples of dialogues the participants have had with their in-laws. These dialogues make the characters of the stories, the in-laws, vivid, and they vocalize their perspectives on their relationships with the Orthodox in- laws. Thus, Orthodox identity can be analyzed from both angles – from inside and the outside perspectives.

Additionally, RDT points out that relationships are built through meanings of the larger culture. Narratives reveal how and what kind of meanings of what larger culture enter the domain of in-law relationships at a given moment in their existence. Finally, the polyphony of voices in narratives also helps to recognize the polyphony of identities activated in these in-law relationships.

To answer my research questions I chose to collect interviews and analyze them by working with discourses that come out when people talk about their in-law relationships.

Discourses became units of my analysis. I organized them according to three major categories:

1. Discourses about development and maintenance of Orthodox identity

2. Discourses about points of connection and disconnection in in-law relationships

3. Discourses that represent gender biases in the performance of religious and in-law identities.

The method of this study and the analysis of the study are discussed in Chapter 3. The 4th and

5th chapters represent my findings and discussion.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

In-law relationships are characterized by the unique nature of their development and maintenance; they are largely influenced by the conditions in which they are formed. In Western cultures, they are for the most part involuntary and are formed through the interrelation of different family systems (Limary, 2002; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour &

Soliz, 2009). This unique feature of in-law relationships makes them challenging and potentially maladaptive (Limary, 2002; Merrill, 2009). In this chapter, I explore existing literature about the complexity and nuances of in-law relationships and provide grounds for particular lenses through which I research them. This literature review also puts my exploration of in-law relationships into a particular cultural context of contemporary American Orthodox Christianity, where I explore whether and how differences in religious identities of the in-laws affect the quality and health of their relationship.

Taking into consideration my goals in this project, this literature review covers five major areas: 1) a theoretical view of in-law relationships; 2) the intergroup perspective on family, culture and identity; 3) the history, current research, and future directions of Relational Dialectic

Theory; 4) narrative approach in methodology; and 5) the description of the research site in which I cover the history and the current state of American Orthodox Christianity and review the research about intersections of religious and gender identities.

Theoretical View of In-law Relationships

Research about in-law relationships demonstrates that this type of relationships is traditionally perceived as troublesome in Western cultures (Duval, 1954; Meyerstein, 1996; Morr

Serewicz, 2006; Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2006). At the same time, according to the existing research (Duvall, 1964; Lopata, 1999; Merrill, 2006; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Morr Serewicz &

Canary, 2006; Prentice, 2008; 2009; Yoshimura, 2006), this type of family relationship is surprisingly understudied. Despite the fact that the vast majority of individuals are involved in some kind of in-law relationship throughout their lifetime (Morr Serewicz, 2006; Yoshimura,

2006), recent dissertations about in-law relationships (Enyart, 2012; Limary, 2002; Rittenour,

2009) demonstrate that there are still only a handful of research studies exploring this kind of family relationships.

There are various reasons why this particular type of relationships is considered as one of the most challenging (Prentice, 2009; Rittenour, 2009; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Morr Serewicz &

Canary, 2006; Yoshimura, 2006) and often maladaptive (Limary, 2002). First, in Western cultures, in-law relationships are involuntary, which often causes distance between the in-laws.

Keeping the distance becomes a common way of relational maintenance for the in-laws (Morr

Serewicz, 2006; Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2006). The distance between the in-laws, which in its turn causes their relational closedness, leaves the in-laws confused about their roles in these relationships as well as uncertain about how they are perceived by each other (Enyart, 2012;

Limary, 2002; Rittenour, 2009). In this kind of relationships, the in-laws do not directly communicate their perceptions of their relationship to each other, neither do they disclose to each other their attitudes towards the health and quality of their relationship. Secondly, in-law relationships represent a love triangle, a term coined by Morr Serewicz (2006). This triangle represents a relational dynamic or a communication pattern between parents-in-law, children-in- law and their “shared territory,” the spouse/child. Most in-law communication, Morr Serewicz argues, happens through the medium of the child/spouse and rarely becomes directly channeled

18 between the parents- and the child-in-law. In my dissertation, I observe the limitations of this model and argue that it does not contextualize the in-law love triangle in a context of relational culture formed through the meanings dictated by the broader culture that surround the relationship. For instance, in the future, I would like to find out whether this relational dynamic still exists and has the same structure in relationships between the in-laws where the marriage that connects them is a same-sex marriage or a second marriage for one or both spouses. These are the questions that help to stretch Morr Serewicz’s model by contextualizing her in-law love triangle model within these specific circumstances that dictate relational culture. Also, I approach in-law relationships with a systemic lens and wonder how strong the link is between the relational health and quality of in-law relationships and the relational health and quality of marriage that connects the in-laws at the first place in all of these different relational circumstances.

The researchers whose works I mention in the paragraph above explore relational health and quality between the in-laws with the intergroup perspective in mind. For example,

Yoshimura (2006) states that in-law relationships are complicated by the (re)configuration of the family norms about information privacy and disclosure as a new member enters the family circle.

The entrance of a new family member poses questions to other family members about what information to disclose and what to keep undisclosed in case the relationship between the newcomer and her/his spouse’s sibling(s)grows into a friendship. In addition to Yoshimura’s argument, it is interesting to see how dialectical tensions that exist in relationships between the family members affect the quality and health of the relationships these family members develop with the newcomer. For example, how does the dialectical tension in which the relational parties fluctuate between decisions of keeping the family ties with the family members and

19 simultaneously developing strong kinship with the newcomer impacts the formation of one’s in- law identity, and how this tension is enacted in communication? This and other similar questions guide me as I review the studies on the topic.

Previous and current scholarship has speculated that differences in religion, ethnicity, class, race, or education among in-laws create additional barriers for their relationships (Horsley,

1996; Merrill, 2007; Rittenour, 2009). The complexity of ethnic and/or religious differences among the in-laws has been addressed in family counseling research (Horsley, 1996;

McGoldrick, Giordano, & Garcia-Preto, 2005; Walsh, 1999; 2003). However, there are only few scholars of communication who focus on the influence these social characteristics have on the quality and health of family relationships (Diggs & Socha, 2004) and, particularly, on in-law relationships (Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009). These studies demonstrate that the differences in social characteristics of in-laws make their communication even more complex.

Communication between the in-laws in such circumstances when the in-laws are exposed to the each other’s cultural differences is similar to communication that takes place in an intercultural context.

Marital relationships, according to Meyerstein (1996), experience the clash of cultures that extends to the relationships formed between the families-in-law. In her research about the process of assimilation among the in-laws, Prentice (2008) observes, that the cultural adaptation undergone by both in-law families is an inevitable process. Communication studies that approach in-law dilemmas through the systemic lens (Caughlin, 2003; Meyerstein, 1996; Vangelisti,

Crumley, & Baker, 1999), however, do not share common vocabulary when they describe how communication among the in-laws develops and is maintained. The researchers use a variety of concepts such as shape (Caughlin, 2003; Meyerstein, 1996), system (Jorgensen,1989, 2004; Morr

Serewicz & Canary, 2008; Vangelisti, Crumley, & Baker, 1999), or family shared identity

(Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009) when they refer to the factors that complicate in-law relationships. At the same time, they all note that the differences in these characteristics influence the process of formation and development of in-law relationships. After studying the findings in these works, I argue that all of these terms, in one way or another, imply that the family, in which the researchers study family rituals, traditions, values, etc., is a cultural group with unique cultural characteristics. Therefore, I find it relevant in my research to implement a more encompassing and capacious term such as family culture. I define family culture as a system of beliefs, values, knowledge, attitudes, and ways of life shared and performed between family members to explain the surrounding world, a culture that is conditioned by the socio- historical context in which the family is formed and developed. Family culture is not immune to change. It is continually (r)evolving, just like any other cultural group, due to the constant

(re)configuration of personal, relational, and social identities of its members. It is important to consider when describing how in-laws communicate their differences to each other. Particularly, in my dissertation, I describe how the constant flux in identities of the family members is enacted in their communication.

Despite multiple examples of healthy and pleasant in-law relationships, it is a tradition in our culture to perceive and describe these relationships as negative and troublesome. Many researchers blame popular culture for ascribing negative expectations about in-law relationships and negative conceptualizations of in-law identity in its various social roles (Limary, 2002;

Merrill, 2007; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Rittenour, 2009). For example, Merrill (2007) argues that the most common model for popular jokes about in-laws becomes the mother/daughter-in-law relationship, in which, for the most part, the mother-in-law becomes the main target for mockery

21 and in which the relationship is portrayed as simultaneously trivial and disastrous. These negative representations become a part of the cultural repertoire of images that people use in the creation of their in-law identities.

Besides popular culture, specific expectations for in-law relationships can also be formed within families. For example, Lopata (1999) notes that family relationships ascribe specific social roles to the in-laws that she defines as “a set of relations between the social person who declares her/himself as in-law and obtains the cooperation of a social circle, including the

‘beneficiary’ of the relationship and all the necessary segments” (p. 169). Social roles identify the member’s status within a family; this status is often directly affected by the prevailing cultural stereotypes ascribed to the types of in-law (e.g.; mother-, daughter-, sibling-, or son-in- law) people become in relation to each other (Merrill, 2009; Morr Serewicz, 2006; Rittenour,

2009; Yoshimura, 2006). The distribution and execution of family roles are a part of family status, which I understand as one’s sense of relating to one’s own family and which forms through everyday family communication. In turn, family communication constructs an individual’s understanding of how she or he needs to behave and communicate within the

“hosting” family.

Most of the works mentioned above approach in-law relationships by studying their dyads (e.g., mother-/daughter-in-law relationship) or triads (e.g., the in-law love triangle between the parents-/children-in-law and their child/spouse) (Duvall, 1954; Limary, 2002; Merrill, 2006;

Morr Serewicz, 2006; Norwood & Webb, 2006; Yoshimura, 2006). However, there are few studies that approach in-law relationships from a systemic lens and analyze their relational dynamic through the intergroup perspective (Prentice, 2008; 2009; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour &

Soliz, 2009). For example, Rittenour (Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009) analyzes in-law

22 relationships using the term family shared identity. A family shared identity develops through a unique configuration of established roles for the family members and represents social status, position, within the family. One’s role and one’s status within a family, Rittenour observes, influences the formation of in-law identity. In-law identity reflects an individual’s attitude towards maintaining the membership or connection with the family and the level of her/his affiliation with the family. This degree of affiliation with the family also depends on an individual’s perception of the family traditions and rituals, which, in turn, reflect a certain world view held by the family. For example, if one does not accept or agree with one’s family traditions and rituals, the link or affiliation with the family will be weakened, which is reflected in the person’s social status (e.g., family outcast, black sheep, scape goat). Rittenour’s findings are important for my research because it informs my analysis of how differences in religious identities among in-laws affect the formation of certain family roles and status once the in-law becomes a part of the family and how it is reflected in the relational health and quality of in-law relationships. For example, I wonder if there is a difference in the quality of in-law relationships if the religious differences arise in a relationship between an Orthodox son-in-law and non-

Orthodox mother- or father-in-law; or in a relationship between an Orthodox daughter-in-law and her non-Orthodox mother- or father-in-law; or in a relationship between siblings-in-law in which one of the siblings has the status of an outcast in the family. The family roles and statuses of in-laws within their own family are also important in my analysis of relational dynamics within Morr Serewicz’s (2006) in-law love triangle model. For example, I am interested in how certain roles and statuses of mother- or father-in-law are reflected in their relationship with their child. If, for example, mother occupies the leading position in the family, how is her position reflected in her relationship with her son or daughter and how does it affect the quality of her

23 relationship with her daughter- or son-in-law? I add to Rittenour’s (2001) findings by arguing that variations of family roles and statuses among family members make up a family structure that is unique for each family. This structure has a relational nature that contributes to the development of a unique family culture. The intergroup lens helps one to see how the entrance of additional family members (e.g., in-laws or children/grandchildren) modify family structure, and hence, family culture. The dialogic perspective allows one to see that the structure has variations and is not immune to (re)modifications when the quality of family relationships that constitute the structure, including in-law relationships, change within the parameters of the dialectical tensions within which they (re)develop. Together with Yoshimura (2006), I also argue that each in-law relationship is different even within one family because each family member has his or her own personal identity and all members (re)develop their own relational identities with each other. Therefore, each family member undergoes a unique (re)development of in-law identity.

The process of relationship (re)development among the in-laws who represent their own family cultures with different norms and rules of communication and their different family organization structures is similar to acculturation when an immigrant encounters a new host culture, as described in the research by Padilla and Perez (2003). Therefore, in my research I argue that when a person encounters the in-law relationship, (s)he undergoes some degree of acculturation to a new family culture. My understanding of family culture and acculturation are formed with the intergroup perspective, which I explore in more details in the next section. In the next section, I also summarize the intergroup perspective on culture, identity, and acculturation.

Intergroup Perspective: Definitions of Culture, Identity, and Acculturation

The intergroup perspective has its roots in small group communication research

(Harwood, Giles, & Palomares, 2005). Intergroup communication occurs when one of a group’s

24 members defines him or herself or other members of the group through their membership in the group. Intergroup communication occurs when social, rather than personal, identity forms the basis for communication. It is when one defines through certain features of the group and through prototypical communicative roles prescribed to them by the group (Sluss & Ashforth,

2007). Previously, research (Carbaugh, 2005; Geertz, 2000; Phillipsen, 1992) has demonstrated that cultural groups develop their own communication traditions. This idea is important in my study because I argue that families have distinct communication traditions, which may also be influenced by the religious traditions of worshipping. I also argue that differences and similarities in communication traditions that are formed in the family cultures of the in-laws may create negative or positive dynamics in the relationships among them. For example, some participants observe that it is difficult to communicate with their in-laws because the in-laws are too emotional or too reserved in their communication1.

The intergroup perspective recognizes that one understands oneself not only in terms of social identity but also personal identity (Harwood, 2006; Harwood, Giles, & Palomares, 2005,

Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Personal identity is reflected in how a person categorizes him or herself within a group and within specific relationships that he or she has with other group members

(Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). This categorization is based on a person’s perceptions of his/her role and the status within a group and his/her various expectations about relationships with different group members. For example, Rittenour (2009) observes that although mothers-in-law are granted less social distance than step-mothers, the large social distance for the mother-in-law demonstrates daughters-in-law’s perception that mothers-in-law do not warrant the same level of affection or closeness as other family members from the family of origin. This perception greatly

1 The participants often refer to the categorical opposition of “touchy-feely” families versus “ice cold” and “distant” families.

25 affects how daughters-in-law communicate with their mothers-in-law. As a result, according to

Rittenour’s findings, daughters-in-law tend to retain closeness with their mothers and to keep distance from their mothers-in-law.

The intergroup perspective on communication does not assume communication between groups. Rather, it assumes that a group’s communication is affected by various interrelations and intersections of different personal and social identities of the group members (Harwood, Giles, &

Palomares, 2005). In-law relationships in the families of American Orthodox Christians present a complex mix of ethnicities, nationalities, and religions; thus the intergroup perspective becomes especially valuable. It allows us to see the complexity of the relational communication among the in-laws caused by the interplay of their personal and social identities formed not only in different family cultures but also through their membership in broader ethnic, national, and/or religious cultures. These various identity interrelations and intersections represent intergroup boundaries that the relational participants must manage. To further clarify the intergroup approach to in-law relationships in my study, I will discuss the concepts of identity and culture next.

Identity

The identity research of the past decade (e.g., Collier, 2001; Cooks, 2010; Faulkner,

2006; Harwood, 2006; Hecht, Jackson, & Pitt, 2005; Shin & Jackson, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 2005) has speculated that there is no one way of knowing and exploring the dynamics of identity in a group because of the complexity of its nature, which is fragmented, liminal, and arbitrary. The essential idea that unifies all of these studies derives from the works of such cultural studies theorists as Stuart Hall (1996a; 1996b; 1997) who argued that identity forms and transforms constantly in one’s relation to representation of various cultural meanings. These meanings

26 dominate at different moments of identity’s existence in various cultural environments. The researchers distinguish different kinds of identity with a plethora of terminology. The rough division of the terminology lies between social (group, communal, cultural) and individual

(personal) identities. Moreover, each kind has a complex structure. Thus, following the

Communication Theory of Identity, Faulkner (2006) distinguishes three layers of individual identity, which are accompanied by the communal layer of identity. There is a personal layer constituted of one’s self-concept, self-image, and self-esteem; an enacted layer,which reflects attributes of the personal layer at given socialization events; and a relationship layer formed within the domains of one’s relationships with others. The communal layer of identity, Faulkner notes, consists of identities that are formed through person’s affiliation with and sense of belonging to certain groups or communities. In addition, these identities interact and overlap with each other in various communicative events (Colier, 2001; Cooks, 2010; Ting-Toomey,

2005). This interaction and overlapping reveal intimate details about a person’s perceptions and attitudes that guide his or her socialization. Taking the intergroup perspective, I argue that such performance constitutes the culture of social units, such as families.

The intergroup perspective also suggests that when performing their social identity, people act as group members, understand and judge the behaviors of self and others in terms of group memberships, and impersonalize self and other (Harwood, 2006). Social identity represents an individual’s affiliations with a specific cultural group, which formation can be based on shared race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or a social unit such as family (Harwood, 2006;

Ting-Toomey, 2005). Cultural identity arises from the affiliation with one of these social units.

People normally have several cultural identities, which are interconnected in complex relationships with others (Collier, 1998; Hall, 1996a). This interrelation, Collier (2001) asserts, is

27 formed through communication between the individual and members of multiple cultural groups.

In my research, I focus on the relationships within the in-law love triangle, a model developed by

Morr Serewicz (2006). The communication in this love triangle is influenced by the interaction of various cultural traditions and rituals of the families to which the participants of the triangle belong. I argue that this communication represents a negotiation and performance of multiple identities of the in-laws to each other. In this study, I focus particularly on the negotiation and performance of religious identity between the in-laws who confess different faiths. The negotiation and performance of their religious identities bring to the surface the perceptions of and attitudes to their religions. This kind of communication makes it possible to observe how differences in religious affiliations between the in-laws affect the quality and health of their relationship. Cultural studies directly link the perception and performance of identity with the ideology and politics of cultural groups (Hall, 1996a; 1996b; 1997; Starosta & Chen, 2010). For

Starosta and Chen (2010), self-identification processes do not form without implicating larger society. As the authors note, “We can say what we are, but the larger society must ultimately validate our assertion of identity” (p. 135). Other researchers (Alexander, 2010; Chen, 2010) also add that this validation will depend on various factors that include the contexts of particular social-historical locations from which we speak, the power distribution in these locations, and our understanding of the power structures in these locations. Therefore, it is common to regard identity as a multiple, overlapping, and contextually constituted and negotiated entity that is directly affected by the distribution of power in socio-cultural structures (Alexander, 2010;

Chang, 2001; Chen, 2010; Collier, 1998; Collier et al., 2002; Shin & Jackson, 2003). As Cooks

(2010) observes, those who define their own identity have an ability to do so because of the power they have gained from privileged social and economic status. On the other hand, those

28 who find themselves located on the social margins, identified with one or another underrepresented social category, Hall (1996a) notes, have unrealistic perception of their identity as a whole, organized, and self-controlled entity. Their identities are already defined by dominant cultural discourses that place them in certain marginalized social locations. Finding a way to maintain their original, or authentic, identities, Cook (2010) adds, becomes the focus of their social life.

The ideas discussed above were important to my analysis when I looked at how the politics of the OCA, including the church’s position in global Orthodox world and its position within the context of American Christianity, influence the perception of and attitudes toward the religious identity of American Orthodox Christians and their non-Orthodox in-laws. In my research, I argue that people’s social positions in broader cultures (e.g., Orthodox immigrants,

American converts), are played out in their in-law relationships. For instance, in the researched community, there are at least two examples of people’s social dispositions conducted by the power structures. First, a certain number of the community members are immigrants, or children of immigrants, and hence newcomers to the broader national culture of the United States. At the same time, the community also contains a large number of religious converts who are the newcomers to the community and are still in the process of learning the rituals of worshipping and, through that, learning the performance of their newly acquired religious identity. In my research, I describe how these specific differences are played out in their relationships with their non-Orthodox in-laws; how their social locations influence their perception of their religious identity; and how these perceptions impact the relational quality and health of their relationships with the non-Orthodox in-laws.

In connection to the politicized concept of identity, my research also focuses on how politics around the social location in which the Orthodox Christians find themselves contribute to their religious identity stigmatization among non-Orthodox in-laws. It is important to consider the relational health and quality of relationships between in-laws who affiliate with different religions. As Collier (2001) notes, our social experiences are affected by how we present and negotiate different facets of our identity in various relationships. For example, the study of communication in families with gay and lesbian members that takes an intergroup approach

(Soliz, Ribarsky et al., 2010) demonstrates that one’s disclosure to his/her family about her/his sexual identity that is different from the sexual identities of other family members has an impact on the family life through the alteration of the entire family identity. It also poses certain communicative and relational challenges for the entire family as it undergoes the identity alteration. The body if research that explores the disclosure of stigmatized identities in families and the intergroup perspective on the group identity alteration connected to this disclosure are important in my study as well. The participants in the study report that their Orthodox Christian identity is often stigmatized as foreign and wrong among their non-Orthodox in-laws who, in this study, belong to other Christian religions. In my study, I observe how the stigmatization of the

Orthodox identity affects in-laws’ relational communication and describe relational tensions that are connected to this stigmatization.

To analyze and describe relational communication among in-laws in which their religious identities are stigmatized or in which they perceive each other as “different” or abnormal on the basis of one or another norm cultivated in their family cultures, I draw on the classic work of

Erving Goffman (1963), who describes the communicative functions of stigmatized identities at great length. In particular, his work provides us with insights on how the perceptions of the

30 stigma affect socialization between the “normals” (Goffman, 1963) and persons whose identities are stigmatized on the bases of one or another social norm deviation. For example, Goffman provides a typology of communication (which he calls socialization) that occurs in response to stigmatization (i.e., uncertainty, avoidance, defensiveness, offensiveness, ambivalence).

Goffman directly links his analysis of stigma to the manufacture and perception of cultural norms. In the next section, I provide a brief overview of the research dedicated to the connection between identity and culture.

Culture

The intergroup perspective on culture parallels the definitions of culture in critical intercultural communication research that considers culture as a contingent, liminal space situated at a particular socio-historical moment and affected by its politics and ideologies

(Chang, 2001; Collier et al., 2002; Starosta & Chen, 2003). This view of culture has been introduced by the scholars of cultural studies (Hall, 1996a, 1997). As with identity, which is in direct correspondence with (re)production of meanings, culture is a process of meaning

(re)production and (re)presentation by the members of a cultural group (Hall, 1997). Culture is produced through the exchange of meanings between the members of a group, or community.

Members of one cultural group “interpret the world roughly the same ways and can express themselves, their thoughts and feelings about the world, in ways which will be understood by each other” (Hall, 1997, p. 2). Cultural identity, in Hall’s understanding, is one’s sense of belonging to a group with a certain set of (re)defining meanings about the world. These meanings also signify group’s similarities with and differences from the rest of the world.

The intergroup approach emphasizes the mobility of a culture’s representation by drawing attention to the constant interplay of multiple personal and social identities of a group’s

31 members when they engage in communication with each other (Harwood, Giles, & Palomares,

2005). As Adam and Allan (1995) state, there is a “contingency, temporality, and situational logic” (p. xiv) for any of the definitions of culture, as it is a multifaceted entity with transforming identities.

In his classic work about culture, Geertz (2000) calls our attention to the notion of webs of significance, a network of cultural meanings, the building material of culture, by which a cultural group lives and explains the world. Santiago-Valles (2003) notes that culture lives its everyday life through constant transformations within communication practices. The intergroup perspective explains this transformation by the constant interrelation and interdependence of the personal and social identities of its members. Based on my review of the research about culture, I conclude that culture is a constantly transforming system of beliefs, values, knowledge, attitudes, and ways of life organized in various layers of discursive systems that are activated within the specificity of a socio-historical moment and actuated through the communicative performances of its members.

Hall (1996a, 1996b, 1997) outlined several important elements that constitute culture and are in reciprocal and continuous connection with each other: these are shared history, symbolic resources and meanings attached to them, and a sense of belonging shared by the group members. Collier and her colleagues (Collier et al., 2002) also observe cultural preferences among members of a cultural group: the members prefer one or another cultural characteristic and enact it in situations in which these characteristics will be beneficial for the positive perceptions of their cultural identity. Moreover, the group members have a certain way of organizing cultural knowledge and communication within the group; they have their own evaluation criteria of the worth and value of cultural artifacts and specific ways to communicate

32 their cultural meanings of value and worth to each other (Collier et al., 2002). These ideas about how cultural identity is formed and performed inside and outside a culture are important for my analysis of family identity and the ways it is performed within the family circle and outside of it in in-law relationships. I see family identity as a cultural identity. In particular, I observe whether there are any differences in how the family identity is enacted within the family circle and how it is presented to the in-laws, the outsiders. Again, the religious context serves as an antecedent for the observation of the interaction of in-law family identities. Religion runs deep with families; religion defines a family’s world view and its system of values (McGoldrick, 2003; Walsh &

Pryce, 2003). In my study, I argue that religious differences among the in-law families magnify the in-law relational communication and make it more explicit and thus easier to observe and describe. Specifically, it is important to observe in families where religious identities are intertwined with the different ethnic identities of the in-laws. Therefore, this research is also a means to explore and describe how the in-laws in multicultural families find ways to live and negotiate their cultural differences and build healthy and pleasant in-law relationships.

The research on ethnicity and family therapy (Horsley, 1996; McGoldrick, 2003;

McGoldrick, Giordano, & Garcia-Preto, 2005; Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003) states that cultural identity has a profound influence on our sense of well-being within a society and on our mental and physical health. The research identifies culture as “an ongoing social context within which our lives have evolved” (McGoldrick, 2003, p. 240). In family therapy research, which particularly focuses on multinational or immigrant families (McGoldrick, 2003; Walsh, 1999;

Walsh & Pryce, 2003), culture is viewed through the lens of family as a social unit. For example,

McGoldrick defines culture as a “story” (p. 240) of the evolving family identities when families migrate, shape and reshape their self-identification as they change their cultural, social, and

33 geographic locations. The researchers also argue that family identity is directly conditioned by ethnicity, social class, religion, migration experiences, experiences of gender oppression, and/or racism (McGoldrick, 2003; Padilla & Perez, 2003; Walsh, 1999). Nevertheless, the critical perspective on the acculturation and assimilation process argue that the newcomers to a culture never lose their original identification; finding niches for their original cultural identity in the new culture may become the defining process of their life in a new culture. In my research, I argue that in-laws, who enter their in-law relationships involuntarily (Morr Serewicz, 2006;

Rittenour, 2009), go through a similar process in finding ways to accommodate, yet adjust their family identities to each other.

At the heart of in-law relationships is the management of the intergroup boundaries of three family cultures: the two cultures of both partners’ families of origin and their own evolving family culture (Rittenour, 2009; Rittenhour & Soliz, 2009). The management of these intergroup boundaries represents a triangular relationship. The research on in-laws relationships (Morr

Serewicz, 2006; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009) demonstrates that it is the triangular relationships that create the most relational ambiguities and uncertainties among the in-laws.

Framing my research from an intergroup perspective allows me to tie the formation of the in-law identity of a newcomer with the internal dynamics of the family culture they enter; in-law relationships in multi-ethnic, multi-national, and/or multi-religious American Orthodox Christian families will provide more insights on the complexity of the formation of in-law identity and its direct connection to the already existing but constantly evolving dynamics of the family-in-law culture. This approach allows my study to provide a better understanding of what can be done so that the formation of the in-law identity becomes a more pleasant experience and the in-law relationships become more satisfying and more manageable.

Culture, Identity, and Acculturation

According to Padilla and Perez (2003), cultural identity becomes salient with cultural awareness, which is the “implicit knowledge that individuals have of their cultures of origin and of their host cultures” (p. 38). Culture becomes observable and is recognized as one’s own only when individuals encounter communication with someone from a different cultural group or enter that group themselves. Research on in-law relationships that applies an intergroup perspective (Prentice, 2008; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009) points out that the process of in-law identity formation is directly affected by such communicative factors as

(non)accommodation of a newcomer by the in-law family. The in-law identity formation described in this research resembles the interpretivist view of one’s identity formation during acculturation when one is adjusting to a new hosting culture and is undergoing the process of constant (re)evaluating, (re)establishing, and (re)negotiating of multiple old and newly acquired identities. In my dissertation, I propose the application of the intergroup perspective (Harwood,

Giles, & Palomares, 2005) paralleled with acculturation research (Chang, 2001; Collier et al.,

2002; Ngo, 2008; Starosta & Chen, 2003; Stone et al., 2005). I argue that its conceptual toolkit

(i.e., assimilation, integration, disintegration, separatism, transnationalism) helps to further advance the study of in-laws’ relationships and develop a better understanding of their nature and dynamics. However, in my dissertation, I view acculturation process from critical perspective and argue that the constant (re)evaluation, (re)establishment, and (re)negotiation of identities is endured by both families-in-law. It is also important to remember, that in order to experience acculturation, one needs continuous communication with another culture (Padilla & Perez, 2003;

Sam, 2006).

Family relationships influence the flexibility of cultural identity because people associate with their culture through the experiences they have obtained in their families of origins (Padilla

& Perez, 2003). The healthier the family ties the stronger the family identity and, hence, their cultural identity, and the more difficult it is for family members to embrace and adjust to differences. In my research, I argue that the same idea can be applied to the family culture and the acculturation of the in-laws to each other. It may be that the stronger the ties with the family of origin, the stronger the group identity carried by its members, hence the more difficult it is for the in-laws to accommodate each other because the identity of the family of origin may be more salient in the process of negotiation of the in-law intergroup boundaries. This relational dynamic can be seen through the fluctuation of the relationships within Morr Serewicz’s (2006) in-law love triangle model. In particular, I present how moments of strengths of relational ties in, for example, parent – child relationship results in distance in the spousal relationship; or how, for instance, moments of strong connection between spouses create distance between spouse/child and their parent(s). Additionally, as I argued before, strong religion affiliations and the ethnic background of families create special connections among family members. The description of how these characteristics of family identity are lived in in-law relationships contribute to the current knowledge and understanding of what it means to live in a multicultural family in contemporary America. In the next few paragraphs, I overview the research that makes it possible to explore the intersections of ethnicity, religion, and family culture – central concepts of my approach to in-law relationships.

Ethnicity, Religion, and Family Culture

Ethnicity refers to “a group’s common ancestry through which its individuals have evolved shared values and customs” (McGordrick, 2003, p. 236). According to McGoldrick, ethnicity is deeply connected with a family’s self- identification mechanisms. The research on ethnicity and family therapy emphasizes the importance of recognizing the significant impact of ethnic identity on the relationships among the in-laws (McGoldick, Giordano, & Garcia-Preto,

2005; Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003).

Among the types of identities, the research (Collier; 2001 Harwood, 2006; Hechts,

Jackson, & Pitt, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 2005) distinguishes ethnic identity that is formed by an individual’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group. According to Padilla and Perez (2003), ethnic identity, together with an individual’s cultural awareness, is the super-construct that forms the basis of intercultural communication. Ethnic identity is developed on the grounds of ethnic loyalty shaped within family culture (Padilla & Perez, 2003). Ethnic loyalty refers to people’s self-ascription to a particular ethnic community in which they perform their ethnic identities through interaction with the group members and/or through participating in various recreational activities. The consciousness of ethnic identity varies greatly within and between groups

(McGoldrick, 2003). In immigrant families, ethnic identity becomes the core of family identification when the family is under the pressure of the more powerful, dominant culture. The family therapy research about immigrant families (McGoldick, Giordano, & Garcia-Preto, 2005;

Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003) suggests that in order to provide effective therapeutic services to ethnic families, therapists have to recognize that intra-familial conflicts reflect not only the miscommunication within families but also explicit or implicit pressure from the dominant cultures with which the families affiliate.

Within ethnic families, each generational cohort also has different “cultures” that are formed through their experiences of living within the dominant culture, their socioeconomic contexts, and religious affiliations (McGoldrick, 2003; Walsh & Pryce, 2003). Some people hold on to their ethnic backgrounds and become “clannish or prejudiced in response to a perceived threat to their integrity” (McGoldrick, 2003, p. 249). Rittenour (2009) notices similar “clannish” dynamics in families when family members form subgroups based on one of their distinct identities such as age, gender, sexuality, religion, or ethnicity. These family members do not form separate unique groups, but loosen the overarching unifying family identity.

Similar to ethnicity, religion also plays the role of a constructing mechanism in family culture (Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003). There are different views on the interconnection of ethnicity and religion. For example, Diggs and Socha (2004) see religion as a cultural element that constitutes ethnicity. Religion serves as an “identity marker” and in many ways helps to preserve not only family culture but also individual’s ethnic identities (Ebauch & Chavetz,

2002). Research has identified that the transcendent spiritual beliefs and practices together with strong ethnic identification are the key ingredients in healthy family functioning (Padilla &

Perez, 2003; Walsh & Pryce, 2003). Religion plays an important role in the process of acculturation. For immigrant families, religion becomes a system of meanings that maps their experience in the new culture. It also functions as an institution or organization that creates a sense of cultural belonging for the immigrants and as social-service agencies that provide various types of financial and social aid (Alba, Raboteau, & DeWind, 2009). Similar functions of religion are recognized in the process of families’ adjustment to each other (Horsley, 1999). As

Horsley observes, the impact of religious beliefs on family culture and relational dynamics within this culture might be so implicit that the family members might not recognize it. At the

38 same time, this influence also extends to the in-law relationships. Horsely also emphasizes that the cultural differences arising from contrasting religious affiliations of the in-law families negatively affect their relationships.

Religion also plays a fundamental role in people’s approaches to the surrounding world

(Stafford & David, 2011). Geertz (2000) defines religion as cultural system of symbols that formulates particular “conceptions of a general order of existence” (p. 90) and presents these conceptions as a system that becomes viewed as the only true representation of human existence and reality. The cultural differences that arise from the contrasting religious views are a common phenomenon in American families. More than 90% of Americans identify with a specific religion (Walsh, 1999). Although, the prevailing denomination still remains Christian (85%), among which the Eastern Orthodox make up 6% (Krindatch, 2010), American religiosity is marked by its pluralism (Alba, Raboteau, & DeWind, 2009; Raboteau, 2008; Ebauch & Chavetz,

2002; Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003). This current condition of American religiosity is important to consider in the exploration of the functions of religious identity in in-law relationships of multiethnic, multinational, and multi-faith families.

Religious pluralism offers particular challenges to religious minority to which the

Orthodox refer themselves. It challenges people with religious affiliations to experience religion as more than a cultural identity (Raboteau, 2008). Pluralism dictates practicing one’s own religion and simultaneously encountering the beliefs of others with respect for those who hold them. As Raboteau asserts, pluralism “challenges us to appropriate, internalize, and live out the religious identity passed on to us by family and society. It creates an opportunity to discuss and to argue for one’s own beliefs and values.... American pluralism erodes cultural religion because the competitive agora makes religious identity a conscious choice... [that] involves a daily,

39 continuous conversion to the faith, in the face of myriad alternatives in both religious and secular terms” (p. 10). In my dissertation, I describe how the continuous conversion into one’s own faith affects the negotiation of religious identity with the in-laws who have different religious affiliations.

In particular, Raboteau (2008) points out an important relational aspect of religious identity. In the context of religious pluralism, the constant (re)negotiation and (re)conversion into one’s own faith is reflected in daily relational communication, an example of which may be the communication among the in-laws (Horsley, 1996; Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003). As

Walsh and Pryce (2003) observe, marriage often makes families’ religious considerations more salient than other family related events. Walsh and Pryce note that even if partners hold the same faith, they may differ in their particular denomination and/or the degree of religious observance and preferences for one or another tradition. The authors also assert that under stress, tolerance for differences can erode, especially when one way is considered to be the more correct and morally superior compared to the other. The acceptance or disapproval of the marriage by the families of origin can have long-lasting ramifications for the success or failure of all of the relationships among the members of the extended families (Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003).

Another important aspect of religious practice that influence the dynamics within the family and their relationships with external family members is the status of their religion in the broader culture. Many religious groups come to the United States from homelands where they were the dominant presence, the religion of the majority, while others had to deal with hostile environment and practice their religion in segregation and under circumstances in which the conversion into their faith was rarely undertaken (Alba, Raboteau, & DeWind, 2009; Walsh,

1999; Walsh & Pryce, 2003). Depending on the religious status in the home countries, people

40 may also experience different adjustment processes to the disclaimer and performance of their religious identity in new surroundings.

The differences in the conditions for worshiping have direct influence on the degree to which families affiliate themselves with their religion. If the family comes from a culture in which their religious practices made them a minority, their religious identity will be stronger and will mean more than to those whose religion was a part of the dominant culture (Walsh & Pryce,

2003). In the case of my research subjects, Orthodox Christianity is a part of a dominant culture and has the status of national religion (i.e., Russia, Greece) or the religion of the majority (i.e.,

Romania, Bulgaria, Lebanon). However, even though this religious denomination represents a state institution, practice may differ widely. For example, although Macedonia and Bulgaria share the cultural heritage of Orthodox Christianity with Greece and partially with Turkey, the

Macedonian immigrants often refer to Greek, Turkish, or Bolshevik’s persecutions of

Macedonian and Bulgarian style of worshiping when they describe their religious practices

(Pappas, 2000). The memories of these persecutions is still reflected in the performance of their religious identity: among other ethnicities who practice Orthodox Christianity, the ethnic part of their religious identity is more salient.

In the research reviewed above, religion and ethnicity are represented as systems of meanings that are fundamental for an individual’s personal and social identifications. Thus, it is clear why the recent research of family therapy and communication now includes these sectors of personhood when analyzing various challenges and dilemmas of people’s relationships and communication. Often, the differences in ethnic and religious affiliations create space for dialectical tensions when people negotiate their ethnic and/or religious identities (Chen, 2010;

Thatcher, 2011). In my research, I also explore the negotiation of ethnic and religious identities

41 in the in-law communication by analyzing the dialectical tensions that arise through the process of relational formation and development.

I also wanted to understand and describe the mechanisms that guided the creation of the local relational meanings that the in-law relationship generates in various communication encounters and how the meanings of the broader cultures interconnect and affect this kind of relationship. Besides, I wanted to know what meanings the in-law relationships generated about the ethnic and religious identities that represented broader cultures of people’s homelands. As the research reviewed above shows, the ethnic and religious identities in immigrant families or families of religious converts are self-ascribed. Thus, I wanted to understand and describe how the self-ascription of ethnic and religious identity was performed, what meanings it generated, and how it implicated the in-law relationships.

The research shows that the study of identities and their (re)formation and (re)negotiation is practically achieved through the study of discourse (Baxter, 2010; Braithwaite & Baxter, 2008;

Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010; Thatcher, 2011). When researchers are interested in looking at how the meaning systems of particular relationships are created and negotiated, they often apply the

Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT) (Baxter, 2010; Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010), which I describe in the next section.

Relational Dialectic Theory: History, Current State, and Future Directions

Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT) first emerged and was used from the interpretivist perspective but has since evolved into a critical theory (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010). Today, this theory is mainly built on three premises. Based on the original interpretivist use of the theory,

RDT first focuses on the process of meaning production in relationships. It argues that relationships generate their own systems of meanings that make up relational identities of the

42 relational parties. Thus, RTD deals with discourses, ⎯ organized systems of meanings, reflected in the process of relational identity production (Baxter, 2004; 2006; 2010). Secondly, RDT challenges the interpretivist idea that meaning-making processes are homogeneous and that their products are consensual (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). To challenge this idea, the theory appeals to the notion of dialectical tensions in relationships, arguing that relational partners fluctuate in their desires for various, often opposing, relational outcomes guided by meanings that circulate in the cultures to which they belong. Thus, RDT argues that meaning-making is fragmented, non-linear, and liminal by nature (Baxter, 2010). Thirdly, RDT sees a direct connection between the production of relational identity and the meanings that circulate in broader cultures (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010). The meanings of broader cultures, in which relationships are situated through multiple memberships of its parties guide the relational parties in the way they assess and navigate their relationships. Implementation of this theory in the study of in-law relationships in multicultural families advances our understanding of how in-laws communicate and provides insights about what can be done to make these relationships more pleasant. For example, the collected data provides insights about the everyday relational communication practices and the discourses that are being used in the creation of the in-law relational identity. Second, the RDT framework allows an examination of the connections among in-law relational identity and the meanings of broader cultures (i.e., ethnic or religious) as well as the politics and ideologies that relational parties bring into the formation and development of their in-law relationships.

The basic principle of the theory is that it sees communication as a dialogic phenomenon.

The concept of dialogism was thoroughly studied and described by the Russian scholar of literary criticism Mikhail Bakhtin (Holquist, 1990; Baxter, 2004; 2010). Rooted in Bakhtin’s

43 dialogic axiom (Bakhtin, 1990), the central idea of RDT is that meanings are generated in the struggle of competing discourses through communication in various kinds of relationships

(Baxter, 2010).

In Bakhtin’s dialogism, meaning exists only in the connection to another meaning or a chain of other meanings (Baxter, 2010). Two different meaning systems interact, animating each other. This results in the creation of new meaning. Bakhtin calls this meaning interaction an internanimation of discourses. On the basis of Bakhtin’s works, Baxter (2004) defines dialogism as “a simultaneous fusion and differentiation of voices” (181) which represent opposing meanings about phenomena in the world of human relationships. Studying relational meanings,

Baxter focuses on the interanimation of competing discourses. According to Baxter (2010), the dialogic perspective highlights the creative side of the communication process by focusing on the ways opposing discourses are managed in relationships. Communication, if seen as a dialogue, becomes a constructive force in the emergence of new meaning that represents “something that never existed before, something absolutely new and unrepeatable” (Baxter, 2010, pp. 118–119).

Moreover, in the theoretical framework of RDT, difference, instead of being an obstacle that needs to be overcome in order for communication to occur, becomes the driving force for meaning creation (Baxter, 2004; 2006; 2010; Condit, 2006). The ultimate goal for meaning making is in the continuous process of overcoming, yet maintaining differences (Baxter, 2006,

2010; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Braithwaite & Baxter, 2008). This dialectical interplay of meanings constitutes the dialogue, the essence of communication.

To study dialogue, Bakhtin (1990) utilizes the term chronotope, a time–space entity. To explain how relational parties form their relational identity, Baxter (2004) introduces the term chronotopic similarity which is “the stockpile of shared time–space experiences that a pair

44 constructs trough their joint interaction events over time” (p. 110). The examples of those events are catching up, gossiping, joking around, making plans. Some of the events Baxter marks as turning points in the process of building relational identities. These turning point events have double significance. The relational parties witness those events together at the time of their occurrence. Also, the parties remember and commemorate those events in storytelling, celebrations, and other documenting rituals that keep the experiences of those events alive.

Through this documentation and revival of the events, the parties (re)produce the meanings rooted in these events. These meanings become defining factors in their relationships. Baxter’s ideas about chronotopic similarity are important in the analysis of in-law relationships.

Chronotopic similarity makes it possible to piece together the events that become points of connection or disconnection among the in-laws and, through that, to trace the development of their relationships. Examples of the turning point events in in-law relationships are all kinds of family-related events; the ones that somehow affect the culture and structure of the family2.

RDT’s View of Meaning Production

In this section, I further explore RDT’s argument that relationships are products of broader cultures. Baxter and her colleagues build this argument by observing meaning construction in relationships and, through that, the development of relational identity. The focus on the dialogic nature of the meaning construction process brings to our attention dialectical tensions activated through the interanimation of meanings that belong to various discursive systems (Baxter, 2010; Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010). As Baxter and Braithwaite (2010) state, the identities of the relational parties obtained outside of their relationship become a constructing material for the meanings of the relationship and for their mutual relationship identity. The

2 The participants reported that the turning point events in there families lives were the new additions to the family through weddings and child birth, baptisms or other religious consecrations.

45 history of the current relationship, together with any previous relationships of the parties involved, are encoded in the discursive systems they activate while (re)forming, (re)negotiating, and maintaining their relationships. In the creation of relational meanings, various discursive systems clash and enter the discursive struggle, which then becomes the power that moves the process of meaning construction. Baxter and Braitwaite (2010) also note that through the involvement of various discourses that the relationship parties bring with them to the meaning construction of the relationship, the discursive system of their relationship also represents the broader cultures to which the parties belong and in which their relationship is embedded.

RDT views the production of meaning as fragmented and non-linear, thus liminal

(Baxter, 2010; Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010, Braithwaite & Baxter, 2008; Prentice, 2009;

Thatcher, 2011). The life of a meaning is instant and is characterized by the peculiarities of a socio-historical moment that shape specificities of its communication context. This fluidity of relational meanings is based on the fact that relationships are not “isolated dyadic phenomena driven by the psychological states of the two parties” (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2010, p. 51). Baxter and Braithwaite particularly emphasize that the discursive struggle does not represent contradictions between psychological states and relational needs of the relational parties. Rather, the relational communication is intertextual and connects systems of meanings from different socio-historical moments. The connection of various systems of meaning represents a single unit of an utterance chain. The concept of utterance chain, coined by Bakhtin, refers to the interconnection of speech acts characterized by the social and historical specificity of the context in which they are born (Baxter, 2004, 2010; Braithwaite & Baxter, 2008; Holquist, 1990).

Baxter and her colleagues (Baxter, 2010; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Baxter &

Braithwaite, 2010) distinguish four kinds of connections in which discourses come into play with

46 one another: (1) the distal already-spoken connects already spoken utterances that were used prior to a given communication encounter of the relational parties; (2) the proximal already- spoken link operates with the utterances that are activated in the current communicative event of a relationship; (3) the proximal not-yet spoken link connects anticipated utterances from a relational party at a given moment of a relationships; and (4) the distal not-yet-spoken connection reflects the expectation of utterances from a society for which these utterances are spoken. An example of the distal already-spoken link are the utterances about mother-in-law circulating in the culture at large such as the ones that represent mother-in-law as “the ugly witch” or “evil mother-in-law” (Limary, 2002, p. 6). Another example, a predominant discourse, would be the statement “I am cut out of the family” (p. 258), which might prevail in the discussions of daughters-in-law. An example of a proximal already-spoken link would be an expression such as: “She [the mother-in-law] was nice before, but she is a lot nicer since the baby has come. She wants to see the baby so she knows to see the baby she needs to see me” (p.

261). An example of a proximal not-yet-spoken link might be an utterance such as, “I know you won’t like this idea, but hear me out” (Baxter, 2010, p. 52). The distal not-yet-spoken connection is reflected in an utterance such as, “Should I call her ‘mom’ or should I address her by her name?” (Limary, 2002, p. 265). The four types of utterance links represent the idea that relational meanings reflect not only the culture of the particular relationship in which they were born, but also the broader cultures to which the relational parties belong (e.g., family cultures, ethnic, religious, and/or national). These examples represent the interconnection, or clash, of meanings that belong to different, often opposing, discourses. These discourses belong to different, or opposing, cultures that co-exist in societies (i.e., Christian and American popular cultures).

As Bradshaw (1996) observes, relational behavior, reflected in specific traditions of communication, is a unique feature of each individual family. These communicative behaviors constitute family cultures. Additionally, Horseley (1996) notes that communication among the in-laws may represent a clash of family cultures. This clash is reflected in various negotiations of cultural meanings generated within one family or another. The families in my study represent a mix of ethnic, national, and/or religious backgrounds that, at the same time, are brought together within a specific religious context of American Orthodox Christianity. Therefore, the in- law relationships are complicated by the differences not only in family cultures, but also by the differences in broader ethnic, national, and/or religious cultures carried by single family members and their attitudes to the dominating American Orthodox Christian culture.

The applicability of RDT to study the meanings of broader cultures and its influence on everyday relationships is crucial for the purposes of my research. In the (re)formation, development, and maintenance of in-law relational identity in the multiethnic, multinational, and/or multi-faith families of American Orthodox Christians, the discourses activated in the construction of the relational meanings are also connected to the broader cultures of families’ ethnicities, nationalities, and/or religions.

In my dissertation, I follow Baxter’s approach to dialogism she situates “at the boundary between two consciousnesses” which represent the “discursive sea” and which is constituted from “verbal-ideological forces” (p. 184). I observe the “discursive sea” of in-law relationships in American Orthodox Christian culture within which the (re)formation and negotiations of various personal and social identities of family members form, interrelate, and reshape. By doing this, I also want to identify the “verbal-ideological forces” (Baxter, 2004) of the broader cultures that affect this communication. Of particular importance is the focus of RDT on the ways

48 competing discourses in relationships generate meanings that reflect the particular relational identity in broader cultures to which the parties belong.

To carry out a project that aims to explore the inner dynamics of family culture and to address one of the most ambiguous of all family relationships – the in-law relationship⎯I turn to a narrative approach that is claimed to be one of the most successful in relational and family communication studies (Bochner, 2002; Bochner & Ellis, 1996; Bochner, Ellis, & Tillman-

Healy, 1997; Poulos, 2009). In the next section, I review the literature on a narrative approach to relationships and family communication.

Narrative Approach to the In-law Relationships

Narrative Inquiry

Narrative is concerned with details of experiences and the connections between narrative texts, the lives they represent, and the reader’s participation in composing or co-constructing the meanings of a text (Bochner, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Ellis & Bochner, 1996; Riessman,

2008). According to Bochner (2002), a narrative approach represents the only way to know the

“authentic meanings” generated at a particular moment of life, since “the modalities of experience are temporal, and the images preserved in memory are cinematic, transient episodes that gain significance and continuity by being situated” (Bochner, 2002, p. 85). Narratives that address the meanings of experiences extend them into the future, handing them down them from generation to generation for better understanding of the world and for better decision-making experiences. They help us to find the truth of particular moments in time (Bochner, 2002;

Riessman, 2008).

There is not a single theory of how experience and narrative are related (Kellas, 2008).

Some researchers assume that “humans impose narrative structures on their experiences” (Kellas,

2008, p. 311). Others suppose that stories arbitrarily impose a narrative structure on memories and that storytelling is a direct and obvious form of recollecting memories (Blair, 2006; Bochner,

2002; Ellis, 2009; Limary, 2002). Yet Walter Fisher’s narrative paradigm (Fisher, 1989) holds that narratives are not only ways to express our life experiences, but also a mode of communication and a way of understanding surrounding reality and ourselves (Bochner, 2002;

Bochner, Ellis & Tillman-Healy, 1997; Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001; Kellas, 2008). This idea was at the center of Bakhtin’s exploration of dialogism (Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001). Bakhtin drew parallels between novelistic discourses, people’s personal narratives about their lives, and autobiographical memory, which led him to conclude that humans think about themselves and construct the understanding of the surrounding world by using multiple voices their minds to carry and construct narratives (Baxter, 2010; Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001).

The ultimate goal for many researchers of narratives is to find out what type of self is being created in the narrative construction of our reality (Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001). Many of them turn to the study of relational identity and relational meanings (Baxter, 2010; Baxter &

Braithwaite, 2008; Bochner, Ellis & Tillman-Healy, 1997; Kellas, 2008). As Bochner (2002) notes, personal relationships are narrative by nature. “Storytelling is not only the way we understand our relationships, but also the means by which our relationships are fashioned. ... To have or to be in a relationship is to have or to be in a story and, usually, to want to tell about it”

(Bochner, Ellis & Tillman-Healy, 1997, p. 310).

Narratives of personal relationships provide insights about how people “breach canonical conventions and expectations, how they cope with exceptional, difficult and transformative crises, how they invent new ways of speaking when old ways fail them, how they make absurd sensible and the disastrous manageable, and how they turn calamities into gifts” (Bochner, Ellis

& Tillman-Healy, 1997, pp. 317-318). Canonical stories document and reflect the cultural norms of the society in which they are formed. Although, the nature of canonical stories is socially based, individuals are able to change the plot of these stories and in this way influence a change in cultural norms.

Personal relationship narratives, according to Baxter (2010), are full of “contradictions, nonrationalities, and multiple realities to which people give voice in their narrative sense making of their relational lives” (p. 143). Through telling their relational narratives, people weave together multiple discourses of competing ideologies that circulate in broader cultures in which their relationships are situated. In my study, the examples of the broader cultures are the family cultures ⎯ the ethnic, national, gender, and/or religious cultures represented in the discourses that constitute personal and social identities of relational parties. They reveal not only the discourses that American Orthodox Christians use in order to make sense of their in-law identities and their in-law relationships, but also how the multiple discourses of competing ideologies of broader cultures are woven together to form their in-law identities.

Family Culture and Family Narratives

Family culture is performed through family communication traditions and rituals and transmitted among family members through family narratives. Family identity becomes observable through family narratives and in many ways is (re)formed through them (Caughlin,

2003; Limary, 2002; Meyerstein, 1996; Rittenour, 2009; Vangelisti, Crumley & Baker, 1999).

Relational behavior, according to Bradshaw (1996) is a unique feature of each individual family and can be traced throughout generations within one family. It is based on not only genetic predispositions of personal traits of the family members, Bradshaw continues, but also on the traditions of communication among family members. One way for these communication

51 traditions to be internalized, remembered, and passed on is through family narratives that contribute to the formation of family norms, traditions, and expectations, as well as the standards according to which people evaluate themselves and their relationships (Bochner, Ellis &

Tillman-Healy, 1997; Sillars & Vangelisti, 2006; VanderVoort & Duck, 2000; Vangelisti,

Crumley & Baker, 1999).

Families produce canonical narratives to establish norms and rules for conducting family relationships (Bochner, Ellis & Tillman-Healy, 1997; Vangelisti, Crumley & Baker, 1999).

Vangelisti, Crumley and Baker (1999) link the themes of narratives in which individuals describe their families to the ways people evaluate their family relationships, and, through this evaluation, form and negotiate standards about what is considered right or wrong, good or bad in their family cultures. Standards of family culture also ascribe certain roles and behaviors to certain family members, and usually these standards reveal ideals of family relationships’ conduct

(Vangelisti, Crumley & Baker, 1999). For example, some of the participants in my study share certain standards of family culture as a result of their notions about relationship development among in-laws of different genders. It is impossible, some of female participants argue, for them to establish relationships with their male in-laws. One of the participants in my study shared a story about a remote relative, a story that is documented in her family, about a relationship between a female and a male in-law which was regarded as inappropriate behavior in their family culture. Over and over again this story (re)generates meanings about the appropriateness of relationships between in-laws that is presented as one of the standards of their family culture.

The standards of family cultures revealed in family narratives are often pre-conscious, which means that individuals are unaware of how the ideals they hold about their families influence their perceptions, evaluations, and reactions to the relational events in their families

(Vangelisti, Crumley & Baker, 1999). Bochner (2002) also highlights the subconscious nature of knowledge and meanings that the narrators portray in their narratives. He also points out that the narrators discover and reshape their understanding of their experiences as they narrate.

According to Bochner, narratives help us learn and understand our relationships by revising the meanings of the past from the positions we occupy in the present. As Bochner, Ellis, and

Tillman-Healy (1997) also note, through our stories we create the context of our meanings, which guide our existence.

My approach to collect the data about the in-law relationships in the form of narratives also represents an ethical value. While collecting my research data and allowing my participants to extensively elaborate on their in-law relationships, I create time and space for the participants to reflect on the themes of their family stories, recognize the standards that they carry, and perhaps, reevaluate some of them. The space and time also allow them to better understand the dynamics of the (re)formation, (re)negotiation, and maintenance of their in-law identities and the meanings that their in-law relationships generate. It is for them to tell the history of their religion, and to try to find ways to explain their faith to others. In the next section, I introduce the history of American Orthodox Christianity and briefly overview the history of the studied parish

Research of Relational Communication in American Orthodox Christian Families:

Rationale

There are several reasons why I chose to interview American Orthodox Christians. In particular, I see my contribution to the existing research through the exploration of how

American Orthodox Christianity interacts with other Christian denominations in the United

States in everyday family relationships, given that the families whose in-laws I chose to interview consist of predominantly Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians. This interaction, I

53 believe, provides many insights into religious culture in this country. In particular, I explore (1) how religious politics influence the way Orthodox believers identify themselves through the meanings about their faith that circulate in religious discourses, (2) how the Orthodox believers make sense of the current Orthodox Church politics, and (3) how they negotiate their understanding and perceptions of the faith and the culture it carries with others.

Baxter (2010) notes that research that aims to collect narratives about familial relationships is likely to provide us with insights into cultural discourses. Besides contributing to the existing research of the in-law relationships and the in-law identity, I also want to tell more about American Orthodox Christian culture. The literature about Orthodox Christians in America points out the lack of academic attention to this particular cultural group (Prodromu &

Papanikolaou, 2008). The body of literature dedicated to the culture of Orthodox Christianity in

America is almost non-existent (Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995). Stokoe and Kishkovsky note that, with a few exceptions, the history of American Orthodox Christianity for the most part remains unrecorded, the documents have not been translated into English and the influential figures, institutions, and events are unknown to many Americans. Part of the reason for the lack of attention to this particular part of American cultural heritage is that, despite its two centuries of history on the North American continent Orthodoxy in America remains aloof (Stokoe &

Kishkovsky, 1995). Moreover, most of the literature about American Orthodox Christianity addresses issues suitable for the clergy and rarely focuses on information about the issues that everyday American Orthodox Christian folk encounter while practicing their faith. With my dissertation, I partially fill that void by portraying elements of Orthodox Christianity in

American through the lens of in-law relationships. With my dissertation, I want to tell a story of the (re)formation and (re)negotiation of American Orthodox Christian religious identity

54 embedded in the in-law relationships and the development of in-law identity. With my research, I also want to tell a story about a single parish somewhere in the Midwest with its unique group culture that is built though the experiences of its members. To better understand my approach to the in-law relationships in this particular community, I will first provide a brief overview of the history of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), one of the two largest Orthodox Christian churches in America, and then address the current state and challenges of this institution.

History of American Orthodox Christianity: A Brief Review

The Orthodox Church of America (OCA), to which the studied parish belongs, is the local autocephalous Orthodox Church3. The term autocephalous refers to Church’s ability to sustain itself and to maintain its autonomy from the homeland ethnic Orthodox Churches in the

“old countries.” This autonomy grants the Church the power to elect its own Metropolitan (the head of the Church), its own bishops (the heads of the local dioceses), to educate its own clergy, and to be financially independent from any of the original ethnic Orthodox Churches within or outside the North American continent. The OCA traces its history to 1794, when eight Orthodox missionaries from the Valaamo Monastery in the northern Russia arrived in Kodiak, Alaska.

However, the Church was granted its autocephaly only in 1970. The following paragraphs cover the rich history of the Church and provide insights on its complex intergroup dynamics.

Since the first settlement of the Russian mission in Alaska in 1794 that consisted of only eight monks, Orthodox Christianity in America has established stable ground in this country and its membership comprises approximately 6% of the entire US population (Krindatch, 2010). One of the central concerns that has been drawing attention of many throughout the history of

American Orthodox Christianity and the one I address in my dissertation is the issue of the

Church’s ability to manage the multiethnic and multinational body of worshipers that condition

3 The reader can obtain more information about the OCA at www.oca.com

55 uncertainties and ambiguities in the understanding of Orthodox Christian traditions and the interpretation of Orthodox doctrine. To be able to understand its culture, we need to compare

Orthodox Christianity to other Christian denominations that are still prevalent in the United

States.

Despite its overarching connection to other Christian denominations in worshiping the same God, Orthodoxy differs significantly from them. According to Stokoe and Kishkovsky

(1995), Orthodox Christians share the same sacramental view of life, the tradition of ordination of its clergy, the liturgical forms or corporate worship, traditional forms of fasting, prayer, and monasticism, as well as the highly developed forms of religious art (iconography) with Roman

Catholics. At the same time, as Stokoe and Kishkovsky note, the OCA is administered in a way that closely resembles the American Lutherans with the system of distinct administrative jurisdictions, divisions, or dioceses that are based both on ethnic origin and geographical location of the parishes. The self identification of American Orthodox Christians used to be similar to the

Orthodox Jews who saw themselves as in diaspora, “people apart, unable, and at times unwilling, to separate the claims of race, religion, and politics” (Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995, p. 3).

However, in recent decades, the situation has changed and American Orthodoxy is developing its own authentic American identity (Makrsi, 2008).

The diasporic nature of the American Christian Orthodox identity has roots in the immigrant history of the United States. Despite the settlement and development of the Russian mission in the United States before and after Alaska was sold by Russia to the Unites States, contemporary American Orthodox Christianity has also been a result of the migration of peoples from Central, South, and Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. That is why American Orthodoxy often presents an “multiethnic” face to American society.

Despite the traditions established by the first Russian Orthodox missionaries to Alaska, according to which the Orthodox Mission was meant to be adaptive to language, sensitive to local culture(s), and unifying in its educational practices, the history of the American Orthodoxy shows that these traditions were not followed by all Orthodox Christians who found their homes in the United States. The examples of the first Russian Orthodox missioners, many of whom were lately canonized and became an undeniable part of American cultural heritage, demonstrate that Orthodox Christianity was presented not as the abolition of, but as the fulfillment of the ancient religious heritage of the natives (Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995). However, it seems, these traditions were ignored by many, which lead to separatism and disintegration within the world of

American Orthodox Christianity.

From the 1870s until the 1920s, Orthodox Christianity in America changed from a small mission in Alaska to become one of the fastest growing religions in North America due to mass immigration and mass conversion of Americans, mostly through marriage (Stokoe &

Kishkovsky, 1995). This is known as the third, or the so-called “new immigration.” A large proportion of Orthodox Christians in North American today are the descendants of this wave of immigration (Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995), although in recent years the majority of the

American Orthodox Christians are now converts into the Faith (Krindatch, 2010). These “new immigrants” were rarely welcome in America. As a result, they were alienated nationally and religiously by the largely Protestant American society. Under these conditions, the “new immigrants” were compelled to unite into ethnic societies in order to survive economically and culturally. The Orthodox Christian parishes that these people established served as the centers providing social, cultural, linguistic, and spiritual satisfactions and represented marginalized communities. For those of the “new immigrants” who planned to settle in America, these

57 parishes became not only the “repositories of ethnic heritage,” but also the “dispensaries for handing down those cultures to their American children” (Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995, p. 25).

The establishment of these “new immigration” ethnic parishes was independent of any assistance or any approval from officially established Orthodox Christian Churches outside of the United States. These parishes would often elect their own trustees, obtain a building, and only after that ask a bishop from the mother Church abroad for a priest. Most of these churches shared a continuing link to the Old World and recruited their clergy from their native countries

(Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995). However, the bishops in the native countries frequently denied such requests due to the expensive costs of sending priests overseas. In these cases, parishes would go to the Bishop of the Russian mission, Bishop Tikhon (1865 – 1925), who by that time had moved the Russian mission from Alaska to San Francisco, California. As time went by, it became common practice for Bishop Tikhon to assign priests to the local parishes without involving bishops in the native countries. The Russian Orthodox Mission in America with its center in San Francisco became the multi-ethnic American Diocese under the rule of Bishop

Tikhon who had originally been sent to America by the Russian Orthodox Church. Bishop

Tikhon set up the new politics of unification to bring together the separate ethnic parishes spread all over the North America.

At the same time, one of the largest ethnic group of the “new immigrants” were the

Greeks who, unlike other ethnic communities settling in rural mining areas of Pennsylvania, became prosperous in fast-growing American cities (Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995). Many, though not all Greek ethnic parishes refused to become a part of the unification process. They established their own Church and refused to collaborate with the Russian Mission fearing the

Russian control of their parishes.

By the beginning of the 20th century, there were two growing divisions of Orthodox

Christians in America who saw their cultural bases in Russia and Greece. Their histories went completely separate ways after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia. The Revolution resulted in the collapse of the multiethnic American diocese, as the Russian Orthodox Church barely survived persecution by the Bolsheviks and could no longer provide support for its mission in America. From the ruins of the multiethnic diocese, ten independent and often antagonistic, ethnically-based “jurisdictions” emerged: three Russian, two Arab, as well as

Serbian, Albanian, Romanian, Ukranian, and Carpatho-Russian bodies. As the American diocese was disintegrating, the independent Greek parishes in America were attempting to unite. These events were accompanied by the passage of the National Origins Quota Act in 1924 that closed

America to all further immigrants except for individuals from the Northern Europe. These events marked the end of the “Immigrant Church” and the beginning of the most confusing era of

Orthodox Christians in America. This separation resulted in complete stagnation of the American

Orthodox Church as a religious institution, which led the church to miss the progressive religious trends encountered by other Christian denominations. These trends included the Social Gospel, evangelicalism, and the Churches’ adaptation to social changes such as gender revolution.

The “ethnic churches,” although physically present in the United States, formed a spiritual, communal, and social existence of their own, apart from American culture. Besides occasional ethnic festivals dedicated to the largest Christian celebrations such as Easter with colored Easter eggs, folk dancing, and some traditional recipes for bread baking, the ethnic churches rarely communicated with the dominant American culture. As time went by, ethnic

Orthodox Churches began experiencing internal strain. Religious faith and ethnic identities, once seen as inseparable, were increasingly less understood by the geographically dispersed English-

59 speaking Orthodox Americans who were the second, third, and fourth generations of the “new immigrants.” The ambiguities related to the self-identification through religious and ethnic affiliations were also complicated by the increasing number of converts (Stokoe & Kishkovsky,

1995). This resulted in numerous furious debates about the legacy of national languages and ethnic traditions of worship that still echoing discussions during parishes’ gatherings. As a result, there was and still is no one unifying standard of worship. Some parishes fully transferred to the

English language and adopted somewhat hybridized traditions of worship that included ethnic and American traditions. Others remained more “ethnic” than American Orthodox Churches in the application of language and styles of worship (Krindatch, 2008; Makris, 2008).

Nevertheless, a profound impact on the unification of some “ethnic churches” and the establishment of an autonomous local Orthodox Church in America (OCA) was made by St.

Vladimir Seminary, an academic center established by the Metropolia, the decentant [?] of the multi-ethnic American mission with Russian roots that fell apart after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. St. Vladimir pursued a goal to revive the Orthodox theology in the United States. The seminary, together with the bishops of the Metropolia began creating English-speaking mission parishes throughout the country. This mission soon began attracting numerous converts to

Orthodoxy. This fast growing mission also encouraged a trend away from ethnic consolidation of the American Orthodox churches. In 1966, the Mission proclaimed itself as the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) and declared its return to the older multi-ethnic missionary perspectives of the former American diocese. Despite its roots in the American soil and its orientation towards contemporary American culture, the OCA formally remained under the jurisdiction of the

Mother Russian Church. In the 1970s, during a brief period of warming of American-Russian relations, the Russian Church granted autocephaly to the OCA.

The Orthodox Church of America Today

Today, the autocephalous Orthodox Church of America (OCA) with its roots in the

Russian Orthodox Church remains one of the largest Orthodox Christian organizations in

America (Krindatch, 2008). Despite its multiethnic unification, parishes that became a part of the

OCA still represent a mix of ethnicities and nationalities accompanied by still increasing number of American converts into the Faith (Krindatch, 2008). In addition, there are still a number of

“ethnic churches” that did not become a part of the OCA and remain hostile to the OCA’s politics. The multiethnic and multinational body of the OCA and the relationships between the

OCA and other “ethnic churches” to different degrees affects the inner dynamics of single parishes as the members of these parishes migrate and establish various relationships among one another.

The religious identity of many Orthodox believers is not stable. The rich history of

American Orthodox Christianity and the complex relationships of its parts have profound resonance with respect to American Orthodoxy today. Although, the OCA has established its own educational institutions for clergy, its clergy still represent a diversity of approaches to the traditions of Orthodox Christianity and the interpretation of its theological principles. As

Krindatch (2008) notes, despite the congregational culture formed through following the given traditions of worship, the pastoral work on communication with the parishioners has a tremendous impact on the life a particular parish as well. The social and religious attitudes of laypersons are affected by the quality and quantity of interaction between each other and between them and their priest.

Orthodox Christianity in America today is analyzed on two levels: (1) the macro-level of orthodoxy as a whole, as a doctrine that reflects theological inquiry and (2) the micro-level

61 across the jurisdictions within the Orthodox Christian world in America. On the macro-level,

American Orthodox Christian culture is viewed as homogenous (Krindatch, 2008). On the micro- level, it represents a rather diverse body of various positions and attitudes generated in separate jurisdictions and even their local parishes.

Two of the major issues that the Orthodox Christianity in American is facing today are

(1) the issue of the management of diversity in social and religious attitudes towards Orthodox doctrine and (2) the issue of orthopraxy (Krindatch, 2008; Vrame, 2008). Orthopraxy is the individual and communities’ willingness to accept changes within and outside of the Church and

“adapt to life in culturally and religiously pluralistic society” (Krindatch, 2008, p. 4). Both issues are interrelated and both affect each other’s outcomes. The research (Krindatch, 2008; Vrame,

2008) distinguishes four types of orthopraxy:

• Conservative (Fundamentalist) Orthopraxy rejects changes and emphasizes the

exactness of once and forever developed practices in spite of changing local

contexts. It also separates itself deliberately from the mainstream American

culture.

• Traditional Orthopraxy strives to observe Orthodox tradition and cherishes

church heritage immensely but accepts evolutionary changes, permitting praxis to

evolve slowly over time.

• Moderate (Reform) Orthopraxy supports intentional changes and is willing to “fit

in” and be “accepted” by the wider American society and by mainstream

American religious life.

• Liberal (Reconstructionist) Orthopraxy seeks to introduce “innovative” practices,

to generally “rethink” orthopraxy and to develop a new expression for America

(Krindatch, 2008, p. 4).

This data is important for my research as it gives me an opportunity to examine to what degree these religious identities are represented in intergroup family relationships with the in- laws and how they are performed and negotiated in these relationships. Also, this typology serves as a useful tool to examine the overarching status of Orthodox Christianity in contemporary American families. This typology also serves as a basis for the dialectical analysis of the discourses of ethnicity and religiosity activated in the multiethnic, multinational, and multi-faith American Orthodox Christian families.

Gender Identity in the Context of American Orthodox Christianity

In 1991, Anthony Bloom, internationally renowned contemporary theologian, wrote:

“The question of the ordination of women to the priesthood...must become for us [Orthodox] a question that is asked ‘from the inside.’ This question requires of us all an interior freedom and a deep communion with the version and will of God, in a prayerful silence” (Karras, 2008b, p.

113). The issue of the Church’s acceptance of social change and its adaptability to a new culturally pluralistic society has been discussed throughout the literature dedicated to the current state of Christianity in a postmodern world that has accepted the world’s diversity, discontinuity, heterogeneity, contradictions, and ambiguities (Dawn, 1995, Karras, 2008b; Prodromu &

Papanikolaou, 2008).

The typology of orthopraxy within the American Orthodox Christian world reflects the changes that have been taking place with the conceptualization of the Church’s doctrine.

Orthodox Christian doctrine, as Krindatch (2008) states, now plays a formal, unifying role with

63 respect to all Orthodox Christians in the world; however, the diversity of conceptualizations of its traditions is a unique feature of contemporary worldwide Orthodox Christianity. The exercise of this “freedom of conceptualization” is reflected in the form of self-organization of American

Orthodox Christianity. As Hopko (2003) notes, American Orthodox Christian parishes join dioceses by their own choice and on their own terms. Most Orthodox Christian parishes in

America were not and still are not created by the hierarchy of the Church. This cultural autonomy from the Orthodox doctrine is reflected particularly in the ways people perceive the changes in social understanding of gender and gender roles (Karras, 2008b). For example, there are significant differences in understanding of women’s participation in the divine practices.

According to Karras (2008b), women and girls are almost entirely absent as acolytes, the only exception being women’s monasteries. In some parishes, women are assigned to be the readers of the Epistle (the New Testament letters written by Apostles to Christians). The privilege of this role that was mainly assigned to men is pure tradition with the meaning that has lost its significance as civilization progresses. In early Christianity, the readers of the Epistle were of necessity high-status individuals since only these people could read. Additionally, most of the literate people of that time were men. Nevertheless, the tradition of choosing a man over a woman to do the reading is still prevalent in parishes throughout the United States.

As Dawn (1995) observes, one of the most profound impacts of the relationship between the practices of Christian doctrine and the social world outside of it was caused by the gender revolution. In his study of contemporary American Orthodox Christians, Krindatch (2008) pays special attention to the question of gender representation in today’s American Orthodox

Christian practices, and the results of his research are not surprising if one takes into consideration the long cultural isolation of Orthodox Christian communities from the mainstream

64 of American culture. According to Krindatch, social gender issues such as same-sex marriage and the ordination of women are saliently present. Krindatch explains the understanding of these issues from the perspective of the Orthodox Christians by looking into the historically established “minority” or “ethnic” status of Orthodox Christian culture in the United States. “In the past, this helped American Orthodox Churches to keep established patterns of church life, to avoid changes and to expect taken-for-granted obedience of their faithful. Today, when the strength of the ethnic values and sentiments has declined significantly, the Orthodox Churches cannot rely any longer on the unconditional loyalty of their members based simply on sharing common ethnic ancestry” (p. 55). American religious pluralism made the clergy understand that it would be seen as “perfectly acceptable for an Orthodox Christian to leave the Church, which is unwilling to meet changing expectations and aspirations of the new generations” (p. 56). These changing expectations and aspirations are particularly related to the understanding of gender and gender roles in the relationship with traditional Orthodox Christian doctrine.

Nevertheless, the issues related to the recognition of women as persons of equal significance to the preservation and practices of the Orthodox Christian traditions still remains a hot topic. There is much research on the representation of gender in American Orthodox

Christianity (Elisheva-Fonrobert, 2000; Karras, 2008a; 2008b). According to Karras (2008b), there are historical reasons why there has been a gender role division in Orthodox Christianity.

The historical division of the Church’s private and public diaconal ministries on the basis of sex differences was paralleled with the gender division of functions and was extended to almost all aspects of life in Byzantine societies where the Orthodox Christianity developed. Despite the changes in social norms regarding women’s roles, the attitudes of the most Orthodox towards

65 such gender issues as, for example, ordination,is still strongly differentiated by sex (Karras,

2008b).

Mirroring Karras’s (Karras, 2008b) idea is Sterk’s research (Sterk, 1989; 2010) examining the cultural definitions of womanhood and feminine identity exercised by such social institutions as the Church and family that prescribe women to “place” themselves at home and find their fulfillment there. Sterk (1989) also notes that many Christians believe all humans are defined by their proximity to masculine or feminine identity defined by the Church’s doctrine.

So, when one challenges their assumptions and faces some degree of confusion regarding the subject of inquiry, it reveals how deep the cultural expectations about gender roles are. In her study of gender in its relationship to local histories informed by Bakhtin’s dialogism,

Korovushkina (2000) asserts that, in many ways, understanding of gender in Orthodox

Christianity is determined by the context of the local histories and the conceptualizations of historical events ⎯ their significance for women and their understanding of the familial and societal roles traditionally ascribed to them by Orthodox dogma. Korovushkina argues that because gender and religion are both social constructs, their relationship ascribed by religious practices has to be analyzed and interpreted according to the local socio-historic contexts. The central question that needs to be answered is: What can the study of religion tell us that is new about gender in a particular culture? (Korovushkina, 2000). This question becomes particularly important when we recognize that “gender identities emerge ... shift, and vary so that different identifications come into play depending upon availability of legitimating cultural norms and opportunities” (Butler, 1990, p. 331).

Orthodox doctrine does not separate family life from the liturgical participation in the worship (Sister Magdalen, 1996). In fact, family life-style throughout the week should be a

66 continuation of Sunday Liturgy. This view reflects the philosophical understanding of time as circular. This understanding represents time not as a segment or a commodity, but a processual entity that unites different spheres of human life into its wholeness and completeness.

McCann and Kim (2010) argue that today’s understanding of gender is broadened through the recognition of its connection to race, ethnicity, class, nationality, and religion. Sterk

(2010) notes that one of the current trends in the studies of religion and gender occupies the research on the intersections of gender constructions in particular religious communities as this particular area of social studies still remains understudied. With the focus on studying the intersections of cultural identities formed by person’s ethnicity, nationality, gender, and/or religion in the intergroup relationships between the in-laws of a particular cultural group that represent a battleground for the contrasting ideologies of parties’ identities, I want to continue breaking the conventional homogenous categorizations of women and gender and to contribute to further development of intersubjective “anticategorical” or “intercategorical” (McCall, 2005) research. Moreover, Partridge and Turiaso (2005) observe that there is an ontology of gender with important implications for the role of women in the family and church. With my research of the in-law relationships through the prism of the intersections of gender construction in multiethnic, multinational, and/or multi-faith families, I want to contribute to our understanding of the roles of women in contemporary Midwestern Orthodox Christian families.

The intersectional approach to the (re)formation and (re)negotiation of in-law identities directly corresponds with the narrative approach chosen in my dissertation for the data collection. A narrative approach takes into consideration the multimodality of an individual’s identification process in the complexity of intersections of local histories and family stories about the development and (re)formation of in-law relationships. The knowledge of these

67 histories will help me to gain more insights into how people communicate their personal, social, and cultural identities in such complex and ambiguous relationships as the relationships with their in-laws.

Research Questions

The relationships among in-laws is known as challenging and maladaptive in Western cultures. The challenges of the in-law relationships are often based on people’s inability to understand the meaning of the in-law identity and the meanings of the family culture with which they interrelate through marriage. Despite all the evidence that in-law relationships are one of the most troublesome and that they may negatively affect the marital relationship of a couple, they do not attract enough scholarly attention. Based on the literature review and the shortcomings therein, my review of the Relational Dialectic Theory, its current status and future directions, and the current research of American Orthodox Christians, I pursue the following research questions in this study of the relational communication between in-laws from the intergroup perspective and the meanings that this communication generates.

1.a. How do differences between religious affiliations among families-in-law affect their communication and relationships?

I ask this question primarily because it helps uncover the relational quality in the in-law relationships. If the narrator reports that the relationship has been progressing positively, how is this accomplished, taking into consideration the differences in religious affiliations? What are some problems, actions, and outcomes that are presented in this narration? At the same time, if the relationship has been reported as being negative and/or regressive, what communicative components are responsible for that? How do the ways the relationship parties negotiate their religious identities affect the relational quality of the in-law relationship?

1.b. What factors are most influential in family in-law relationships?

This question helps me focus on the intergroup relational identity of the families-in-law.

The literature review on the intergroup family dynamics shows that each member of the family circle impacts the relationship by adding their own personal and social identities to the mix of the development of the in-law relational identity.

2. What role does the Orthodox religion play in family relationships?

This question emphasizes the importance of further investigation of the interplay between various personal and social identities of the family members with the religious identities of their in-laws. Secondly, this question brings my attention to Orthodoxy as a social and cultural status.

The literature review on the current state of Orthodox Christianity in America informs us of the lack of knowledge and understanding about what status Orthodoxy maintains in American culture today and how it affects the everyday living of American Orthodox Christian families.

My answer to this particular question contributes to the following development of research in this direction.

3.a. What discursive practices characterize Orthodox Christian identity?

Baxter and Braithwaite (2010) emphasize the importance of recognizing the connection between the relational discourses and the discourses of the broader cultures in which the relationships are embedded. My research into the discourses of in-law relationships in Orthodox

Christian families and their connection to the discourses of broader ethnic, national, and or religious cultures will contribute to the body of the existing research focusing in this connection.

Also, the answers to this question tell more about the specific discourses that characterize contemporary American Orthodox Christianity and its connection to the outside ethnic, national, and religious cultures.

3.b. How are gender and gender roles played out in these discourses?

The literature review shows that the issue of gender and gender roles in Orthodox

Christianity predetermine heated polemics in the discussions among Orthodox scholars and

Orthodox clergy. This question propels my inquiry to learn more about the exercise of gender and gender roles in contemporary American Orthodox Christian families. Secondly, the question of gender and gender roles represents one of the most profound social changes of the contemporary social world. In my research, I describe the attitudes towards communication and relationships between the Church and the outside contemporary social world and the Church’s adaptability level to the social changes in the world.

4.a. How are the current politics of the Orthodox Church represented in the everyday life of the parish?

The literature on the rich and complex history of Orthodox Christianity in America reflects its turbulent political history. The challenges of balancing the multiethnic and multinational body of American Orthodox Christians are reflected in the conceptualization of the

Faith on macro- and micro levels of its contemporary life. The discursive approach in my study helps me to identify specific discourses that identify the current politics of the Church and their representation in the life of a single parish.

4.b. What impact do current politics have on the community?

My approach of analyzing the data by using discourse as a unit of analysis helps me to learn more about the impact of the Church’s politics on the everyday life of the parish as it is reflected in the family communication and relationships of the parishioners.

4.c. How do community members make sense of these politics and what meanings do they generate?

This question brings to my attention the importance of recognizing the influence of macro-structures, such as the Global Orthodoxy and national/ethnic Orthodoxy on the nature and relational dynamics of the micro-structures, such as individuals’ conceptualization of the Faith.

With my findings, I expand the existing knowledge and understanding of how politics enter the everydayness of social life. In addition, this question guides my analysis of the dialectical tensions in the in-law relationships and the descriptions of these tensions by connecting them to the discourses of broader cultures (in this case, to the broader culture of American Orthodox

Christianity) though the application of Relational Dialectic Theory. This framework provides insights into the perception of the faith among Orthodox believers and their non-Orthodox in- laws.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore the complex dynamic of in-law relationships in multicultural families in which the in-laws profess different religions. In this study, I place emphasis on the negotiation of religious identity among the in-laws. The research site is a parish of the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) located somewhere in the Midwest which represents a mix of ethnicities; an increasing number of religious converts adds to the complexity of its body. The choice of religious context for the exploration of relational communication among in- laws is reasonable. Religion is one of the fundamental elements of family culture (McGoldrick,

2003). I see in-law relationships as an arena where at least three family cultures interact: the newly. The topic of religion serves as an antecedent to excavate the meanings that arise in in- law’s relational communication. The religious aspect of the in-law relationship may become vulnerable when the relational parties profess different religions. Religion is also a socially taboo topic in American culture; yet it is unavoidable in family relationships when religious preferences define the genre of family milestone events such as births, baptisms, weddings, divorces, or deaths. With this research, I provided space for my participants and for myself to determine healthy and pleasant ways to manage religious differences with family members. This study contributes to the body of research in family communications, which focuses on finding ways family members communicate their differences to each other so their relationships do not cause pain and remain pleasant. The research questions presented in the end of Chapter 2 were designed with this main idea in mind.

The research questions for this study are grounded in understanding the perceptions and lived experiences of American Orthodox Christians in in-law relationships. Thus, it is a qualitative study. To obtain this qualitative data, I initiated an ethnographic research project using participant observation and narrative interviews about in-law relationships in the families of my participants. Narrative interviews about relationships allow researchers insights into the process of meaning production in the relationships of others. Narratives are dialogic by nature: the voices of narrators are interwoven with the voices of the characters in the fabric of the story.

To analyze relational communication among in-laws in multicultural families, I take an intergroup perspective, which allows me to see how various personal and social identities of the family members affect the relational health and quality of the in-law relationships and the formation of in-law identity. Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT) is the framework within which I explore relational communication among the in-laws. Relational communication focuses on the processes of formation and expression of meanings that arise in interpersonal relationships. RDT works with relational meanings by organizing them into discourses, the systems of meanings.

Thus, the units of my analysis are discourses which I organized in four categories:

1. Discourses about development and maintenance of Orthodox identity (e.g., perceptions of

Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian identities);

2. Discourses about points of connection and disconnection in in-law relationships (e.g., perceptions of the relationships within the in-law love triangle);

3. Gender discourses and gender performance in religious context (e.g., perception of the qualities of in-law relationships through the lens of gender and religious identities);

4. Discourses of church politics and religiosity in contemporary America (e.g., the qualities of a healthy, growing parish).

This chapter describes two methods of qualitative inquiry of this study which are: (1) participant observation and (2) narrative interviews. Here, I provide a rationale for my choice of these methods and describe the process of collecting the material for the research. More specifically, the following sections are introduced in the paragraphs that follow: (1) the background of the research site; (2) the rationale for the theoretical framework;(3) the research methods; (4) the procedures; and (5) the process of data analysis. This chapter concludes with appendices of: (1) sample field notes; (2) the interview protocol; and (3) the recruiting flyer sample.

The OCA Parish of the Midwest: A Brief Historical Overview

The participants who volunteered their time for this study are the members of an

Orthodox Christian parish which belongs to the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) somewhere in the Midwest. The parish has its ethnic roots in one of the Orthodox churches outside of the US but became a part of the OCA in 1976. The community traces its roots back to 1938 when a group of immigrants sought to establish this parish. The parish was formally founded in 1948, and since then has evolved into the major cathedral of the one of the OCA’s Dioceses. The parish consists of approximately 200 people, half of whom are reasonably active participants in the parish’s life. Active participation means that the members regularly attend services on

Saturday night (the Great Vespers) and/or Sunday morning (The Devine Liturgy), participate in fundraising events, bring their children/grandchildren to the Sunday school, perform the rituals of marriages, baptisms, or funerals, regularly initiate Confession, and come to the Communion.

The head of the parish is a priest of Greek decent who received his Master of Divinity degree in the OCA’s St. Vladimir’s Seminary. The deacon of the church, who assists the priest during the divine services and other practices related to worship, is of Carpatho-Russian decent. He also

74 received his education in St. Vladimir’s Seminary. Other assistants to the priest are acolytes who are mainly teenage boys. The parish is governed by its Parish Council, the “board of trustees,” who deal with financial and building maintenance questions and manage the outreach social activities (e.g., fundraising events). The council consists of the priest, seven men, and one woman. The parish also includes the Ladies Guild that mainly assists with fundraising, the choir, the church school, stewardship, evangelism, and the family ministries that perform the outreach, strategic communication and manages the intergroup relationships. All of these offices are led by women.

There have been two major ongoing challenges faced by the community during the time of this research. The parish has been undergoing (re)development and negotiation among its members on the subject of its American identity. This theme has been present numerous times over the past two years in discussions among the members during the coffee hours or private gatherings in which I have participated. This theme consists of several topics. The performance of worship practices using the old Slavonic (the parish has Eastern European roots) or English and the choice of melodies for the songs and hymns during the services are often discussed by the parishioners. Another widely discussed topic is the position of the OCA in global Orthodoxy and, as a result, the place of the parish as a part of the OCA and its American (or ethnic) identity.

For example, some of the parishioners argue that the future of the OCA is in maintaining its autonomy from other Orthodox Churches4 abroad and in continuing its integration with

American culture by developing its American identity. Indeed, many of the parishioners think that the OCA has still not gained its desired assimilation on the American continent nor even

4 I capitalize the word “Church” when I mean the Church as an organization (e.g., Greek Church, Russian Church). I keep the lower case in the word “church” when it means the particular building in which the studied community worships God.

75 achieved its integration with mainstream American culture. The participants believe the church is mainly perceived as a church of immigrants.

The studied parish exemplifies a typical profile of OCA’s parishes. Currently, the population of the community is roughly represented by two groups: the cradle (born and raised in the faith) Orthodox immigrants and their growing or adult children and American converts into the faith. This situation is perceived as both an advantage and a disadvantage for the future of the parish. First, the heterogeneity of the population, and particularly, the presence of converts, is associated with the vitality of the church: “Where there are converts there is always the future. If the parish consists of only the immigrants it means that the parish is destined to vanish with the passings of its parishioners,” some claim5. The disadvantage of such a situation is seen in the fact that the converts and the immigrants are often separated by disagreements regarding worship practices or the financial decisions made by the Parish Council. Conversations on such topics are tied to the OCA’s position in global Orthodoxy and its autonomous American identity. For example, one of the participants in the study commented: “We are a bunch of babies, making baby steps. We need somebody to guide us through our maturation; we often don’t know what we are doing. We need some kind of cooperation and strong guidance from the experienced ones. We don’t know what we are doing.” (Liz, American convert, Protestant in the past).

These conversations about the autonomy of the OCA from other Orthodox Churches abroad are normally tied with discussions about its financial sustainability. Parish members are not always in agreement with the paths that the OCA, and, hence, the parish undertakes in order to preserve its existence and independent operation. Some of the parishioners think that in order for the church to survive in America, it needs major financial support from stronger Orthodox

5 This is an example of a field note which I took during one of the participant observations at the social hour after the Sunday service.

Churches abroad. Others argue that the financial sustainability of this parish and all other

Orthodox parishes has to be aligned with the Orthodox doctrine that requires the members to donate a fair share of their annual income6. In fact, last year the Parish Council implemented a new policy that enforced the use of annual pledge cards. The pledge cards were distributed among the members and the members were asked to sign up for an amount they would be willing to donate to the parish annually. This method of raising funds allows the Parish Council to have visible control over the parish’s budget and to foresee the expenses needed for parish’s sustainability. This policy has sparked controversy among some members. The majority of those who disagreed with the policy were immediately associated by their opponents with the group who practices an “ethnic mentality,” meaning that they do not understand the true purpose of the parish as a place of worship and sacrifice to God but rather a “cultural club” to which they belong to preserve their cultural heritage. The idea that the parish serves as a “culture club” for some of the members is also supported by the fact that the parish has long been using its parish’s hall as an event rental facility to financially support the parish’s needs. Today, the hall itself represents a big financial burden for the parish, as the mortgage debt exceeds the financial capabilities of the parish. In the early days, the hall was also a place for gatherings of the immigrants, the founders of the parish, to celebrate their ethnic cultural heritage. When the current church building was consecrated, the parishioners wanted to have space where they could continue to gather as an ethnic community. Today, whenever the parish faces a financial challenge, the “hall story” is repeated and the parish ends up being divided into the two “camps” of the “old folks” and the newcomers who do not associate with the “ethnic people.” The “parish hall” discourse in times of trouble becomes a roadblock that keeps the community from moving forward.

6 The fair share of the annual income is ten per cent.

The financial challenges faced by OCA’s parishes is omnipresent. How the Orthodox support their parishes is a part of the history of American Orthodoxy that goes back to the politics of the Mother Churches abroad. Orthodox Churches abroad mainly represent either state religions (e.g., Greece, Russia) or the dominant confessions (e.g., Bulgaria, Romania), which means that they are supported fully or partially by the states and the majority of the residents of a specific country. In America, the financial sustainability of Orthodox parishes fully depends upon the private donations of their parishioners. It is hard for those community members who belong to the “old folk camp” to accept this idea. They argue that the hall is their way of contributing to the yearly donations fund. Lately, however, the hall has proven to be a failure as its rental income no longer covers all the expenses of the parish.

The financial problems of the parish have been fueled by ongoing discussions about a so-called Strategic Plan initiated by the Central Church (the OCA’s governing offices) in order to rescue itself from “administrative difficulties” (Vitko, 2011). The objective of the Strategic Plan is to review the positions and roles of the Church’s governing bodies such as the Metropolitan

(the head of the OCA), the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council, and Chancery, as well as the role of dioceses and the central administration. According to Vitko, a member of the Strategic

Plan Committee, (2011) there are three critical questions that the members of the Strategic Plan committee need to answer:

1. Who are the American Orthodox people and where they are going? This question concerns the OCA’s autocephaly (independence from other Orthodox Churches and organizations).

2. What should the priorities of Church’s ministry be? This question concerns the purpose of the Church as an organization whose primary goal is to preserve its mission of being “the

Body of Christ, the Church that is bringing the Gospel to all the people of North America – embracing all languages, cultures and races” (Vitko, 2011).

3. How do the Central Administration, the dioceses, the deaneries, the parishes and the individual parishioners work together to establish and continue these ministry priorities?

There are ten major tasks the committee is focusing on: 1) developing Christ-centered, healthy, growing parishes; 2) revitalizing the diocese–parish relationships; 3) involving more fully high-school and college-age members in the life of the Church; 4) improving the leadership and management skills at all levels in the Church; 5) establishing a vision for theological education for the OCA; 6) providing for the ongoing education of clergy and laity; 7) nurturing strong inter-Orthodox relations; 8) transitioning to a sounder way of funding the Church ; 9) equipping the church for increased evangelizing; and 10) addressing contemporary cultural/moral/social issues (e.g., the parish had a public forum focused on crafting a comprehensive and clear statement regarding the Church’s position on contraceptives and family planning).

The Strategic Plan described above reflects two main challenges that the OCA is facing today. First, the relationship between the OCA and other Orthodox Churches in the world is complicated by OCA’s challenges in developing its sustainable identity. Second, OCA recognizes its vulnerable position in the whole context of American multi-religiosity, and particularly, the country’s multi-Christianity. These two challenges create a complex mix of politics that balance the ambiguity of understanding and practicing Orthodox Christian traditions, values, and beliefs. These issues are also complicated by the fact that these politics affect the nature of understanding of the Orthodox doctrine among the Church’s clergy that come from various ethnic, national, and/or religious backgrounds (Hopko, 2003; Meyendorff, 1981;

Krindatch, 2008; Stokoe & Kishkovsky, 1995). Their understanding is reflected in various messages that the clergy communicate to the laypersons in the forms of liturgical homilies, individual conversations, or emails (Krindatch, 2008). Krindatch argues that these messages represent various interpretations from individual positions about traditions and what values and beliefs need to be preserved and/or disregarded. These messages in many ways influence parishioners’ conceptualization of Orthodoxy, their perception of the OCA’s position and politics, and their relationships with each other in their local parishes. Additionally, Orthodox teachings ascribe a direct connection between church and family life, according to which the health of family directly depends on the health and transparency of the relationship between individuals and God. The meanings attached to the notion of a healthy and transparent relationship between the individual and God has a plethora of variations. These variations are formed through an individual’s experiences shaped through his or her membership in various cultures (i.e., ethnic cultures). As a result, these interpretations create complex dynamics within multicultural families of American Orthodox Christians and a variety of ways that family members perform theirOrthodox Christian identities. This is specifically important when studying how Orthodox identity is perceived by non-Orthodox family members such as in-laws.

The presence of American converts, the number of which has been steadily increasing

(Krindtach, 2008), has its own repercussions with respect to parish life and the development of

American Orthodox identity. The presence of an ethnically, nationally diverse population in

American Orthodox Christian communities brings up new challenges in accommodating and maintaining the relationships with this diverse population for the OCA in general and for the local parishes in particular. The process of accommodation often includes public discussions about the teachings of the Orthodox Church and its worship practices. The intensity of these

80 discussions is often reflected in the differences in people’s understanding about what needs to be done in order to act as a “good” Orthodox Christian or “do it right.” These differences are often reflected in the (re)formation, (re)negotiation, and maintenance of Orthodox identity in relationships with family members who are not Orthodox Christians. These specific relationships often deal with different interpretations of Orthodox traditions and the ways in which these traditions are performed, which, in turn, reflects general attitudes towards the Faith. These kinds of dynamics are noted by other researchers as well. For example, Newhouse (2005) asserts that family-related events such as marriage or a baptism are important relational markers in Orthodox

Christian families. Orthodox believers of different ethnic and national backgrounds have different interpretations regarding how these events are to be held and what they are supposed to mean. Often, the events and their multiple interpretations cause situations in which relationships among the in-laws need to be renegotiated and readjusted.

In my dissertation, I paid special attention to the ethnic, national, and religious backgrounds of the participants when they reveal their stories about their relationships with their in-laws. Gender is another lens through which I analyze the stories about in-law relationships in

American Orthodox families. Gender differences influence the perception, interpretation, and performance of the Orthodox identity among the members of the community (Walsh & Pryce,

2003). Ethnic and religious backgrounds help explain some of the dynamics of Orthodox identity conceptualization and performance. Because I approach in-law relationships from the intergroup perspective, a variety of personal and social identities of family members (e.g., ethnic, national, religious, gender, ex-in-law, child-/parent-in-law) are considered as useful material for further understanding of the complex dynamics of in-law relationships formed within the context of

American Orthodoxy.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is based on the premises of Bakhtin’s dialogism

(Bakhtin, 1982) that largely influenced the development of Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT)

(Baxter, 2004; 2006; 2010, Baxter & Braithwaite, 2011). RDT focuses on the process of meaning-making in the struggle between competing discourses activated by the participants of a dialogue. Dialogue, as Baxter (2004) argues, always involves two or more people and represents a fusion of perspectives. The purpose of RDT’s analysis is to reveal the struggle of discursive systems and ways of meaning making. As Thatcher (2011) puts it, discourse is a “social language” (p. 391) that is community based, that represents only a specific social-historical moment, and that discloses the cultural identity of a group (in my case the family identity). The author notes that the major focus of the contemporary RDT agenda is on the actual process of meaning making, i.e., various communication strategies and techniques that bring meanings to life.

The implementation of RDT, a theory of critical-interpretive scholarship (Braithwaite &

Baxter, 2008), dictates certain methodological preferences. The main focus of this study is on the production of relational meanings among the in-laws who profess different religions. The excavation of these meanings further advances our knowledge about the formation of in-law identity in multicultural families. Additionally, this study examines these relationships within the context of American Orthodoxy. One of the premises of RDT is that relational meanings are not independent from the meanings of the broader cultures in which relationships are embedded.

Thus, relational meanings are political. Therefore, this research into Orthodox identity goes beyond the study of personal relationships into the realm of the global and local politics of the

Orthodox Church of America (OCA). The selected methods provided necessary tools for

82 accessing discursive systems and practices that reflect (1) dynamics and tensions caused by the

(re)formation, (re)negotiation, and maintenance of the Orthodox identity in familial settings, (2) how these familial relationships are affected by the global and local politics of the OCA, and (3) how they influence the experiences of Orthodox Christian believers in contemporary America.

Methods

The research methods that were chosen to explore the questions under investigation are qualitative in nature and based on the premises of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is focused on interpretation that involves finding ways to access the authentic information and to interpret it as closely as possible to the original meanings generated within the studied community. These methods imply that the relationship between the researcher and the participant is developed in a way such that each one influences and defines the another and each is mutually informing

(Anderson, 1996; Craig & Muller, 2007; Conquergood, 1991). The “co-generative” (Deetz,

2008) or collaborative role in the production and documentation of the cultural meanings is crucial for these methods.

The research methods chosen for this study – participant observation and narrative interviews – assume that the researcher engages with another culture and develops trustworthiness and collaborative relationships with members of the cultural group (Alcof, 1992;

Deetz, 2008; Goodall, 2004; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011; Semlak, Pearson, Amundson, & Kudak,

2008). Therefore, the researchers who use these methods emphasize the significance of reflexivity as a skill that allows the excavation of authentic meanings that are central for the cultural group and the production of a rich and evocative analysis of collected data (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2011; Poulos, 2008; Rawlins, 2008; Rosenwald & Ochberg, 1992; Rubin & Rubin,

2012).

Reflexivity is a skill that helps to overcome ambiguities and to manage “the twisting, turning road of qualitative research” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011, p. 72). Through constant reflexivity, qualitative researchers engage in a special connection with the people they study

(Alcof, 1992; Deetz, 2008; Diggs & Socha, 2004; Harvey, Hendrick, & Tucker, 1988; Lindlof &

Taylor, 2011; Tillmann-Healy, 2003; Van Maanen, 1988). This connection leads to a trusting relationship in which people feel comfortable to say what they truly think and feel. The level of trust is what ensures the value of qualitative studies. Reflexivity also makes it possible to bring out the depth of understanding of the self and/or the other (Conquergood, 1991; Tillmann-

Heally, 2003). This depth of understanding becomes self-transforming for the researcher and for the participants in the study (Deetz, 2008). This self-transforming experience is reflected in the researcher’s documentation of the excavation and interpretation of cultural meanings (Krizek,

2003). This type of writing represents a “cultural portraiture” (Van Maanen, 1988), a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973), which not only provides insights on the studied culture, but also creates a system of analysis of that culture.

My specific interest in family-in-law relationships is based on the idea that this kind of relationship poses communicative challenges (Duval, 1954; Limary, 2002; Merrill, 2007;

Meyerstein, 1996; Prentice, 2008; Rittenour, 2009; Morr Serewicz, 2006). The challenges of in- law relationships in the Orthodox Christian families become even more complex because these families deal with differences not only in family communication traditions and rituals, but also with those conditioned by different national, ethnic, and/or religious cultures that enter the domain of their relationships. Moreover, the ambiguity of the current politics of the Church regarding gender and gender roles are reflected in people’s conceptualization of the Faith and their understanding of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian believer. Thus, there are

84 several areas to which this study speaks and to the development of which it contributes. First, the intergroup perspective allows one to explore relational communication among in-laws in multicultural families. Secondly, Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT) helps one to observe the production of relational meanings among in-laws when they talk about or perform the differences in their religious identities. The study also seeks to contribute to the current research about the American religious mosaic by introducing a case study of a parish and its members in their everyday life of being Orthodox Christians. Particularly, the study focuses on the conceptualization of the faith through the interpretation of the Church’s politics7 by the parishioners who participated in the study, and the effect of these conceptualizations on the negotiation and performance of the Orthodox identity in contemporary American families.

To find answers to the proposed research agenda for this study, I used participant observation to gain better understanding of the experiences of the participants when they are in church and when they socialize during the coffee hours, as well as narrative interviews to learn about the experiences of being Orthodox in-laws with non-Orthodox families. The narratives collected for this study helped me to understand and describe how Orthodox Christians make sense of their in-law relationships with non-Orthodox in-laws and revealed relational meanings that arise when in-laws perform or negotiate their religious differences.

Participant Observation and Field Note-taking

Participant observation assumes that a researcher becomes actively engaged into a community’s life through adopting roles that for the members of the community seem normal, appropriate, and nonthreatening (Conquergood, 1991; Geertz, 2003; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011;

7 The participant observation revealed that by the Church’s politics, the parishioners often mean Church’s communication with other Orthodox Churches in the world, its outreach strategies and programs, and its in-group management system and administrative work.

Denzin, 2000; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This method entails specific practices that involve experiencing and recording of the witnessed events in social settings.

I used participant observation to gain better understanding of how the participants worship God and perform their religious identities when they are not communicating with their in-laws and when they are in the settings in which their religious identity becomes prominent8.

Therefore, I mainly observed the participants in church and during the coffee hours after the services. I also went to several social gatherings outside of the church and joined in activities

(i.e., birthday parties, welcoming and farewell parties for newly coming and departing community members, high-school graduations) that showed how the participants retain their religious identities in social encounters outside of the church gatherings. Participant observation revealed information about what discourses are activated in community members’ conversations about their lives and how discursive practices portray the meanings of being an Orthodox

Christian in contemporary America. This data allowed me to craft appropriate interview questions and set the right tone for the conversations with my participants. In addition, the field notes I made during participant observation helped me gain deeper insights into how to best approach the participants about their Orthodox identity and their in-law relationships. For instance, during the participant observation I noticed that some of the participants (mostly recent converts) spent more time talking about their new faith and making sure they are “doing it right.”

In my field notes, I remarked that when I interview them, I provide more time for them to talk about what it means for them to be Orthodox and how their previous religion is different from

Orthodoxy. These questions helped to establish a better rapport with the participants. It also helped me gain deeper insights about their experiences of being the only Orthodox Christians in

8 I provide an example of my field notes about this in the Appendix A.

86 their families. I also gained better understanding of what it means “to be different in one’s own family.” 9

The participant observation revealed that the enactment of the Orthodox religious identity happens in various settings that do not necessarily require being in church or in church’s hall. I observed that the Orthodox identity was enacted during social gatherings outside of the church setting in front of people who are not Orthodox. For example, if the event was initiated by the

Orthodox hosts, Orthodox prayers would be pronounced in the ritual of blessing the food. The prayers would be accompanied by veneration of icons (if present), making the sign of a cross on one’s self and over the food10. I have noticed that during the social gatherings which I attended, this practice made several obviously non-Orthodox guest uncomfortable. I observed their behavior: some would smile and start talking to somebody who did not participate in the ritual; others would even leave the space until the ritual was over. I brought up these observations in my interviews and asked the participants to describe how they worship God when they are at their family gatherings with their non-Orthodox in-laws. Most of the participants noted that being an

Orthodox in predominantly non-Orthodox families is a challenge but one that they undertook by virtue of being or having becoming Orthodox. Their performative action has goals not only in worshipping but also in evangelization.

Evangelism in Orthodoxy may differ from evangelism in other Christian Churches.

“Evangelization, a chair of the OCA’s Department of Evangelization priest John Parker (2012) writes, is an attitude more than anything else. It is not a ‘strategy,’ although we must have one. It is not a ‘plan,’ although we must organize our efforts. It is not a ‘program,’ although lectures and

9 It is a remark made by one of the participants during the participant observation. 10 Making the sign of the cross in Orthodox tradition differs from the one used, for example, in Catholicism. The sign of the cross, or a self-blessing, is made by the tracing of an upright cross across the body from right to left with the right hand, often accompanied by spoken or mental recitation of the trinitarian formula and culminating with a bow. The thumb, index, and middle finger are brought to a point, symbolizing the Holy Trinity.

87 books and how-to-do-its are important... it is through our deeds that we witness Christ in our lives and sometimes in our words” (p. 5). The Orthodox emphasize the doing part of evangelization over saying. The Orthodox tend to demonstrate their love for and commitment to

Christ rather than describe it. Thus, the performance of Orthodoxy is at the core of Orthodox worship and evangelism. Through performance, the Orthodox revive the faith and witness its truthfulness and reality.

Evangelism is one of the central focuses of the Strategic Plan, which centers specifically around the further integration of Orthodoxy in America. Such an emphasis on the evangelical ministry can be explained by the relatively small number of Orthodox Christians in the United

Sates. According to the most recent Census of the US Orthodox Christians in 2010 (Krindatch,

2010),6% of Americans identify themselves as Orthodox Christians. However, Krindatch notes, this cultural group has not developed a homogenous identity that would be similarly perceived by the non-Orthodox in different regions of the United States. The varietyin ethnic backgrounds of the clergy and parishioners and the indepencence of different Orthodox Churches creates ambiguities about the unity of the faith and the communion of its Churches. Thus, the negotiation of religious identity for the Orthodox not only arises when they communicate with the non-Orthodox, it may also arise when they communicate with their fellow parishioners as well. My participant observations revealed that this kind of performances of their religious identity in the form of rituals is the means of self-reaffirmation of and self-realization in the faith for American Orthodox Christians. This idea about the meaning of these performances for my participants was generated while I was reading a collection of essays of gender performances put together by Lengel and Warren (2005).

Taking into consideration the focus of my research and the context in which I conducted it, it was important for me to also keep in mind Dwight Conquergood’s (1991; 2003) central idea that social encounter is a performative act and that the ethnographers’ task to present this performance as vulnerable and open to dialogue. Conquergood’s insights on ethnographic inquires guided me in my analysis of the performance of Orthodox identity in places where I was doing participant observation, during my interviews, and while I was analyzing my data.

Conquergood’s works (1991; 2003) are particularly important for my research because in them he demonstrates how all modes of representation (e.g., the participants’ performance of the rituals of worship and my shifting roles as an ethnographer and a member of the researched community) are loaded with political meanings. In particular, Conquergood focuses on the politics of the relationships between the ethnographer and the research participants; he emphasizes that the ethnographic inquiry is a political act, meaning that researchers cannot ignore the politics inherent in their location and its relation to or disconnection with the studied locations. There were several times during the participant observation when my skills of conducting ethnographic research were challenged. I will discuss some of these challenges in the next few paragraphs.

The events that took place over the time when I was conducting my research had major impact on the parish and the OCA in general. These events can be organized into two categories: the ones that helped the parishioners to revitalize their religious identity and the ones that created a major disturbance for their membership in the community. The most important event that took place last year and that greatly affected the life of the parish was the Consecration of the Diocese

Bishop. This event had several significant results: the Diocese to which the studied community belongs has not had a permanent Bishop for over fifteen years and was governed by interim

89 clergy from other Dioceses. With the reinstatement a Bishop, the parish became the Bishop’s

Cathedral, the major Cathedral of its Diocese, which stretches across the entire country and includes 12 parishes. Both he presence of the bishop and the increased status that the parish acquired have significantly shifted perception of the OCA as an organization among the parishioners. It generated a stronger sense of belonging and unity among the parishioners and cultivated stronger religious identification. Another event that positively affected the religious identity of the parishioners was the First Episcopal Assembly for the Region of North and

Central America which aimed to work out a solution for Orthodox administrative unity on the continent. The news about this event again delighted the faithful and gave them hope that many currently separated Orthodox Churches would be united into one strong organization. This news also caused many parishioners to think about the future of the OCA and its potential for evangelizing in this part of the world. This was one of the rare occasions that united those who argued for the integration of the OCA with one of the Orthodox Churches outside of the

American continent and those who firmly believed in the OCA’s capability to sustain its independence and further integration into American cultures.

The event that had an extremely negative impact on perceptions of religious identity among the parishioners was the stepping down of the Metropolitan Jonah in the summer of last year11. The participant observation that I conducted during the time the news reached the parish revealed how seriously the parishioners took this news. This news sparked a new wave of criticism about the leadership of the OCA and diminished the hopes that the OCA would be successful in acquiring a strong American identity. This event also affected the self-perception of religious identity among participants of the study whom I later interviewed. For example, I

11 Metropolitan Jonah was the head of the OCA. He was the first American convert to lead the OCA. His appointment was associated with high expectations from the OCA acquiring stronger American identity. In 2012, Met. Jonah was accused of failing to take appropriate action against an Orthodox priest accused of sexual assault.

90 have observed a sense of deep frustration among the community members regarding the discrepancy between the teachings of the Church and their representation in the behaviors of the leadership. The notes I took during the participant observation during this time helped me develop specific questions that provided opportunities to gain more insight into how the politics of the OCA affect the personal relationships of the Orthodox participants with their non-

Orthodox in-laws.

Another major event that dispirited the community was an emergency workshop conducted by the head of the OCA’s Parish Life and Development Ministry Joe Karnas. His report, entitled What does it mean to be a healthy, hopeful Orthodox Christian community?

(Karnas, 2012) revealed several major issues in the life of the parish. These included self interest and lack of trust among the parishioners as well as their nostalgia (i.e., ethnic roots of the parish), coasting, timidity, lack of confidence, and uncertainty about their identity and the future of their community. These revelations generated another wave of criticism from different groups in the parish, setting them apart. During this time internal disagreements almost resulted in open conflict between the members who identify themselves with the ethnic origins of their community and the converts who recently joined the faith and the community. Currently, the parish finds itself trying to overcome this division by focusing its efforts on serving as the main

Cathedral of its Diocese and on building a new Sunday School building.

As Lindlof and Taylor (2011) note, it is common to combine participant observation with other methods, such as interviews. This combination helps the researcher to further explore the meanings generated within the cultural group and prepare for more in-depth discussions with its members. Therefore, in the next section, I explain my choice of narrative interviewing.

Narrative Interviewing

Narratives are stories people create to make sense of their living experience (Bochner,

2002). As Bochner argues, human scientists view narrative as theory, an organized capacity that represents a correct vision of life according to the meanings people attach to their life events.

Narrative, and the process of narration, is dialogic by nature (Bakhtin, 1990). Narratives include many voices beyond the author’s voice (Riessman, 2008). The polyphony of multiple voices, or in Bakhtin’s language, the heteroglossia of narratives, reveals the interplay of competing discourses that people evoke through the communicative process of meaning-making in stories that guide their relationships.

Narratives make the dialogic synchronization of different perspectives observable. With the narrative approach, I had a chance to observe the interrelation of multiple voices, the dialectical tensions of perspectives that reflect cultural norms, beliefs, and rituals. To capture the formation of these tensions and to describe the ways my participants deal with them, I provided a space where participants could thoroughly think about and reflect on their experiences. During the interviews, my participants elaborated on the details of their communications and relationship with the in-laws. There were several moments when the participants commented:

“Oh, I never thought about it this way . . . interesting to think about it this way” or “Thank you for asking me this question, I see now what I did and why.”

Narrative interviewing, like any other interviewing, is a dialogic method that generates creativity and fosters collaboration between the researcher and the participants (Conquergood,

1991; 2003; Denzin, 2000; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011; Riessman, 2008). More importantly, the narrative approach allows researchers to penetrate to the truth of the matter without interrupting the process of theory-making done by the narrators, the witnesses of the events that shape the

92 meanings of their lives (Bochner, 2002). The researcher is a co-participant, acting as an assistant in the process of theory-building. The leading role, of course, is given to the narrator. Thus, theories that arise in narratives are always unique and unrepeatable in their composition; they bring us closer to the reality and the truthfulness of experiences lived by others. This is what, according to Bochner and Ellis and their colleagues (Bochner, 2002; Bochner, Ellis, & Tillman-

Healy, 1997; Ellis, 2009; Rosenwald & Ochenberg, 1992) makes the narrative approach so beautiful and so valuable.

Narrative interviewing allows for dialogue as a discovering journey by bringing out problems and possibilities that were never considered before (Riessman, 2008). These moments

Poulos (2009) calls “accidental discoveries.” These accidental discoveries which occurred during the interviews helped me and my participants to learn more about the ways Orthodox Christians

(re)form, (re)negotiate, and maintain their relationships with in-laws as well as about the meanings that Orthodox Christians and their non-Orthodox in-laws attach to their relationships when they look at them through the lens of religious differences.

With the implementation of narrative interviewing, I learned about what it means to be an

Orthodox Christian in a predominantly non-Orthodox family and how those meanings affect every day familial relationships. Through the voices of others (e.g., participants‘ non-Orthodox in-laws) I also gained insights into what it means to have an Orthodox in-law and about the perceptions of the Orthodox faith among non-Orthodox American Christians. Moreover, the process of interviewing and the analysis of the data revealed that during these interviews some of my participants (re)discovered some of the factors that influenced the quality and health of the relationships with their in-laws. The participants also had a space to generate ideas about what needed to be done to improve their relationships.

As I stated previously, the depth of the insight that I have gained during the interviews and the relationships that I have managed to build with my participants would not have been possible without the participant observation that I started prior to the interviews and continued while I was conducting the interviews and analyzing my data. As I progressed with the interviewing, my questions became better and my articulation of the goals of the research became clearer, which made it much easier to navigate my conversations with the participants and get to the core of the matters12.

Procedures: The Challenges and Revelations of Self-reflexive Work during the Analysis

Personal Journey to the American Orthodoxy

The idea for this research came out of my personal experience being an Orthodox

Christian with strong ethnic (Russian Orthodox) identity and a daughter-in-law who entered a non-Orthodox family. I married an American man who agreed to convert to my faith when we married. In return for his agreement to convert, I agreed to take his last name. This agreement does matter anymore, but it did in the beginning of our marriage when I was still struggling with the idea that I would live in the United States, have an American family, and have an American last name. It was a challenging task for me because in my family women did not change their last names after marring their husbands. Besides, in Russian, the endings of the last names are modified depending on person’s gender (i.e., Alexandrova verses Alexandrov). Because my husband’s last name has what in Russian would be a male ending, I was bothered that it did not sound like it belonged to a woman. Getting used to my American last name was a part of the process of acquiring my American, most importantly, non-Russian, identity. The Orthodox parish located not far from our house served as an escape for me (and still does sometimes). It

12 See Appendix C for an initial interview protocol and the questions that were added after several sessions of participant observation.

94 was a space where everything was relatively familiar (i.e., rituals of worship or the system of references). I wanted to extend this cultural “bubble” further into the boundaries of my newly forming family. My husband was very supportive and helpful in the process of my acclimatization. The journey to American Orthodoxy that he undertook over the past few years cannot be separated from my own journey to the same destination. To explain the development of his American Orthodox identity, I have to describe the development of mine. These two processes are inseparable. The self-reflexive work that I have done to conceptualize these processes also helped me to see the formation of my in-law identity.

The development of my husband’s Orthodox identity has been challenged by the development of my American Orthodox identity. The challenges that arose were products of our international marriage. I came to the United States being a Russian, and then an Orthodox, and that was all that mattered. I perceived our Orthodox community as a part of the world that I left in Russia. I wanted this community to be ethnic, so I could have a place where everything was always familiar. When my husband converted into the faith, I wanted him to become a part of who I am – a Russian, and then an Orthodox Christian. Initially, I just wanted my husband to be a little more Russian; I perceived Orthodoxy as a path for him to “Russianness.” Eventually, I learned that while my husband can never be Russian, he can be Orthodox. At that moment, I started separating my Russianness from my Orthodox identity, a transformation that took place in the context of discussions initiated by our community’s priest about our community’s ability to separate our religion from our ethnic cultures. On a Sundays after the Liturgy our told the congregation that if we wanted to survive and grow, we must embrace our American identity.

This is when realized that I had created an artificial environment for the development of my husband’s religious identity. He was confused. He knew little about Orthodoxy, but he was

95 willing to learn more. I remember thinking that the more he learns about Orthodoxy, the more he would know about Russian culture and understand it. Because I tried so hard to preserve my

“Russianness” through Orthodox rituals, my husband was unable to view Orthodoxy as a part of

American cultural heritage.

I had formulated my research questions long before I started the dissertation project, but they became more sound when I realized that my negotiation of Russianness through negotiation of my faith affected my relationships with my in-laws as well. It was in brief comments here and there during my time together with my mother- and father-in-law that I started hearing the perceptions of my faith among non-Orthodox Americans. These perceptions associated my faith with immigrants and their ethnic roots. I started to see how challenging it was for my husband to confront his own parents and to explain his choice of becoming Orthodox. I started to see that my negotiation of my Russian and Orthodox identity with him affected the quality of his relationship with his own parents, and, as a result, my relationship with them as well. At the same time, the ongoing conversations about the need to differentiate faith and ethnic culture that were taking place in my parish helped me to start the process of separating my faith from my ethnic roots. I started researching the history of American Orthodoxy; this helped me and my husband to find common grounds and grow in our faith together.

The experiences I underwent with the reformation and growth of my religious identity influenced my perception of the meanings that my research participants shared with me in their stories about negotiating their religious identity with their non-Orthodox in-laws. I interviewed representatives of both “camps” in the parish ⎯ the members of the community for whom their ethnic identity is inseparable from their religious identity and American converts for whom their faith was truly American. Keeping in mind that I was also a daughter-in-law, I tried to stay aware

96 of my biases about daughter/parents-in-law relationship. It was particularly challenging for me not to interrupt stories about in-law relationships told by young women like me. These women and I shared many similar perceptions about our in-law relationships and the ways we could negotiate our religious identity within them. During my conversations with the participants, I noticed that I was shifting back in forth among four “me’s.” I was the researcher but I was also the member of the community. When my identity as the member of the community was prevalent, I was shifting between being the ethnic Orthodox Christian and the Orthodox believer, a spouse of an American convert, who is free from the ethnic ties that bound me. Nevertheless, I was always the Orthodox daughter-in-law who was trying to discover to build healthy and pleasant relationships with my non-Orthodox parents-in-law. To manage my perceptions of what

I was told and what I observed during the participant observation and later during the interviews,

I kept a log in which I documented my perceptions. This part of the chapter in which I describe my and my husband’s journey to American Orthodoxy emerged from those self-reflexive notes.

To keep my log organized, I used the self-reflection logging style often used in psychotherapy. My father, who is a psychotherapist, told me once that he often divides his note pad into three columns so he can distinguish between documentation of facts and patient’s words from his observations and perceptions of the patient, and from his own feelings, and attitudes about the topic of the conversation with the patient. The columns are titled as following: (1)

“what I hear/see (facts, patient’s evaluations, attitudes, and perceptions)”; (2) “my observations regarding what is being told and how it is being told (patient’s mental and physical state when

(s)he is sharing their story”; (3) “what I feel about it (anger, joy, envy, happiness, etc.) and what

I think about it.” My father always allows some time for clarifications at the end of the session, by asking the patient questions, which include his observations. This part of the conversation

97 helps him to gain deeper insights into the patient’s world. I used this technique to improve my self-reflexive skills and the quality of my engagement with the participants. During my interviews, I brought up some of the questions that I posed to myself while writing the log. The log was additional help to my field notes to develop better questions for my interviews and to gain more insights about the experiences of others with whom I identified on so many levels.

Challenges of Conducting Ethnographic Research

This is an ethnographic study informed by my own experience before and during the project. Therefore, my involvement with the life of the parish for the duration of my work on this study was divided into three stages: (1) unknown participant stage, in which I was a member of the parish, but not knowing that this parish would become my research site; (2) informed participant stage, during which I remained a member of the studied parish but also was preparing to start my research; and (3) researcher stage, during which I balanced the roles of being a member of the community and a researcher of the parish simultaneously. My knowledge gained through the experience of being a member of the parish during the first two stages has several implications for the research process. These implications are discussed in the following paragraphs.

I am an active member of the community. The active membership means that I regularly attend Saturday or Sunday church services, participate in after-liturgy socialization with other members of the community, take part in the fundraising and other social events of the parish, plan and organize parish events, and stay in touch with some of the members outside of parish life.

My active participation in the life of the parish, which involves frequent socialization, also means that people were aware of my research interests and my plans to conduct research

98 about our community. As the news spread, people approached me and brought artifacts, which documented the parish’s history, the biography of the oldest representatives of the parish and its founders. I felt that people were excited about the opportunity to talk to me about their experiences of living Orthodox life in America. I often heard comments such as: “Do it!

Someone needs to write about us.”

At the same time, my closeness with the community also posed some challenges regarding participants’ self-disclosure. It is known that people reveal intimate information much more easily to strangers than to people they know. Nevertheless, the field notes and the self- reflexivity logging that I did helped me to meet this challenge and find a way to balance my friendship with the participants with my research interest in their experiences13. Another challenge I faced in researching and writing about this community is the community’s relatively small size. There are only 50 to 80 active members who regularly attend services and who participate in church-related events. Overall, the community has about 200 registered members.

On occasion, the church is attended by visitors who pass by or come to the area to visit their relatives. Nevertheless, the main challenge for me as a researcher was to make sure I kept the confidentiality of the participants in my portrayal of their stories. To paraphrase Ellis (1995), the main challenge is to keep the participants honored and empowered rather than criticized and analyzed like inanimate objects in the research writing, so that it is possible for them to identify themselves in our writings. The main dilemma posed by Conquergood and his colleagues

(Conquergood, 1991; 2003; Denzin, 2000; Ellis, 1995; 2009) referred to the balancing act of being a researcher whose role is dictated by the eagerness of participants to answer the posed research questions and becoming emotionally invested in your informants and sincerely caring

13 The details regarding the interview procedure will be enclosed in the interview consent form in Appendix B.

99 about their experiences and feelings. One of Ellis’s (1995) suggestions is to read the writing through the eyes of participants, to pay more attention to the emotions generated during the work on the study and after the study is done, and, most importantly, to consider the participants of the study as primary readers of the research piece. As I did this, I was struggled with several issues.

For example, I struggled with writing about my faith without capitalizing the fundamental concepts of the faith such as “God,” “Holy Trinity,” or “Gospel.” I know that if my participants read my dissertation, seeing these words in lower case would be challenging for them.

The process of identity formation and negotiation is always internal, hence the process is not always externally conceptualized or immediately recognized. Identity formation and negotiation are always messy processes that take place within the struggle of competing discourses. To study the formation of identity and its negotiation, I specifically crafted the questions that helped the participants to reflect on their own experiences with these processes.

Baxter and Braithwaite (2010) observe that discursive struggle is often portrayed in participants’ narrations about phenomena in which they have a particular interest, but the struggle is never explicitly discussed unless the researchers prompt the participants with specific questions that specifically target the discursive struggles. For example, researchers may they ask participants what they like and dislike about a particular phenomenon. They may also include a question about the ideals their participants have regarding the phenomena and what is being done to live up to that ideal14.

Solicitation of the Research Participants

To solicit parish members for the interview, I used an email list thatI obtained through the head of the parish. The head of the parish also agreed to publish the information regarding my

14 In my research, I borrowed Baxter and Braithwaite’s approach and included such questions as seen in Appendix C.

100 research in the church’s weekly bulletin and the monthly newsletter. The information sent out in these documents included a brief description of my research interests and project goals as well as my contact information15. Also, the head of the parish and I had agreed to distribute flyers at the entrance to the church before each Sunday Liturgy with the brief interview recruiting information to pass to the attendees.

The Arrangements of the Visits to the Scene and to the Interviews

The visits to the scene were conducted weekly on Saturdays and Sundays after Services as well as after social hours. I also had opportunities to socialize with the members of the parish during special events such as fundraisers, concerts, parish dinners, luncheons, and private parties.

Logistics

The logistics of my research involved the management of resources such as my use of my personal computer and an external hard drive onto which I copied all my research data. The interviews were recorded so I could later transcribe the conversations and the interviews to start the analysis.

Analysis

There are several factors that distinguish qualitative work. This work implies (1) the elimination of controlling and predicting measurements and recognition of verbal and narrative means to collect data, (2) the acknowledgement of multiple social realities as the product of the human communication and collaboration, (3) the acceptance of the researcher’s biases as an inevitable condition of the process of data gathering and interpretation that makes (4) the presentation of a researcher an instrument in the data analysis process, ands (5) the recognition of the data as cultural systems of meanings generated through the social actions that are reflected in cultural codes, norms, and rules of socio-cultural conduct.

15 See Appendix E.

101

Hermeneutics is focused on interpretation that involves finding ways to access the authentic meanings of cultural groups and to interpret them as closely as possible to the original meanings generated within the studied community (Conquergood, 1991; Denzin, 2000; Krizek,

2003; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Interpretation is an approach to social phenomena; this approach defines the ways interpretive methods are performed in studies.

Interpretive methods imply that the relationship between the researcher, the participant, and the frame of analysis are intertwined in such a way that each element equally influences and defines the other and is mutually informing (Anderson, 1996; Craig & Muller, 2007; Lindlof & Taylor,

201; Roswald & Ochenberg, 1992). This relationship assumes that one comes to know and understand something through analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). This analytical work contributes to the understanding of meaning for both the researcher and the participant (Bochner,

2002; Conquergood, 1991; Ellis, 1995). This process of coming to mutual understanding of something shared by the researcher and the participant is documented in interpretive scholarly writing. Thus, interpretive scholarly writing becomes a “double writing” (Anderson, 1996) that includes both the writing about the object of inquiry and the writing about the process of coming to understand this object.

The ideas expressed above guided my analysis of the collected data. Strauss and Corbin

(1998) suggest that analysis of the data should be a continuous process that starts during the collection stages and finishes only when the final report is written. Lindlof and Taylor (2011) also emphasize the importance of managing the data from the first stage of collecting the data, as it tends to grow rapidly. Therefore, I started organizing my data by themes during the interviews through connecting the ideas and probing for more details on more salient themes that emerge during the participants’ narrations. Also, I made notes after each interview documenting my

102 general impressions and how it expanded my understanding of the in-law relationship dynamics, the interplay of multiple identities within the relationship, and how Orthodox identity represents the Church’s current politics. These methods of handling the data as it was collected helped me restrict the data to the most efficient and productive examples.

After documenting my impressions about the interviews, I proceeded to transcribe them, making notes about possible themes. Rubin and Rubin (2012) point out that narrative interviews are especially rich in thematic material. I kept in mind that if I did the transcription of the interviews one at a time, this would also help me develop better questions during the next interview. This way, I had a chance to get better data for further analysis.

Rubin and Rubin (2012) note that the analysis of narrative interviews focuses more on the ways in which the narratives evolve rather than on the content. Therefore, my notes regarding how people generate meanings out of their experiences, how they interpret those meanings, and how they portray those meanings to others were crucial for the analysis of my narrative interviews. It was important for me to remember that the way the participants tell their stories can reveal the narrator’s intentions to emphasize something or hide it (Riessman, 2008; Rubin &

Rubin, 2012). It also reveals participants’ understanding of causation and complexity as well as their hesitation to explain the causes or consequences of the events or actions that took place in their lives.

Narrative is “telling a story of what an individual believes occurred” (Rubin & Rubin,

2012, p. 97). Narratives are rich material to mine for “secondary messages” (p. 29). These messages contain information about person’s moral values and cultural beliefs. This component of narrative was of special importance for the goals of my study as I was working on expanding

103 my understanding about how the knowledge and meanings of broader cultures affect in-law relationships in multi-religious families.

After the interviews were completed, transcribed, and checked for accuracy, I began the coding procedure of the transcripts. Since my unit of analysis was a discourse, a system of meaning, my goal was to recognize them in the transcripts. To do so, I was looking for themes that distinguished one discourse from another. After organizing the themes into discourses, I generated an axial coding that represents connections among the first-order codes. The first-order codes revealed through axial coding represented the discourses of the broader cultures. After recognizing the discourses of the broader cultures, I looked at how the discursive meanings deescalated to the meanings of particular in-law relationships, and described the process by paying attention how this deescalation is represented in a particular narrative about a particular in-law relationship. Following Baxter and Braithwaite (2010), I recognized that this deescalation of meanings of the broader cultures to the level of relationships did not represent a direct downward vector. Rather, it represented a curve of interplay of the meaning with different discourses as they appear implicitly or explicitly in the narrative. Baxter and Braithwaite call the analysis of this interplay the “contrapuntal analysis” (p. 54), a term coined by Bakhtin in his investigation of meanings in Dostoevsky’s novels.

Contrapuntal analysis is designed to recognize the points of “collision” among the discourses. In their use of this analysis, Baxter and Braithwaite (2010) often look for language markers in the narratives such as the qualifiers sort of, maybe, a little, or I heard that, the adversative discourse markers but or however, and at markers of authoritative (dominating) discourse such as obviously, or course, never, always. Baxter and Braithwaite say that once the collision point is identified, they usually include questions designed to provide more space for

104 opening up the discursive struggle that is at focus at that moment. This includes asking about what the narrator likes or dislikes in relationship to a given phenomenon, or asking the participant to articulate the ideals that her or she holds in the relationship to a particular experiences16.

During my analysis of the interview data, I was mindful about the process of the participants’ self-disclosure. Tillman-Heally (2003) and Deetz (2008) point out that in a qualitative study, the researcher and the participant form a relationship that becomes self- transforming for both of the relational parties. Therefore, for my conceptualization of my data analysis I found it appropriate to use some of the findings generated by Dindia (2000). Dindia notes that self-disclosure is a dynamic process that is constantly changing together with the persona and the relationship. It is not only an interdependent process that is embedded in a particular context, it is also a dialectical process that reveals individuals’ continuous contradictory impulses to be open and expressive on the one hand and protective of self and other on the other hand.

The works on ethnographic inquiry referenced above (Ellis, 2009; Denzin, 2000; Denzin

& Lincoln, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012) all suggest that a researcher considers ending data collection only if the researcher reaches theoretical saturation, when no new findings can be generated from the analysis. In my analysis, I marked theoretical saturation when the discourses represented in the narratives of my participants started repeating and when the experiences the narrators reveal in their narratives started to resemble one another.

16 For examples of such questions, see Appendix C.

CHAPTER IV

RELATIONAL, COMMUNICATION ABOUT RELIGION AMONG AMERICAN ORTHODOX IN-LAWS: FINDINGS

Introduction The in-law relationship is the arena in which three family cultures (two cultures of the

families of origin of the spouses and their own newly developing family culture) collide. This

relationship is crucial for all three families as on this stage families build their understanding of

their own family culture and family identity and develop strategies to maintain their cultures and

identities through managing family boundaries. There is one common way in which the in-laws

maintain their own family identities and manage their own family borders: the maintenance of

distance between all three families. The maintenance of this distance is the driving force in the

formation of two major family identities that define extended family relationships – the spousal

and the in-law identities. Both of these identities develop parallel to each other. The maintenance

of the distance between families is also a means for the in-laws/spouses to recognize and

conceptualize the process of their spousal and in-law identity development.

My case study of in-law relationships takes place in the specific context of religion.

Religion runs deep with people and at the same time is considered a social taboo topic in

American culture (Horsley, 1996; Walsh, 1999). I study in-law relationships in families who

belong to a religious minority in America, American Orthodox Christianity. This context for

exploring the in-law relationship is ideal because of its minority status; most of the families in

this community have at least one member of the extended family who is not Orthodox but

confesses one of the other Christian religions. Religion is a fundamental factor for the formation

of family culture, the way families look at life through the prism of their beliefs. These beliefs dictate the ways families assess qualities of people who enter their family circle and expectations they set for the qualities of relationships their families have with them. Family culture that is 106 influenced by religion also includes ceremonial traditions of family celebration and grieving as well as traditions of childcare, education, and up bringing.

Family culture also has its own traditions of communication17. The way family members communicate with each other within their family circle influences relational health and quality of in-law relationships. For example, if a person comes from a family where emotions are communicated openly and enters a family-in-law in which emotions are assumed and are not expressed openly, it may create confusion and uncertainty in decoding messages about feelings and opinions communicated by the in-laws to the person. Family communicative rituals and traditions, which are elements of family culture, are among the fundamental factors that define one’s personal and social identities (Vangelisti, Crumley, & Baker, 1999). When in-laws are asked to describe how they live out their religious beliefs and traditions in their relationships with each other, their answers shed light on the dynamics of in-law relationships and their communication patterns and qualities. One of the ways to explain relational communication patters and qualities is to look at them through the lens of relational dialectics which the process of meaning product at the center of its inquiry.

Relational Dialectics

One of the premises of Relational Dialectic Theory is that relationships are products of culture, meaning is constituted through culture, and culture is a type of building block for personal relationships. Using this premise as a guide in my exploration of in-law relationships in

American Orthodox Christian families, I introduce discourses that represent the culture of

American Orthodox Christians and the ways these discourses are used in their in-law relationships with their non-Orthodox in-laws.

17 For example, my participants distinguish between emotional, “touchy-feely” communication and reserved, unemotional communication in families.

107

Case Study Profile

The majority of people in the studied parish were born and/or raised in the American

Midwest. At this point in the parish’s history, its population is almost equally divided between cradle Orthodox or Orthodox reverts on one hand and converts into the faith on the other hand.

The majority of cradle Orthodox and reverts are Eastern European or Middle Eastern, and the majority of converts were American Protestants in the past with a few who converted from

Catholicism.

Most of the extended family relatives of the parish members are non-Orthodox

Christians. The parish was founded by immigrants or first-generation Americans of immigrant families from Eastern Europe. The leader of the parish is a man who defines himself as an

American revert to the faith of Greek descent. He received his Master of Divinity from St.

Vladimir Seminary that belongs to the Orthodox Church of America (OCA). The studied parish also belongs to the OCA but is a part of an ethnic diocese that at some point of its history was governed by an Orthodox Church outside of America. The ethnic roots of the parish are still very strong although the majority of the parishioners were born and raised in the US. The ethnic nostalgia of the parish creates its barriers for the community to develop its American identity.

There are several tensions among the community members that are related to their multidimensional cultural difference. Some of the disagreements concern the understanding of

Orthodox traditions in regards to one’s preparation and receiving of the Holy Communion.

Another set of tensions is caused by the choice of language for certain parts of Sunday Liturgies, which speaks to the differences in ethnic backgrounds of the parish members. Also, there are different opinions regarding the quality of leadership in the Orthodox Church. Some argue that the leaders of the OCA and this particular parish should be married and some do not find the

108 monasticism of the leaders as a factor that effects the OCA’s and the parish’s quality of leadership. Some argue for more gender equality in the parish, and some want to adhere to the fundamental Orthodox traditions that dictate very particular and separate roles for men and women. For example, one of the participants noted that when she came to church first time she was surprised to see men cleaning the hall and helping in cooking. In her opinion, this was purely women’s duties. Overall, this is a parish whose members define themselves as a typical

OCA community, a product of American cultural pluralism and secularism.

It is important to picture the community to better imagine the qualities of in-law relationships influenced by the discourses of larger OCA’s culture. Also for the purposes of this study, each participant was asked to provide information about their cultural background, which includes their ethnicity, and religious up-bringing. This information was important in my understanding of the development of Orthodox identity and its negotiation with non-Orthodox in-laws. Participants’ demographics are provided in the parentheses that follow each of their quotes. The names that are given to participants are fictitious in order to protect participants’ identities. The names of their relatives that they occasionally mention in the interviews are erased, and the factual information that can lead to their identification is omitted.

The chapter is divided into two major sections. The first section explores the so called concept of the in-law love triangle introduced by Morr Serewicz (2006) and the discourses connected to this concept in the mindset of the Orthodox Christians. The second section explores the Orthodox identity and the ways it is lived in the in-law relationships with non-Orthodox family members. Information provided in both sections is organized by subsections that are based on the typology of discourses identified during the data analysis.

109

Discursive Opposition of Stigmatized – Stigmatizing Orthodox Identity and the Relational

Health and Quality of In-law Relationships

My research has revealed that Orthodox Christianity is mostly unknown in the area of the studied parish, and the Orthodox Christians are always a minority in their predominantly non-

Orthodox families. Most of the extended families of the participants are non-Orthodox confessing other Christian religions (e.g., different denominations of Protestantism). The

Orthodox faith is often perceived as foreign, strange, or even faulty. The Orthodox Christians find themselves constantly resisting this negative perception by their non-Orthodox relatives and trying to find ways to either defend their exposed Orthodox identity or not to disclose it or expose it to their non-Orthodox relatives. Meanwhile, the Orthodox hold firm beliefs that their faith is the only true faith with the only right way of worshipping God. This belief creates a stigmatization compared with other Christian denominations to which their non-Orthodox relatives belong. In this section, I discuss how participants manage the dialectical tension of being stigmatized – stigmatizing others and how it affects relational health and quality of their in-law relationships with their non-Orthodox parents and in-laws who confess other Christian religions. It is important to include the observations about relational health and quality of the parent-child relationship when describing in-law relationships. When it comes to the negotiation of religious differences between the in-laws, spousal unity against both sets of their parents is prevalent. Therefore, in this specific context, the quality of the child – parent relationship directly influences relational health and quality of the in-law relationship.

110

Stigmatized Orthodox Identity and the Relational Health and Quality of In-law Relationships

The relationships between in-laws in the families of the Orthodox Christians are complicated because this relationship involves negotiating religious differences between the in- laws. It is specifically interesting to study how in-laws negotiate differences in their religious identities because the families of the participants are predominantly Christians and the negotiation of the differences takes place within the context of Christianity. Through my interpretive analysis of the interviews, I discovered that in the minds of the Orthodox Christians and their non-Orthodox Christian in-laws, religion is conceptualized in two ways. First, religion as a set of logically constructed, meaningful, and powerful explanations of the creation of the universe. Second, religion represents a set of meanings regarding relationships with others, which is conceptualized through their understanding of the relationship between them and the

Christ. Through looking at how the in-laws explain the religions to each other, this study sheds light on how different Christian denominations are perceived among Americans of the Midwest.

It is specifically interesting because the way the participants describe how they explain

Orthodoxy to their non-Orthodox in-laws provide information on what it means to be Orthodox

Christian in the United States.

This section of the chapter contain examples that provide evidence on how Orthodoxy is perceived by the non-Orthodox in multicultural American families of the Midwest and how the

Orthodox conceptualize other Christian denominations of the Midwest. The meanings that arise in the examples are grouped into a discursive opposition of stigmatizing – stigmatized Orthodox identity. The Orthodox identity is stigmatized because it is unknown and unusual. The Orthodox identity is stigmatizing because in the minds of Orthodox Christians there cannot be any other ways to worship Christ other than the Orthodox way, and the enactment of their religion creates

111 a stigma compared to other Christian denominations. The following examples from my interviews with the Orthodox Christians about their non-Orthodox in-laws exemplify several common perceptions of the Orthodox Christianity by the non-Orthodox Christians and common meanings associated with why and how the Orthodox Christians develop stigmatizing attitudes towards other Christian denominations.

One of the most common perceptions of Orthodox Christianity in America is that it is an ethnic Christianity. This perception reflects the history of Orthodox Christianity in America, which was brought to the American soil by second and third wave immigrants from the Eastern

Europe, Greece, and the Middle East. The participants recognize that the ethnic identity of the

Orthodox parishes in America has strong roots and has been for the most part of the American

Orthodox Christian history a fundamental premise for the evolution of Orthodoxy in the United

States:

The big thing for my parents as a young married couple was knowing they were going to

have children, and knowing they wanted their children to grow up in a church that was

English as its primary source of worship, because they felt that it was in America now

and that was the way to go. So, there were many churches close to home. I went to

church that was about 21 miles from my home, so it was a little bit of a drive, but they

did that primarily because it was a church that was forward-thinking, it was an OCA

parish, well I should say it wasn’t an OCA yet, but they were progressive in terms of

English being the primary worship language with church Slavonic having a piece in the

service but not the primary piece. Again, I admired them for that because at that time, in

1957 when they got married, they were open-minded enough to know that that was the

way things needed to go... think they knew that the various churches sent people over to

112

America under their umbrella, so to speak, and the financial support, and the money to

support the mother churches, whether it was Greece, Russia, Syria, went back, but yet

you were under the jurisdiction of the church in Europe. And for my parents, I remember

my father saying that’s not the way it was anymore, because America was America, and

they needed to have the ability to self-govern themselves. So that, for my father, being a

young man, married, was important. It was important for him to think Orthodoxy in

America has not gained the strength that it could have gained in 2012 because it’s still

very ethnocentric in a lot of ways. (Eva, Cradle Orthodox, 2nd generation American)

The reason why Orthodox Christianity is compared to other Christian denominations has such a strong connection to its ethnic ties lies within the nature of immigration waves. The second and thirds waves of immigrants were represented by people who were forced to leave their countries or were looking for an escape from wars in their motherland (Alex, Orthodox converts, American, on religious background). They brought their religion with them and preserved it in order to keep an ongoing connection with the countries and cultures they left.

That is why many perceive Orthodox communities in the United Sates as culture clubs or museums with ethnic memorabilia. That is a very different perception of faith than in other

Christian denominations that found home in the early years during the first wave of its immigration. The first wave of immigration was voluntary; immigrants wanted to come to the

New Land to start new lives with new traditions, which included worshipping rituals:

I think in some respects it will always remain ethnic, because a lot of people left their

native countries to get religious independence. That’s why they came here; the pilgrims

and a lot of other people. We came and kept our religions… we want to keep our old

religious traditions with our ties back to the Mother Churches where all of the other

113

people ran away, and said, “God all mighty, I’m a Lutheran, and I’m leaving Germany,

and we can pray to God without all that stuff. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no

religious background)

There are different ways the participants approach the strong connection of their faith with ethnic backgrounds. The reason there is no one way the ethnic identity of their parish is interpreted is because the community itself is diverse. Within the community, there is no one- way to perform worshipping rituals. For those who entered the faith and joined the community relatively recently, it creates difficulties to develop strong religious identity. For example, there are different ways parishioners approach the idea of individual confession. Confession is one of the central points of Orthodox Christianity and the variety of ways the parishioners approach this tradition tell us about how diverse the world of the Orthodox is. The discussions around the ways the parishioners approach confessions creates even larger gaps between the groups formed within the community. Traditionally, confession is done “publicly” meaning one’s sacramental confessed thoughts must be said out loud in front of a witness, a priest. American Orthodox find it an extremely difficult task but, at the same time, extremely powerful in its cleansing and calming abilities. According to the tradition, one cannot participate in the communion during

Sunday Liturgies unless one confesses in the expected manner. However, not every single ethnic

Orthodox church practices confession in this manner. It is also common in some ethnic churches to offer a general confession for its parishioners. The number of general confessions varies from once a year before Easter (Pascha) or several times a year before important Holidays. In some parishes there is also an option to come to individual confession 3-4 times a year. In this parish, the options very: the older population of the parish, the immigrants, are “allowed” to practice general confession, which is traditional to their ethnic church practices while the rest of the

114 parishioners are required to come to individual confessions 3-4 times a year. At the same time, there are several people who come to confession when they feel the necessity, the need to take communion, as the sacrament of communion is directly connected to the sacrament of confession. If one wants to take communion, s/he must come to individual confession every time before partaking the communion. Due to diversity of the population in the studied parish, the opinions vary. Some see it as a struggle:

[My husband] resents individual confessions. Even though when he was growing up they

did have Confession, because he went to the American Farm School, and they would

have it there. And, so anyway, I don’t know. Because as far as I’m concerned, the priest

is a mortal man, see, and I feel very uncomfortable telling him things that I really don’t

want to share with him. Although he says he’s the instrument of God, but he is still a

person. But still go to confession, because I know it is the right way of doing it. (Jennifer,

Orthodox revert, immigrated to the US from Eastern Europe)

Others perceive confession practice as a duty of an Orthodox Christian:

The requirement of your church is to confess, you should go to Confession. First and

foremost, you should go, and that is my pet peeve, if you’re not requiring these people to

go . . . I don’t want to hear this “I got the bishop’s okay.” Okay, to come up with this

confession program that we have he got the okay from the bishop. Well, then that tells me

you’re amending laws or practices to fit this situation. And for me, that’s not acceptable...

My point is how can I tell my kids to go Confession regularly when you don’t require

that of the people that have been here the longest? (Ted, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation

American of Eastern European decent)

115

Some participants also argue that maintaining the ethnic identity of American Orthodox

Christianity and adhering to its historical connections with the Russian Orthodox Church is the only way American Orthodox parishes can survive. The proponents of this idea see the weaknesses of American Orthodoxy as an underdevelopment; its not a mature, independent organization, and they argue that it needs support from other Orthodox churches in the world.

We as a household have a strong Russian allegiance, and would not be opposed to the

dissolving of the OCA, and go back to Mother Russia. Because we see that as being the

ultimate in Orthodoxy. The pictures that you see of Pascha [Easter] with churches filled

to the brim with people. We can’t have it here. We need a powerful church to support us

here. (Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Another participant who is also a proponent of strong connections of American Orthodox

Christianity with its ethnic origins argues that without ethnic identity that is brought to parishes by the Orthodox immigrants, the parishes do not have legitimate, verified traditions of worshipping that are so important for the maintenance of Orthodox identity in the parish in general, and individual parishioners, in particular:

It was like American version stuff yeah, it was all very American Orthodox, conversion,

you know, convert-based stuff. In the mission parish that we were a part of, no one was

ethnic. They were Americans. So, we had no ethnic, you know, which was one of the

reasons the mission is not there anymore is because that’s a bad idea, to have a parish full

of people who don’t know what they’re doing. We had no roots, nothing grounding us to

the last generation, nothing, you know . . .I mean the answer is both [the new Orthodox

and the old Orthodox, the immigrants with the Orthodox roots] working together. We

were completely isolated, we were all a bunch of independent Americans that had no

116

respect for church leadership, you know, and we were babies. We were a bunch of

babies. We needed somebody experienced . . .which is why I think our current parish is

such a promising church. It really is, because we have that. We have both. And our priest

has that continuity; he grew up Orthodox. But, we have new life too, you know, it’s not

just, you know dying out parish with older generation of immigrants . . .so I think that’s

the answer, is you need both, you know, you need, if you’re just getting your feet on the

ground as a church, you know, in this country, we need to be relying on the people that

have gone before us. But, no, I do not affiliate myself with the ethnic religious group, but

I think that their experience matters if we want to grow as a church in this country. (Liz,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The majority of the participants, who are American converts, have reported that their faith is strongly affiliated with the ethnic history of the Orthodox Christianity in America:

I would go with [my girlfriend], and people would say, “So you’re Russian Orthodox?” I

would say, “All Orthodoxy is the same.” Greeks, Russians, Romanians, Bulgarians,

we’re all Orthodox. We say the same prayers. We have the same tenants. The difficulty

comes back to the patriarchs of the old countries, not wanting us to let go, so we’ve got

our own political problems, but we are all Orthodox. We don’t present ourselves as all

being Orthodox. We present ourselves as being a Christian, or a Greek Orthodox, or

Russian Orthodox, or whatever. It’s tied to ethnicity still for people who are non-

Orthodox, completely outside of that Orthodox world; they really tend to tie it to the

ethnic churches. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious background)

Ethnic identity of Orthodox Christianity in American, in general and of the studied parish in particular, is one of the most discussed topics at the parish’s gatherings. The interviews for this

117 study were conducted in the midst of the parish’s implementation of the Strategic Plan for the parish’s survival. A central focus of the Strategic Plan is to enhance the presence of American

Orthodox Christianity in North America, which includes the creation of an American identity of

Orthodox Christianity. During this time, the studied parish organized a visit of a session leader who is a head of the OCA’s Family Life and Diversity Ministry. His job is to help parishes to grow and develop. According to the report (Kormos, 2012), ethnic qualities of Orthodox parishes in America represent up to 41% of their perception among non-Orthodox and converts into the faith. The report also states that ethnic identity repels non-Orthodox Americans from the

Orthodox faith and makes it difficult for the converts to develop its Orthodox identity. According to the report, in order for a parish to attract attention and to gain larger membership it is vital for the parish to abandon the identity of a culture club or memorabilia museum. The discussion leader consulted over fifty American Orthodox Christian parishes in the area of the researched parish and gathered the perceptions of the newly converted American Orthodox Christians. I present a few of them here in order to provide a better picture of what it means to maintain

Orthodox identity in predominantly non-Orthodox Christian surroundings: “It was very difficult at first to not to be ‘ethnic’ in a very ethnic church. People were mostly very kind and accepting but I was obviously ‘different”; “The feeling that is was an ethnic club we could never really belong to because our last name has only one syllable”; “I was always asked ‘what are you’. I had a very hard time understanding what they meant, and only figured it out after many had walked away from me in disgust. I kept answering: ‘I’m a mother, a wife...’ Then, when finally I figured it out, I would answer that I was part Russian Jewish, part Scottish. They always would say something like: ‘Oh, okay you are Russian that’s good.”

118

The majority of the participants also report that the ethnic identity of their parish that is slowly fading away is a disadvantage for the image of the Orthodox Christianity in America.

Most of the participants reported that they either do not affiliate with the ethnic identity of their parish or see the only way for the parish to survive is to abandon this identity:

Our parish is divided into two strong groups. We have the founders, the [ethnic] group

and we have others, mostly Americans who joined the parish later. The tensions that we

are dealing with right now, I mean one of the issues is self-identification of the parish.

We are not an ethnic church anymore. I believe that [the founders] know today that if

[those who joined them later], myself, and a lot of that community would leave, who

would really be left at that church? There would be a small number of people trying

to…And very old, very small, they knew that their parish would be dying out. I think the

converts are a big portion of today’s success. If you take a look at the demographics, if

you look at the number of converts in Orthodoxy, versus the ethnic Orthodoxy, the

church has a very different demographic to your point now, then it did probably 75-years-

ago... There’s very interesting findings that increasing number of Orthodox Church goers

are Americans; converts... I think that we need to be on an absolute crusade to have

Orthodoxy in America, and that’s it. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious

background)

The participants note that the ethnic identity of Orthodoxy can be repulsive. Most of the issues come out when the Orthodox believers do not take their time or any effort to explain their rituals.

It creates, as many participants reported, a perception that the Orthodox Christians are arrogant:

I never experienced [my husband’s] church, so when we were in Lorraine we went to that

church one Sunday, and the whole thing was in Old Slavonic. I’m like, “I don’t get it. I

119

don’t understand what’s going on”, and I guess he didn’t explain, or I wasn’t open to it

yet. It was frustrating and I had no desire to go back to that church because I had no idea

what was going on and didn’t feel any connection with that church and culture. (Irene,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past).

Many participants have noted that their non-Orthodox friends and relatives become very confused when they visit the Orthodox churches and feel extremely alienated. Some participants also reported that when they bring their non-Orthodox friends or relatives to the Sunday

Liturgies and do not bother to explain the traditions and rituals, it may result in tensions in their personal relationships:

My parents have no concept. They don’t . . . Orthodoxy is left out of the history books. It’s

like we don’t exist. There’s the Catholics, and there wasn’t anything before Catholics. So I

guess the guys who wrote the history books must be Catholics, because religion starts with

the Catholics. All they know that it’s a Christian church. It’s very liturgical, they know it’s

a high Liturgy, and they understand the word “liturgy” from going to the Lutheran church,

because of my brother . . . so they understand liturgy, and he played at the Catholic church

and they would go and hear him play, so they understand Mass and Liturgy, but I can’t

have time with them to explain the things to them and they in many ways blocked that

connection with [my husband] because of that. (Irene, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past)

Ethnic identity of the studied parish becomes a part of the discourse stigmatized Orthodox identity and is also a part of the in-law relationships between Orthodox and non-Orthodox participants. Some of the participants report that the ethnic affiliations of their new faith was one of the major concerns of their non-Orthodox relatives:

120

[My father-in-law] would say things to me, and I think I wasn’t ready to really talk about it in the beginning and felt we were creating a gap, kind of stopped talking. There was tension without a tension. It was kinda unspoken mostly. But he would say stuff about just being careful about the kids, and what parish we ended up attending because there is a lot of ethnicity, or ethnic ties that can sometimes go along with Orthodoxy and confuse the faith. He warned us about that [our children] might feel very secluded and left out and confused or something. That was one of his main concerns, basically. He didn’t know much about it, which surprised me. He didn’t know much about Orthodoxy and just connected it to ethnic churches. (Ann, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

The meanings that arise in conversations between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox in- laws are a part of the stigmatized Orthodox identity discourse because the participants report that the ethnic origin of their faith makes others view Orthodox Christianity as the faith of the

“outsiders,” a “strange” faith, “unknown” faith, and hence “wrong.” The sense of “right and wrong” in the discourses that are activated in the conversations between the in-laws in the families of the interviewed participants is very strong. It becomes the major point of disconnection in the fundamental understanding of what is right and wrong, true or false in religion. The religious qualities in terms whether it is right or wrong for many families is defined by the history of the family’s traditions related to the religion. Conversion of family members into another religion usually means denial of the fundamentals of one’s own family culture. Like any other social unit, a family’s social identity is defined by the community in which the family bases its social identity. This community for families of the participants often becomes churches, or family churches as they often call it. Therefore, the discourses generated in the family churches dominate the meanings the family attach to the life around them. When events such as

121 switching religion, hence, switching community, occur, the discourses of other cultures enter the domain of family culture through converted family members. The new meanings are foreign, thus wrong. Leaving one’s family church creates even larger gaps between the family of origin and the newly developing family. The attendance of the same church by all family members is the marker of family’s unity:

When I told my parents I was leaving their church for the Orthodox one, they were

dumbfounded. That was the last my dad talked to me for eight months. His whole thing

was “If you had just gone to a church in the community, you’re taking the kids out of the

community. And then [my husband]. They blamed him mostly. He took me away from

them... It was a wrong religion because it wasn’t their way. If it’s not dad’s way it’s

wrong. If it’s not their way, it’s wrong... And [my husband] took his grandson,

grandchildren away on Sunday morning, because to him it was all about show. Oh, here I

am at church with my daughter and my grandchildren. Here we are, all one big happy

family... It’s not really about the faith conversion, it’s about not attending the same

church with family, you’re not together with, that’s what it is. (Irene, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

The families of the participants consist of Christians of different denominations, which intensifies the tensions that are conditioned by the religious differences of the in-laws. The participants report that often their non-Orthodox in-laws question them about the righteousness of the choices they make in their preferences of God’s worshipping. The comments that the participants often receive from their non-Orthodox in-laws are like this one: “If we believe in one God and Holy Spirit, why do you have to go to this ethnic church which traditions you have nothing to do with.” Many participants report that although they receive such comments from

122 their in-laws, there is often no space for the Orthodox to explain their choices and to tell more about the reasons they have chosen this faith. Many participants reported that their non-Orthodox in-laws avoid talking about the Orthodox faith, which creates more tensions between them and draws them even further away from each other or in some cases, ends the in-law relationship:

I think when we moved back here, [my in-laws] asked [my wife] if we were going to go to their church and she said probably and then, I’m gonna assume, they asked her what church I went to, and as soon as she said that I was Orthodox, they, one, had no idea what that was, and, two, since they didn’t know what it was, it was wrong. So, it didn’t matter. It was the end of the conversation about my religion. They never brought it up, never wanted to know anything about it even when [my wife] told them she was going to become Orthodox. I was already an outsider and after that my relationship with [my in-laws] basically ended. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European descent)

Many participants report that acquiring of new Orthodox identity added even more distance into their in-law relationships. For some this distance means that they cannot or feel uncomfortable talking about or exposing their religious identity. Religious differences become specifically noticeable in the families of converts. Their newly acquired identities affect the composition of family identity as a whole and bring undesired change in family’s routines and rituals:

I do not bring up anything to [my wife’s] family about any of my beliefs... We’ve invited her family and they all came to our reception into the church. They all came for the baptism of my children, and for our first Pascha (Easter)...[What scared them] that there’s a feeling that in this more liturgical kind of church, that there’s none of this emotion. They don’t feel like there is this personal relationship with Christ. That it’s all about doing something, instead of feeling or

123 knowing something. Their worries would be more about our kids, not about us; I think that would be their fear...It changed my relationship with my parents-in-law... I love to study these things. I like to read these things. I would feel that they would think that I would be the one trying to change her beliefs, or trying to explain different things...[It is a taboo topic when I go to my in-laws.] When we go to family get-togethers, they’re still talking about all the same things we use to talk about. These church experiences; these church services, speakers that come to the church. I just don’t feel comfortable sharing my differing views. Unless they ask me something specific, I just don’t feel like it’s a good venue to talk about things. This now distances us from each other... There is this odd [silence]… If they’re saying something, I’m not agreeing with them. I’m just sitting there. (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The acquisition of new religious identity among the converts means that it affects not only the family identity of their family-in-law but their own family of origin. The feeling of being different accompanied by the feeling that their religious difference somehow changes the routines of their beloved families wears out converts energy that they put into the negotiation of their newly acquired religious identity. As a result, the converts often choose simply not to disclose their religious identity to the in-laws or, if it was disclosed, not to re-expose the in-laws to it. This behavior is similar to the ones described by Goffman (1963) when he observes the behavior of stigmatized individuals in a group. For example, many participants describe the family gatherings when they are asked to explain how they live their religious differences in their in-law relationships. According to the participants, the differences in worshipping traditions may complicate family gatherings. It is especially noticeable in the families of religious converts. The have reported that the newly acquired religious differences in their families created tensions in their relationships with both their parents and their parents-in-law. These tensions occur when

124 both parties of the in-law relationship stigmatize others’ worshipping rituals and are not ready to articulate the differences or choose not to talk about them. Many participants report that they and their in-law families choose to avoid talking about their religious differences. The silence often means that the converts and their in-laws and parents choose not to bring up the newly acquired religious differences with their children/children-in-law because they do not want to hurt each others’ feelings. Many participant refer to the “awkwardness” of the moments when their religious identities are exposed during the family gatherings:

I don’t talk about Orthodoxy with our family. I know they don’t agree. You know that

really oppressive feeling in the room when somebody says “Oh should we stand up and

say the prayer for the meal?” or, you know. So, I don’t know. And I’ll say [to my

husband] “Will you bless the food?” And there still is this moment of tension where you

know, [my children] and [my husband] and I all stand up and my parents are just kind of

like looking like “Should we stand up?” Or we all face the icon and they’re all staring off

the other way. You know and then if we’re at their house, you know, there’s this, you

know, my dad will bless the food or something and there’s this moment of tension where

we know that, okay, well, this is just not, we’re just not really cohesive on this.

Everybody has their heads bowed and sometimes they’ll even want to join hands around

the table, and it’s just not what we do. And so there’s this tension.” (Liz, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Others report that stigmatization of their religious identity also damages the relationship between converted children and their parents. Stigmatization of the Orthodox identity in families with non-Orthodox parents/parents-in-law creates distance between parents and their children.

This distance, many participants report, strengthens their spousal relationships. The occurred

125 differences in religion between the in-laws in the families of converts which can also be accompanied by the strengthening of spousal unity may result in the stretching of relationships between the spouse/child-in-law and their parents-in-law:

We don’t talk about our religion. And I think that was the hardest thing for me, is the fact

that religion is very important in my family, and Orthodoxy is very important to us, and

that’s the one part of my life that I can’t share with my parents, because they just don’t

understand, and I downplay a lot of things that we do for Orthodoxy. The fasting and all

that, we just don’t discuss it. It’s not worth the battle. [My mother] hates the icons, she

thinks we’re crazy driving an hour to church every week. I shouldn’t have to be choir

director; he shouldn’t have to be on parish council. Why are you so involved in that

church? Isn’t it enough that you drive an hour there?.. They know very little because they

don’t want to care about. They don’t want to talk about it. What few things I’ve tried to

say, they’ll change the subject. And, of course, it is always [my husband] who they

blame. They don’t like us being together on the same page with being Orthodox. (Irene,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Stigmatization of the Orthodox identity in the in-law relationships also affects how the

Orthodox instruct their children to disclose their religious identity to their non-Orthodox grandparents, aunts, and uncles. In some families children from an early age learn to hide or not to re-expose their religious identity to their non-Orthodox grandparents:

What we tell [our children] when we go over the in-laws, anytime, we let them know that

you’re a guest. You can feel comfortable eating whatever is offered to you, and if you

don’t want to eat something; don’t put it on your plate. This is your own personal

discipline, so you don’t need to share it with other people ... They have never talked

126

about it. I don’t know if they’ve ever noticed or not. They might just say, “Maybe

they’re dieting or something,” if they see that you have less food.” (Ed, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

One of the main issues with the Orthodox identity for the Orthodox converts is the affiliation of their faith with the ethnic roots that is often communicated to them by their non-

Orthodox family members including their in-laws. It is what the Orthodox converts have to constantly resist in the negotiation of their religious differences in the relationships with their family members. They find various ways to explain how their faith is not ethnic. For example, some explain the premises of Orthodox Christianity as universal faith to their in-laws. They appeal to the Christian roots of the faith and provide parallels with other Christian religions.

They often emphasize the history of Christianity and argue that the Orthodox faith is the original

Christian religion.

There is an interesting aspect in the ways the Orthodox Christians, both the converts and the cradle Orthodox, define their faith. For the most part, the participants refer to their faith as

“religion” but some may interchangeably use the word “denomination.” There is a fundamental difference in these two concepts for the Orthodox Christians. The Orthodox Christians believe that their faith is one and only true Christians faith that dates back to the time when the Christian

Church as originated (Gassios, 2013). The Orthodox Christians refer to their faith as religion.

The same belief is hold by the Catholic Church. It is a part of theological conceptualization of their faith. The word “denomination” entered the Christian lexicon with the evolution of

Protestantism. Protestants, according to several of the participants, conceptualized their faith as a

“branch” of Christianity that took the “old fashioned” Christian doctrines to the new level by adjusting highly “incomprehensibly theology” and its worshipping traditions to more accessible

127 conceptualization and practices. In the interviews, I noticed, the former Protestants, often use the words “religion” and “denomination” interchangeably. The explanations of the differences between Christian religions is an example of how the Orthodox negotiate their religious identity to their non-Orthodox in-laws. A part of the Orthodox teachings is knowing the history of the

Church by reading the teachings of the Church Fathers18. Knowing the history of the Church helps the worshippers to understand Church’s traditions and rituals. Even if the Orthodox do not make an effort to study the Church history, they gradually learn through the worshipping rituals, although the depths and breadth of the knowledge greatly vary. Nevertheless, many converts study the history of the Church and are able to compare and provide explanations of the differences between Orthodoxy and other Christian religions. According to the participants, it is difficult, through, for them to find space in their relationships with non-Orthodox in-laws to explain their faith because most of the time the conversations about their religious affiliations are avoided by their non-Orthodox in-laws and become taboo:

We tried many times especially in the beginning to talk about our faith, to explain things

but the conversations would always be shut down. Her parents basically told her that it is

better not to talk about it so everybody is happy. So, I don’t see, I don’t feel like I have a

space to talk about it with my in-laws. I wish I could explain myself, but I don’t think it is

a good time right now. Maybe later? But I am not sure it ever happens. (Ed, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

18 The Orthodox Church does not distinguish the hierarchy of the Church Fathers. That is why there is the common practice of generalizing the teaching of different theologians under the concept of the Church fathers. However, among the most known for the laity are, so called, the Three Capidocian Fathers of the 4th Century – John Chrisosdom, Basel the Great, Gregory the Theologian, among the Byzantenians – Cyril of Alexandria, among the Western Fathers are the Pope Leo, Gregory the Great, St. Irenaeus, and among the Middle Eastern Church Fathers is St. Ignatious of Antioch.

128

The perception by others that their religion is ethnic created a desire for participants to keep their religious identity private and avoid exposing it in their in-law relationships.

We talked about it all the time with my parents, incessantly, when we first converted,

every time we got together it was a discussion about how this is this and “Mom, I can’t

believe you don’t believe in the ever virginity of Mary. Let’s just have an hours long

conversation about this. And they would talk about it. And then there was a couple years

of dead silence about everything, you know, like we’re all just gonna be quiet because

we’re just gonna make each other mad if we talk about this. And [my husband] got in

much worse trouble because I’m their little girl, I can do very few wrong things. He’s the

evil brainwasher, you know, that’s dragging me through all this. (Liz, 26, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

While the Orthodox converts try to separate their faith from ethnic roots, many cradle

Orthodox adhere to them. In in-law relationships where the in-laws are cradle Orthodox and non-

Orthodox, ethnic affiliation of the faith adds another barrier for the Orthodox in-laws to successfully negotiate their religious identity. The interviews with the cradle Orthodox for whom their ethnic identity is directly connected to their faith, revealed that there are several ways they deal with the religious differences in their in-law relationships. For example, in order to relate their ethnic religious identity to their non-Orthodox in-laws, they often expose their non-

Orthodox relatives to the ethnic cuisine that is affiliated with worshipping rituals. Thus, for example, during the celebration of Pascha (Easter), the major Orthodox Holiday, many women bake the Pascha Bread. According to one of the ethnic tradition, there has to be made as many

Pascha Breads as possible to share with others. Thus, its preparation, if to make it according to the traditions, takes the entire day or even several days. Moreover, each day during the week

129 before Pascha is connected to a certain ritual related to the household duties. For example, the

Holy Thursday is the clean-up day when the entire house is washed, dusted, and cleaned. This time of the year in many Orthodox Christian households is considered as a connecting time when they can spend quality time with their family members including their in-laws:

My daughters-in-law are not Orthodox, they are Protestants. The come to our church

once in while with my boys, but only for the big things...I try to connect to them and

teach them more about Orthodoxy when I invite them to cook together. You know, to

bake, or to do other things you need to do to prepare for Holy Pascha. (Barb, cradle

Orthodox, Eastern European immigrant)

Another common way for the cradle Orthodox of ethnic backgrounds to connect to their non-Orthodox in-laws is to communicate their faith and pass on religious traditions through their grandchildren or great grandchildren. The participants reported that they often bring their grandchildren or great grandchildren to church. Often they baptize their grandchildren or great grandchildren in the faith. Some of them shared that the negotiation of the baptism of the grandchildren or great grandchildren takes a long time, some times to several years. The participants report that they often bring up their cultural heritage that they wanted to pass on the younger generation so their legacy is preserved in family line.

I am very happy that [my great grandchildren] are now going to be baptized in our

church. I cried out many tears and settled many arguments, but I am very happy it is

going to happen. I am glad I will be witnessing the great day. I don’t have much time left,

I think. But who knows... (Barb, cradle Orthodox, Eastern European immigrant)

For others, the negotiation of their ethnic religious identity became unsuccessful. One of the participants reported that their religious identity is strongly stigmatized through the negative

130 perception of their ethnic, immigrant, identities: “Our in-laws barely even say hi to us. They think we are a bunch of immigrants obsessed with our culture. They don’t want to even hear about our background, our traditions.” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant).

Another stigma that is attached to Orthodox Christianity is that the faith is outdated, or archaic, and does not fit into the demands of modern life. This association is normally created when people witness the Orthodox traditions of worshipping. These are the veneration of icons, bowing, kneeling, and standing during Sundays Liturgy, putting a cross on the self during the length of Sunday Liturgy with its cyclical repetition of prayers and songs, the fasting seasons, the continuous celebration of feast days through the year, the continuity of one worshiping season into another with the performance of certain traditions. The participants of this study often talked about the escalation of tension between them and their non-Orthodox family members who are often their in-laws exposed to Orthodox traditions of worshipping during family events such as baptisms, weddings, funerals, celebration of holidays and etcetera.

We just recently had a get-together at my sister’s, and by brother-in-law started this

whole conversation about how all these traditions, like fasting have no meaning in

today’s life, it is an ancient tradition that does not apply to our time, He wasn’t directly

talking about us, although we are fasting right now, but was mostly referring to Catholics,

but you know, we got the hint. We did not say anything but look at each other with

certain expression like ‘Is this really happening right now?’ hoping that they would

notice, but they didn’t stop. So, yeah, very unpleasant feeling. (Ann, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

In fact, the participants report that the fasting season is the hardest for them in their relationships with their non-Orthodox relatives. Fasting is one of the traditions that become a part of the

131 socializing time between the in-laws during their get-togethers, which are normally accompanied with food and drinks.

Oh, fasting’s a huge deal. I mean, that’s just a nightmare. See, that’s one of the things I

think in retrospect, I half wish we just never informed my parents anything about that. It

is hard to describe. Like if it’s a fast day and we go over there, my mom will bend over

backwards trying to fix fasting stuff for us. But not having the mentality, she’s going to

mess up and then she’s going to feel horrible. Like there was one day she was so, [my

husband’s] birthday always falls in Lent. So, we have this annual, like birthday

celebration that never quite works out, and she was so excited, she found a cake recipe

she was gonna make for him. She’s like “It’s totally Lent and you don’t have to use any

eggs or milk, or, you know, it’s perfect!” And then she dumps like a cup of melted butter

over the top. It’s like “Thanks Mom,” and you know, we do, it’s just thanks. So, we

would eat it, I mean if she served it to us we would. But then she’ll inevitably realize later

but there was butter, you know, and then she’ll feel bad. So it’s not so much that they

would question whether we should do it, they would just, it’s just a source of tension

when things are different. And I think they do, especially because [my husband] tends to

be the type that’s like “I would rather starve than eat butter during Lent.” And I tend to be

the type that’s like “Okay, they gave me a cheeseburger and I ate it and it was better not

to offend them than it was to keep the fast.” Somewhere between the two of us is

probably the right thing to do, but we balance each other out most of the time. (Liz,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

132

Another participant who also reports that the fasting traditions complicate his relationship with his in-laws observes similar tensions. Therefore, the participant choose to not to disclose his worshipping traditions and through that re-expose his religious identity to his in-laws:

There’s certain things, because there’s differences in practices, with my family I feel

comfortable if I go over to my families house during lent. I feel comfortable now talking

to my mom, and saying, “Hey, I’m not going to eat certain things,” and she’s okay with

that. I feel good directly talking about that with my family. When we go over to her

families house during lent, it’s kind of a pot luck dinner sort of thing, where I feel like

I’m picking things, but I don’t feel like I can share with them kind of fasting belief. (Ed,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

When their Orthodox faith is perceived as archaic and outdated by the non-Orthodox family members, the participants called it stigmatization of their faith. It seems that the issue is mostly in the exposure of the Orthodox worshipping rituals during family gatherings. Some of the participants also observe that they managed to sooth the sharp edges in their in-law relationships over time by finding ways to not to expose the worshipping rituals: “So I think over time things have kind of healed, all the religion strife. I think they still wish it was different. I think my father-in-law still perceives it as weird, or all these rules, you don’t need all these rules, you know” (Ben, Orthodox revert, Second generation immigrant of Middle Eastern decent) The exposure of the worshipping rituals is considered as a violation of the private space of the others.

The participants often note that their non-Orthodox in-laws do not mind their worshipping rituals as long as they do not become a property of their in-law relationships and are performed privately in the space of one’s family: “It was basically implied that ‘we don’t care how you worship God, as long as it is filled with the Holy Spirit and we do not have to be involved into it”

133

(Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past). Thus, it seems that the exposure of religious differences through the performance for worshipping rituals that are not the norm in the dominant Christian cultures of the United States intensifies the in-law relationships. Many participants observe that their in-laws “strive to be normal” or “afraid to be exposed to anything that is not normal”:

I guess I would say that I think [my family-in-law] tends to be a little… I think they

think it is important to sort of blend in with society, and that you can still be a Christian,

and also blend in with society so that you’re normal. So, for them being an Orthodox

Christian is not a norm. I think there are a lot of Christians around here. I would say

that being a Christian is a norm in our culture, but what that means can vary... [We are

not normal Christians], because we fast strictly; that’s one thing. We make it a point to

pray in the morning and before bed, before meals, because we have the sacraments. I

think that’s different then most Christianity.” (Ann, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past)

Orthodox Christianity is also viewed as an elitist club or even a cult that, for example, does not allow other Christians to receive communion during Sunday Liturgies. Receiving of the sacrament of communion during Sunday Liturgies or Masses is the focal point in Christian worshipping traditions. When the non-Orthodox in-laws attend Orthodox churches, they are denied the sacrament of communion based on their non-Orthodox affiliations. The denial of the communion is a frequent theme of the reflections that the Orthodox in-laws receive from their non-Orthodox relatives. This issue becomes one of the points in arguments between Orthodox

Christians and their non-Orthodox in-laws when they are invited to attend church for family oriented celebration such as baptism or an important family oriented event.

134

My father-in-law approached me and said: ‘I was personally offended that I was not

invited to participate in the Communion in your church. How is this even possible that I

am a Christian and being denied of the Holy Communion on Sunday?’ And I had to tell

him that we follow certain traditions of preparation for the Communion, which includes

Confession. And he just turned around and said: ‘Well, it seems kinda outdated, your

approach. And the church seems very excluding, almost elitist. (Linda, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Therefore, Orthodox identity is being stigmatized as being abnormal, foreign, and elitist. Many participants refer to themselves as the “other Christians”: “I feel like we will always be different, our faith will always be taken as foreign, as other Christian faith because of how different our worshipping traditions are” (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious background). Many participants talk about how compartmentalized their lives are because they have to balance their

Orthodox way of living and monitor the exposure of their Orthodox identity in predominantly non-Orthodox environment. The participants often note that even though their religion is being stigmatized in this culture, their firm belief and conviction that it is the only true religion and that it is the only right way to connect with God helps them to “run the gambit”:

The formality of our religion is a difficulty for my new family, if you will, that is very,

ritualistic. It’s not defined, so her daughter went to an Orthodox wedding in Cleveland,

and she was like, “Why did they have crowns over their heads?” “Why were there arms

shaking because they were tired?” “Why would they do this to people?” Again, we’ve

done a very poor job of educating to our potential in-laws, what a lot of this stuff means.

. . I think it runs the gambit. I think some people get it. They respect it, and there are

other people that think it is just dogmatic, old school, too much, the services are too long

135

and too many...Yes, and do why your services need to be two hours in length? Why do

you have so many readings? Why are the women restricted from doing certain things?

They obviously don’t want to be as open minded to take a traditional practice that’s

2000 years old, and put it in the context of contemporary America. It’s just way too

heavy for them. Orthodoxy will always be behind the times. I don’t think they have that

space to adapt... It’s said, “At the end of time, all it’s going to take is for you to believe,

because so many will no longer believe.” I think that the numbers will get smaller and

smaller, as a function of time, because it is just so far into a modern day world. (Alex,

Orthodox convert, American, no religious background)

When the Orthodox perceive their faith as the only true and right faith, they stigmatize other

Christian denominations. In the next subsection, I discuss how stigmatizing the Orthodox can be and how that impacts the relational health and quality of their in-law relationships.

Stigmatizing Orthodox Identity and the Relational Health and Quality of In-law Relationships

The analysis of the collected narratives revealed that stigmatizing of other Christian religions by the Orthodox Christians is another barrier to healthy, pleasant relationships with their non-Orthodox in-laws. When the participants were asked to describe the religious backgrounds of their non-Orthodox relatives, they described them as faulty and wrong. All of the participants presented a variety of reasons why other Christian religions were worthy of disgrace and disapproval. The stigmatization of other Christian religions is based on the fact that the

Orthodox firmly believe that their faith is the only true and right faith. The stigmatization of other Christian religions is communicated in several ways. Some participants report that they choose not to talk discuss their faith with their non-Orthodox in-laws because they think their in-

136 laws are not knowledgeable or educated enough to understand the truthfulness and value of the

Orthodox faith: “Why would I even bother talking about Orthodoxy when [my in-laws] don’t know nothing about the history of Christianity, its traditions. They think they with their rinky dink church are the first Christians on earth or something. They live in a very small world and don’t even want to know anything” (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of

Eastern European decent). Others keep silence because they are firmly convinced that their relatives will go to hell if they knowingly turn their backs on the Orthodox faith:

I never really talked to them about [my new religion] because I really don’t know how to

explain it to others. I don’t. And when we first joined the church, it was so hard for me to

keep my mouth shut. It was very difficult for me to not say “Well, I’m going to the right

church and you’re going to the wrong one. [Do you feel obligated, or do you feel it’s

your responsibility at some point, to try to explain that to your family or not? –] There’s

part of me that wants to tell them, and there’s another part of me that says if you tell them

and they turn their back on Orthodoxy, they’re gonna go to hell. So don’t tell them.

(Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

There are several other meanings that the Orthodox ascribe to their faith that makes them stigmatize other Christian denominations. For example, the Orthodox often employ the discursive opposition of real – fake Christianity when they compare their faith to other

Christians: “The minute we knew about it, we were like this is it. So, we started talking about it with our family and your friends, and often said “No, no really, it’s like Apostolic, the history’s all there, you know, the faith, this is the real deal” (Liz, Orthodox convert, Protestant in the past).

When the Orthodox compare their Church to other Christian organizations, they consider their church as the “true” church and opposed to the “fake” churches. In the minds of some of the

137 participants, the “fakeness” of other Christian Churches becomes the quality of the people who constitute them:

I feel like there is still a lot of fakeness that goes on in other Christianity. I still feel like

there is a lot of… It’s real important what you wear, and how you look. A friend of mine

one time had just come back from being at the lake, and she’s like, “I love it.” This is

after I had become Orthodox, but she said, “I love it so much there because there is just a

little beach church, and I can go there and I don’t have to put on makeup and nobody

cares what I look like, or who I am.” I just thought, “That’s how I feel, and get to feel

every Sunday,” because that not what it’s about. That’s not important. It is a community

worshiping God, praying and loving God. Orthodox faith is more community based,

community oriented faith. I love that. I had to be careful in the beginning not to make it

about that. I loved that feeling that everybody is so helpful and loving. I can just sense

from the time I walked into Saint George, our community that people love you for who

you are and where you are. It’s different from other Christian churches. (Ann, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

On the other hand, if one is Orthodox it overweighs their other possible negative qualities. The participants often refer to the special connection that the Orthodox Christians have with each other. This special connection is referred to the notion of the truthfulness and righteousness of the Orthodox faith under which they are united:

[My husband’s] dad wasn’t perfect. But he was perfect in loving, and giving to his

family. He was Orthodox. He loved those boys, and he was Dave’s best friend, and they

were very close. And I wish I had that closeness. My family is very close, we are. And I

feel very close to my sister, and close to my brother, and my parents, but it’s not the

138

same. And I don’t know that I’ll ever get that back with my dad. I think faith has

something to do with that... [What is it that Orthodoxy brings into relationships between

people?] I think it all goes back to that knowing you’re the one true church. When we

first started going there, and I noticed this about some of the men in our community, they

have this air about them, and it’s almost an arrogant air, but it really isn’t, but there’s just

this air about them of confidence. And I said to Dave, “What is that?” And he said “It’s

because they’re Orthodox, and they know they’re right.” And I guess that’s part of it. I

know Orthodoxy to be right...I never saw it at another church. I never felt that strong in a

belief, in a faith, until the Orthodox Church. . . [My husband] felt more sincerity from the

people at our parish in one day, than he did 14 years at that Methodist Church. And he’s

right” (Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The stigmatization of other Christian religions by the participants becomes the stigmatization of the people who follow those religions. The stories shared with me by the participants revealed that the stigmatization of the non-Orthodox in-laws through the stigmatization of their religions become central in the time of conflict between the in-laws. There are several behaviors of the non-Orthodox in-laws that become a target for stigmatization among the Orthodox Christians. For example, the quality of church attendance. Many participants connected the amount of time their non-Orthodox in-laws attend their church and spend time there. The church attendance is directly related to one’s dedication to God. The Orthodox

Liturgies and other Services are know for its lengthy practices. Thus, the short services or masses of other Christian denominations are always condemned by the Orthodox Christians:

I have always told [my wife] that church is not about once a week. You don’t just go to

church for an hour or two on Sunday and that makes everything okay and you’re good

139

until next Sunday. For me, Orthodox is a way of life, it’s not a, something you fit into

your schedule. You fit your life into Orthodox, and for the majority of the people in this

area, including my in-laws, it’s the exact opposite. You don’t mention church, you don’t

think about church, until Sunday morning. And then by noon Sunday you’ve forgotten

about it, and you won’t think about it again until next Sunday. And for me, I’m not going

to say my parents were religious, devout, they weren’t, they were not, but they were not

hypocritical enough to believe that I could be an ass all week long and just because I

show up on Sunday that makes everything okay. And a lot of people that I attended the

local church here with were exactly like that. They were people I wouldn’t want to have

any kind of association with because of the caliber of person they were, but according to

their own opinions of themselves they were pillars of the church. (Matthew, cradle

Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent)

Orthodox people in the minds of some of the participants are “special” kind of people who are better because they can “get it”: I think it’s a mystery. I think it’s a, I think most people don’t get it. I don’t think they understand it, I don’t think they know what it is or worship god in the “right” way” (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent).

Another participant went on:

But Orthodoxy to me is a very special religion. Special, special, special. Not everybody

can be one. Because they don’t want to adhere to the, I shouldn’t say rules and

regulations, to whatever we believe in. They don’t all go along with it. I am talking about

Americans or other Christians here...Now, like fasting 40 days. You really have to be

somebody special to go from nothing . . . It’s a continuum. I mean, every year I learn

something new about it. It’s not like jeeze, how can I go 40 days without doing this or

140

without doing that? Well, you learn how. So the Orthodox person is faithful. . . In

whatever they do.” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant)

When Orthodox talk about how their faith professes the only right and the only true way of worshipping God and connecting to God, they stigmatize other denominations in Christianity.

Some participants share that they have a certain gradation of other Christian churches in which gradation they place their Orthodox faith on the top:

I was always questioning. Is this the right religion? When we were going to the Church of

God . . . How do you know this is the right one? Because they were always, some of the

people in that church would look down on the Catholics in the community, and wouldn’t

want to do the ecumenical services that the community would do together because those

Catholics were involved. Well, how can you say you’re any better than those Catholics?

They believe in God too. Get over it. So they worship different. You’re all Christian. I

don’t have a problem with Catholics as an Orthodox. Because they’re closer to us than

the rest of them are. (Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

When the participant talks about Catholics being “closer” to the Orthodox, she means Catholics managed to maintain close proximity to the true, original faith, which many Orthodox claim to be their faith. Other Christian denominations always follow the Catholics in the gradation, or hierarchy of churches that are common among the Orthodox Christians. The third position is occupied by the Lutheran church, and the fourth position is given to the Protestant churches.

After these four positions, the hierarchical organization of churches fades out. Many participants explain that it is due to the fact that with the advent of Protestantism, Christian religion lost its original purposefulness in the myriad of branched out Protestant denominations:

141

A lot of them hear the word Orthodox and equate that and think you’re Jewish. Whether

they have heard of it or not, they, I think they perceive . . . there’s a pecking order in

religions. I think Catholicism is seen as a strict religion, and then Lutheran’s maybe a

little bit below that and then other pilgrim churches below that, and when they hear the

word Orthodox, they may not have heard of it but even if they have they may think and

perceive of it being a stricter church. That it’s not an Assembly of God church, United

Church of Christ, Methodism, all those I think can get lumped into one pile, and then

from there you start moving up. Being, well, the Catholics are a little bit stricter than

that so you must be kind of like them. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation

American of Eastern European decent)

I sensed irony and haughtiness toward any of the Protestant denominations when the

Orthodox Christians talked about spiritual beliefs of their Protestant family members:

In the Protestant church they take the Bible and they analyse, and they tear it apart. Well

maybe it meant this, well maybe it meant that, well maybe it means this . . .And I finally

came to the realization it says what it says, that’s it. Leave it. I don’t think God was

trying to trick it. Just accept it and go on. There’s no need to tear it apart. (Irene,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The participants often apply sarcastic, ironic nicknames attributed to protestant denominations, like “diet church” or “holly rollers”, or “church hoppers” who “window shop for church”:

When I was growing up and we lived on Kingston, down at the end of the block was an

empty lot. And they would set up their tent on Saturday evening and they would have

services there. And it was a matter of a lot of yelling and a lot of clapping and then we

just nicknamed them holy rollers. Now there’s Cedar Creek and all those others, where

142

they give free pop away. And I thought well maybe if we gave free pop away at our

church, or coffee, during services then maybe we would get . . . but we are a different, we

are more of a religious religion than what they are. They are a show. They are really not

much of anything, so that’s how I feel. But Orthodoxy to me is a very special religion.

(Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant)

Some perceive other Christian churches as empty because they do not fulfill spiritual needs:

We moved here. Her mom and dad are a mile away. They go to a church that’s a mile

that-a-way. So, we are expected to go to that church, and we did. I got nothing out of any

service at her church, so I would, in order for me to keep my spirituality, I had to do

something, which ultimately ended up in my prayer corner, my church in exile, as I call

it. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent)

The hierarchy of Christian churches described above is often transferred on the qualities of non-Orthodox families-in-law. This hierarchy often is portrayed in comments such as “Well, if he is Catholic, it probably would make sense to start talking about icons or putting a cross on yourself” (Ben, Orthodox revert, 2nd generation American of Middle Eastern decent); “We have high liturgy. My parents went to a Lutheran church for a while, so they understand the meaning of the high liturgy. So, the know then what I am talking about” (Irene, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past); “I would not even start explaining it to them, cause I don’t care anymore. Plus it’s not worth the effort. They go to their ‘diet church’ or whatever. They would have no clue anyway” (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent).

In this section, I have introduced examples that describe how Orthodox Christians manage the dialectical tension of being stigmatized – stigmatized in their in-law relationships

143 with non-Orthodox relatives. The participants report that the common perceptions of their faith as “ethnic” creates additional barriers for them to connect to their non-Orthodox in-laws to explain their religious identity. The ethnic affiliations of the church create the perception of the faith as “foreign”, hence “wrong”. The non-Orthodox in-laws cut short the conversations about

Orthodox Christianity for many reasons. Two major reasons are a) the Orthodox faith is perceived as abnormal, hence not worthy to talk about; b) the exposure of different, Orthodox, rituals of worshipping is perceived as a violation of the social distance established between the in-laws. Meanwhile, the strong belief among the Orthodox that their faith is the only right and true faith makes them stigmatize religious identities of their non-Orthodox in-laws. The negatively perceived qualities of other Christian denominations directly influenced interpretation of personal characteristics and qualities of their non-Orthodox in-laws. These perceptions create even larger gaps between the in-laws and often become an insurmountable barrier in child-parent relationships, which directly effects relational health and quality of in-law relationships.

The In-law Love Triangle:

Relational Health and Quality of In-law Relationships in the Clash of Family Cultures

This part of the chapter describes in-law relationships in multicultural families in which

Orthodox Christians are related to their non-Orthodox in-laws. I describe the in-law relationships in these families from several angles. First, I explore the notion of the in-law love triangle introduced by Morr Serewicz (2006) and portray the way this communication pattern is lived by the Orthodox Christians and their non-Orthodox in-laws. Second, I offer a list of criteria that the

Orthodox Christians used to asses the quality of their in-law relationships. Within this section, I offer my understanding of how discourses of larger cultures in which these in-law relationships are situated (i.e., religious, ethnic, gender, and pop cultures). I also introduce the reader to the

144 everyday life of Orthodox Christians from the viewpoint of their non-Orthodox in-laws and how this view point affects relational quality and health of their in-law relationships.

The discourses that outline points of connection and disconnection between in-laws in the context of religious differences show some peculiar tendencies in the development and maintenance of in-law relationships. In the research about in-law relationships, there are two major lines of thought. First, is the idea of the process of in-law identity evolution (Rittenour,

2009), and the second concerns communication patterns of in-law relationships and presents them in a so-called in-law love triangle. In this section, I explore both lines of research and contribute to further understanding by looking at the concepts of in-law identity evolution and in- law love triangle through the prism of dialectical tensions.

First, I explore the notion of the in-law love triangle in which communication between in-laws is mediated through a third party – the shared territory between the in-laws – the child/spouse (Morr Serewicz, 2006). Prentice (2008) also notices that all in-laws including siblings in-law prefer their relationship to be mediated through mutual spouse/child/sibling (See:

145

Figure 4.1). This communication pattern is present in in-law relationships of my participants as well. The participants report that their families use this communication pattern when there is a need to reduce uncertainty between the in-laws:

I think over time my dad is, you know, check with your wife and make sure, just out of

courtesy because he can’t just call you and say hey, can you come over? Well, I may not

know, sometimes we might have already had something on the calendar already. So I

think my dad is more kind of coming around with it. I think my mom, like on Sunday,

[my wife] couldn’t come to a family event but I went over there, and my mom’s like “I

wish [your wife] would have come, I want to show her these Christmas gifts that I got for

the kids. Check with [your wife] to see if these gifts that I got for Christmas for the kids

are okay. Like, I say, so, I can make these decisions, if these are okay or not, I really

don’t think they’re the best gifts, I told her that, I said they’re okay, but I think they’re

something they’re going to play with for ten minutes and that’s it. Well, I bought them

already and I’m gonna keep them. And that was kind of like see what [your wife] thinks.

But still, [my wife] also more of a teacher and spends more time with the kids so maybe

to give my mom the benefit, maybe she thinks that [my wife] understands these things

better. Because my mom’s not gonna, if it comes to money management or investing or

this or that, she’s probably gonna ask me a question more than she’s gonna ask [my wife]

a question, so maybe I’m taking, being sensitive to it, and it’s just maybe my mom

perceives that we have different strengths. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation

American of Middle Eastern decent)

The participants also add that the third party, their child/spouse/sibling has tremendous control over and influence on their in-law relationships. A child/spouse realizes that they have

146 power over the way the relationships between her/his spouse and parents develop, they depend on his/her interpretation of their messages to each other and the manner and strategy s/he chooses to delivered those messages to them:

[My wife] doesn’t get criticised too much directly. We might, a lot of times they might

try to tell, especially my dad, might try to tell me what to do, you know. I think a lot of

times I think they wish we’d come visit more. You know, stuff like that or for my dad,

for my mom, for my mom it’s “Why didn’t you go to this extended family event in

Cleveland?” you know, and [for us, and I try to explain that to them] it’s all adults, the

only kids gonna be there are my kids, you know, [but then they would be like,] “You

don’t associate with the family enough.” But I tell them what we think and what we want,

I think I do. It’s better with me than [my wife]. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation

American of Middle Eastern decent)

There were different stories that my participants shared with me about ways their in-law relationships develop. Some of them had positive relationships; some of them had negative relationships. The quality of their relationships with their own parents and the quality of the relationships they had with their spouses define the quality of the relationships that their parents have with their spouses (See: Figure 4.2).

In the following sections, I explore how the participants conceptualize and live out the evolution of their in-law and spousal identities. Before we move to the specificities of the dialectical tensions in the in-law relationships between Orthodox Christians and their non-

Orthodox in-laws, I need to talk about why it is so important to study the concept of family culture, in particular examples of the relationships that constitute the in-law love triangle. This relational dynamic provides opportunities to see how family cultures are formed and how the

147 differences in family cultures are being negotiated on the arena of the in-law love triangle. The examples that are grouped in this chapter show the specific intergroup perspective on the relational quality and relational health of in-law relationships. This cannot be studied without understanding the set of relationships that represent how meanings are generated in all three family cultures of the participants – the families of origin of both spouses and the newly

(re)developing family of the spouses. I provide examples below that demonstrate how participants conceptualize the phenomenon of family culture, how they recognise its presence in their relationships within the in-law love triangle, and how the differences affect the relational quality and health of the relationships within the triangle.

When asked about the quality of their in-law relationships, participants often refer to the

differences in which their family of origin and their extended family communicate. A significant marker of differences in family cultures for the in-laws is the way the immediate family members communicate with each other. According to the reports of my participants, there are

148 two major communication qualities that would separate family cultures into two categories. First is a family culture in which open, direct communication between family members would be expected and encouraged. Second are the family cultures in which communication between family members is more reserved:

My family is a talk about it, work it all out, you know, all on the table . . .we’re gonna

have a family meeting, you know, very open communication . . . they never want there

to be any unspoken conflict. [My husband’s] family is much more like “Let’s just carry

this to our graves so we don’t make any trouble!” I mean I’ll find out that something

was a conflict like two years later, and I’ll think “Why didn’t someone tell me I was

offending you guys?” One of his siblings would eventually, like, cave and say

something. Like, you know, “Mom just hates it when you do that.” Like are you kidding

me, I could have not done it two years ago! (Liz, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past)

Direct-indirect communication of disagreements between family members is the most frequent theme when participants try to define differences between families of origin and families-in-law. Participants often reported that the differences in communication styles are connected to the perception of certain ethnic cultures. The following example demonstrates how the participant explains the directness in communication of disagreement in her family conditioned by some elements of one of the Eastern European cultures, while the indirectness in communication of disagreement is an attribute of Western cultures:

I think the big difference in our families were [my brother-in-law] would always say that

his parents would disagree but never in front of him. They would have arguments, if they

did, it was never in front of him and his brother. Where mine was anything but that. Right

149

out there, right in the open, okay, right. So for me that was kind of mind-boggling

because I thought “Wow, you gotta be kidding me.” You know, but again, ethnic, so

there’s some ethnic piece that goes into that. I think Western cultures are more reserved,

its more implied meaning kinda deal. I don’t know what all goes into that. But he and I

would talk about that quite a bit to answer your question, you know, even in terms of his

relationship with my sister. And how he was not going to be directed and yelled at, you

know, what he had observed between his in-laws, my parents, and their interaction with

each other. That was not going to define him and his role with my sister. (Eva, cradle

Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent)

The difference in communication of disagreement may result in complications of the relationships between the in-laws:

[My mother-in-law] is the kind of lady who comes in for a haircut on an appointment and

says “If it’s not too much trouble,” you know, I mean . . . [and it bothers me] because I

just want her to be like relaxed...My mom though has a more direct communication with

[my husband]? And it drives him crazy. Because he’s like his mother, and would rather

starve to death, you know, and my mom’s like “Well, what can I fix for you? Now what

are all the fasting rules for today and I’ll cater right to you, and . . .” And he doesn’t want

to . . . And he’s like “Just, I don’t know, give me some peanut butter!” Because it makes

him uncomfortable to feel that somebody’s going way out to make him comfortable. And

that’s how it is in his family. So, yeah, it is kinda a problem sometimes... I think it’s one

of like, the whole communications thing is huge. (Liz, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past)

150

Taking the intergroup perspective, I argue that family culture undergoes some transformation in relational dynamics and communication patterns with the addition of new family members. The following example demonstrates how some of the norms of family communication change with the entrance of new family members. In the following example, the participant revealed how her daughter-in-law brought into her family a new understanding of personal privacy and new strategies to reduce uncertainty if some information needed to be disclosed:

[My daughter-in-law] once asked me “Why did you change the code on your garage

door?” So that they could open the garage door and come into my house whenever they

liked, to a point though. So I said “It’s my house. I can do anything I want.” And she said

“And you also changed your locks.” Because everybody had a key to my house. And I

said “Yes,” I said “It’s still my house. And if I want to change the locks on my house I

could.” She said “Now nobody knows the code and nobody has a key to your house?

Well I gave it to them, my sons. I gave it to my sons. Just in case something would

happen, that you have access to my house. Not for them to come back and forth. They

respected that. The boys never did that. But the wives did. All of them. In fact, the one

time [my son], this was when he was still, no, it was after they got divorced and he had to

come home to his house during his lunch hour. And he walks into his house and hears

[my other son’s] wife, going through his desk drawer, his computer and everywhere. And

he surprised her when he walked in. And he says “What are you doing here?” And she

says “Well, I just wanted to see what you had.” And he says “No”... It is her who started

this kind of very, kind of no borders, intrusive kind of thing in our family and now other

151

girls think they have a right to do that to because she got away with it. (Jennifer,

Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant)

Many participants also use these communication differences between families to establish borders between the family of the parents/parents-in-law and the family of the children/children- in-law.

We would talk to [my mother-in-law] and say, “We love you, but never put your hand

over my kid’s mouth.” We don’t physically touch our kids. We don’t want you to

physically touch the kids. If [my child] has laughter or screams at church, that’s okay

with God, and you need to get okay with that. She would then, not do it anymore. She

would really respect us. When we were under their roof, we would play by their rules.

We knew what their rules were. When they were under my roof, they knew what the rules

were, and they would play by those rules. We were very respectful of each other’s space,

and life styles. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious background)

The following example demonstrates how the family background of the in-laws also contributes to the development of the relational quality and health of in-law relationships. In this example, the participant shares how important it is to recognize the fact the family culture determines how one perceives their in-laws and interacts with them:

I think the big difference for me is the adoption process, because people have a certain

perception about biological families that I don’t have. For me, I was put into a family

with [my brother], who was adopted, and given [my mother] who was childless. My

definition of family is people just come in, and you love them as brother and sister, and

mother and father. The same sort of deal that translates into my marriage, where, these

are just new people that get pulled into my family and blood has nothing to do with it.

152

You can either make this relationship work, or you don’t, and that choice is totally your

own. You can either accept them as family, or reject them. I know a huge portion of that

is because of my adopted family, and my non traditional view of family. We’re still a

family. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious background)

The example above also demonstrates how meanings of larger cultures (in this case

Christian and popularized American cultures) enter the paradigm of family cultures and how these meanings are transferred to the interpretation of relational health and quality of in-law relationships. The larger discourse about treating anybody as a relative represents the system of values shared among Christians. Christianity emphasizes the value of treating others with care, compassion, and humility no matters whether they are related by blood or not. Another system of meanings that enters the domain of this particular in-law relationship is the discourse of

American culture, which dictates to take personal responsibility, commitment, and effort to ensure positive outcomes in anything that we do. There is also the emphasis on the individual and the idea that we are free to make a choice to do things one or another way.

There are various situations when one’s family culture becomes observable in in-law relationships. In the experiences of the Orthodox Christians and their on-Orthodox in-laws, these situations are often associated with negotiation of religious differences. Some participants who play the role of children-in-law recalled that at the beginning of their marriage it was difficult for them to resist their parents’-in-law influence, and they used strategies to avoid conflict by avoiding communication with their parents-in-law and communicating with them through their spouses. Thus, more negotiation about the differences in family culture of origin and newly forming family culture took place between children and their parents in the beginning of the

153 development of the new families of newly married spouses. This kind of relational dynamic represents a classic model that is advanced through popular culture outlets.

Another set of meanings that is commonly associated with marriage quality is that people marry into family cultures. This set of meanings emphasizes differences and challenges in in-law relationships associated with the negotiation of or adjustment to these differences. When this set of meanings becomes a property of spousal relationships, it can affect the quality of spousal relationships in positive or negative ways. It depends on which particular meanings are picked out from this set in communication between spouses. For example, the differences in communication culture according to which families are divided into the “touchy-feely” families verses “reserved, snobby families” are considered as challenging for the development of positive in-law relationships. Differences in religious cultures between families are considered a challenge to overcome for the quality of in-law relationships. Moreover, in the world of

Orthodox Christians there is a hierarchy of Christian denominations wherein anything other than

Orthodoxy is perceived as negative. This negativity is directly related to the quality of family cultures and their family members who practice other types of Christianity. These perceptions significantly impact relational health and the quality of in-law relationships as demonstrated in the previous section. At the same time, these negotiations created visible differences in family cultures of origin between the spouses themselves and, therefore, sparked tensions between spouses: “You don’t realize how different your families are until you’re married, and then all of a sudden you have this very different family culture to deal with...” (Liz, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

There are also other ways to learn about family culture of the in-laws. The same participant later noted that she learned about differences in communication style when her

154 husband was negotiating some of the decisions they have made about their family vacation.

Another participant also noted that only though her husband’s communication with his parents did she learn how controlling his parents were, and that created her perception of them for many years until she was able to form her own relationship with his parents, which changed her perceptions and improved the quality of her relationship with them. Many participants noted that they recognize their own family culture through observing how their own family members communicate with each other with the eyes of their spouses. Some report that they implement this model into relationships they have with their in-laws. When asked about how they approach their in-law relationships, the participants often refer to experiences of their own parents.

Mother’s role in daughter’s in-law relationships is one of the themes that come more often than others19.

Between my own parents, you know, there was never this like “your mother’s coming,”

or anything, they really did, when they got married they took on each other’s families I

think, and really did strive to please them. I mean, especially as my mom and I talk about

it now, you know, as I try to find my way with in-laws and the way she talks about it,

she’s like “Oh yes, I know, and I did this.” (Liz, Orthodox covert, American,

Protestant in the past)

Ways of expressing emotions to each other among family members is another big marker of family culture that is reported by many participants. According to them, all families can be devided into two categories. On one hand, there are the touchy-feely families in which emotions are expressed verbally or through non-verbal communication such as hugging, kissing, or holding hands. On the other hand, there are families who lack this kind of communciation or who

19 This particular relationship is explored in detail in the section dedicated to gender discourse in in-law relationships.

155 do not express their feelings to each verbally or through stereotypical non-verbal cues but who might still do that through service, through doing something for each other.

My sister’s in-laws were not huggers. They grew to be huggers, and they grew to be much more openly affectionate. They were not like that. And so, I think, my sister, being that way, and me being that way, seeing them, and that was our natural thing, just give each other a hug when you see them. Or [my brother-in-law], same thing. Um, I think at first they didn’t know how to deal with that because they weren’t used to that and now it’s just kind of common. (Eva, cradle

Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent)

Some participants also ascribe the “touchy-feely” attribute to religious cultures:

[My husband] was raised a little bit differently then I was. I would say my family was

more going on feeling, or more going on emotion. The touchy-feely kind of deal, you

know. His dad is more level headed about things, and realistic. I would say that we were

raised differently, but it’s a whole different mindset. It’s a whole different way of living

out your faith, or walking out your faith. (Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant

in the past)

One of the main ways for the Orthodox Christians and their non-Orthodox family members to interpret family culture was through meanings associated with religion. The participants report that some of their non-Orthodox in-laws view Orthodoxy as a faith, which would nourish the “touchy-feely” relational communication style. Others said the exact opposite interpreting the strictness of the church’s cannons and the belief that emotional people are guided by passions or demons that need to be “controlled” by a person’s will and zealous prayer. These meanings are discussed in detail in the previous section dedicated to the interpretations of the

Orthodox identity.

156

According to the participants, family culture is also recognized through the expectations about the roles of family members that are explicitly or implicitly communicated between the in- laws. Expectations, that are explicit qualifiers of good or ideal relationships, are formed in the family of origin. Families of origin may have different cultures that would emphasize different aspects of family life. These emphasized aspects for expectations of quality in other families such as families-in-law. Depending on how successfully in-laws meet the expectations communicated to each other, they would asses the quality of their in-law relationship:

The type of family I come from is that everything was done for the family. You worried

about what your kids were doing. You worried about if someone was gone. There was

just . . . being involved with kids for the last ten years now, I see kids that are basically

raising themselves, I see kids raised by other people, they’re dropped off at the crack of

dawn and picked up at suppertime. Someone else has raised them for twelve hours. I was

used to families that you ate supper together, you did things together, you stayed home

together, you may have gone out to the movies, you did it as a family. If there is anything

I can say to describe my growing up it is family. The high point of the year was family

reunion, once a year in the summer, when we all got together, all the aunts and uncles

would finally come back, they were the ones that had left, they’d bring their family.

Every member of the family would come and it would just be a huge picnic. Even to this

day when I see some of my cousins who are now grandparents, we tear up talking about

the old family reunions that had that much of an impact. Family was the number one

priority... [My in-laws] are the ones that have missed out on all that, not me. I’ve enjoyed

every minute, and I’ve said it to your husband. Enjoy every second because it goes by so

fast. I can remember bringing these guys home from the hospital. And I’ve got one more

157

year at home with one, then he goes off to school somewhere. And you can’t get that

back. Three things you can’t get back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, or the neglected

opportunity. And [my in-laws] have neglected to have the relationship. They’re the ones

that are the worst for that relationship. They missed out living with their grandchildren,

being a mile away. I mean, there are people that would lop off limbs to have that luxury.

And to be that close and to ignore them, to ignore the grandchildren, to find fault with

their daughter no matter what she does, to that I don’t even know what to say, to find

fault, belittle, insult, whatever, to me. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation

American of Eastern European decent)

The examples that constitute this section of the chapter have demonstrated that relationships within the in-law love triangle become the arena where family cultures become observable and where families negotiate the differences between them. The participants reported that the most observable features that define differences in family cultures are the ways family members communicate during conflicts and express their emotions to each other. These differences are interpreted through the specificities of participants’ understanding of certain religious and ethnic cultures. In the next section, I present how development of relationships within the triangle situated into the context of religious differences between the in-laws generate specific discursive oppositions, which in its turn impacts relational health and quality of in-laws.

In-law and Spousal Identities Within and Outside of the In-law Love Triangle:

Discursive Opposition of Preservation of Old – Development of New Family Cultures

Like Morr Serewicz (2006), Prentice (2008) and Rittenour (2009) demonstrate in their research, I argue that the in-law love triangle, which I see as both a relational dynamic and

158 communication pattern, has tremendous impact on the relational quality and relational health of in-law relationships. Using a dialectical perspective on relationships, I also argue that in-laws want to be simultaneously in and out of this relational dynamic, which creates tensions in how in-laws construct their relationships with each other and with their children/spouses. These tensions became observable when the participants talked about what it meant to recognize the development of a new family culture at the same time as passing on or preserving elements of the previous family culture of their origin. Thus, one of the central challenges in this relationship is the development of strategies to manage these tensions, to maintain a balance between developing new family culture and preserving traditions of previous family culture for the younger families of the children/children-in-law; or allowing the development of new family culture yet insisting on previous family culture preservation for the older family of parents/parents-in-law. For example, communication of support from the in-laws is always welcomed, whereas communication of decision-making can be interpreted as intrusion into the family life, family business and can create unnecessary tensions. The examples grouped here represent different strategies that the participnants employed when they manage the tensions described above. These strategies vary depending on which role the participants play in the in- law love triangle.

To the newly married I would say concentrate on yourselves, your core family. Don’t

worry about the in-laws and the outlaws. If they want to be a part of it, allow them to. If

they want to invoke their rules and expect you to listen to them, then I would say take a

step back, and you need to have that conversation that we will listen to anything that you

have to say, but we will make our own decisions. And we’ve had that talk with [my

159

in-laws]. You can say anything you want, but we will decide ultimately what’s gonna

happen, not you. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern

European decent)

I place this particular example here because it outlines many different themes that came out of my analysis of the in-law relationships unraveled in the shared stories. This includes the idea of openness in in-law relationships as a positive dynamic for the relational health and quality. Also, each in-law relationship described in the collected stories is seen through the prism of participants’ interpretation of gender and gender roles. These themes constitute separate sections of this chapter, and the reader can find them below.

In the minds of many of the participants, open communication is a strategy that marks a healthy approach to the negotiation of differences. Open communication with the in-laws signifies healthy in-law relationships. However, not all of the participants are able to reach the desired openness when it comes to the negotiation of their religious differences. These strategies become especially noticeable when the tensions are put into the religious context. The examples grouped here demonstrate how the participants of the in-law love triangle conceptualize this tension and manage it within the context of their religious differences.

The in-laws want to have their own relationship without involving their child/spouse who often plays the role of a mediator. Their spouses/children often also want them to have their own in-law relationship. The following example demonstrates this idea:

I think definitely the spouse should be, especially being able to just be a mediator,

because I see that, I mean that’s what I do with [my husband] and my family. I say

“Look Mom, when [he] says this he means this,” and I say [to my husband] “Look,

when Mom says this she means this”...Yeah, I think [my husband] tries to have his own

160

relationship with my mom. . . I’m always like a nervous wreck when he says “Do you

want to go for a walk Mom?” and I’m like ahh, ahh, I won’t be there to interpret! You

know, but I think they come out better when they do, so . . . (Liz, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

For many, when the spouse/child-in-law has their own relationships with the parents-in-law the quality of the spousal relationship improves because the challenges of in-law relationships become a property of a separate relationship and do not interfere with the development of the spousal relationship. Therefore, many see the in-law love triangle relational dynamic and communication pattern as a barrier in the development of relational health and quality of their spousal relationships. In the following example, the participant remarks that the inclusion of their parents into the development of the spousal relationship, which is associated with the development of new family culture, mostly had negative effects on their spousal relational health and quality. In the Orthodox Christian families this involvement of parents into the development of newly forming family is often associated with the pressure to continue Orthodox traditions. It can be specifically harmful when the spouse/child-in-law comes from different religious backgrounds:

My dad was really pushing ... it was important for him that we preserve the tradition...it

would be humiliating for him to tell his [Middle Eastern] family and friends that his

children do not follow Orthodoxy...It happened with my wife. I think my family

probably did more harm than good pushing my wife . . . “You gotta be Orthodox, you

gotta be Orthodox, you gotta be Orthodox . . .” And I think it did more harm than good

in the beginning. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern

decent)

161

In another vein, the in-law love triangle can be convenient when there is a disagreement between the in-laws. In order to keep the visibility of peace between the in-laws, they communicate their disagreement through their spouses/children. Keeping the in-law love triangle can also be convenient for the spouses themselves. Being in the triangle creates an opportunity to be connected to both their own parents and their spouses. They see this position as beneficial when they try to manage the dialectical desire to develop separate family culture with their spouses and, at the same time, keep connections with the previous culture of the family of origin.

The following examples demonstrate how this dialectical desire is conceptualised and communicated within and out of the in-law love triangle. The meanings that arise in the descriptions of simultaneous spousal and in-law relationships form a dialectical tension, which I call preservation of old family culture – development of new family culture. This dialectical tension defines the in-law and spousal relationships in and out of the in-law love triangle.

The discourse of preservation of family culture includes popularized meanings of controlling parents-in-law and submissive, avoiding children-in-law. These meanings influence the domains of both in-law and spousal relationships to significantly effect relational qualities and relational outcomes of spousal relationships. These meanings accompany the development of the in-law identity until the in-law relationship itself starts generating its own relational culture with its own relational meanings. In fact, many participants reported that their in-law relationships were damaged because they followed the negative stereotypes about in-laws advanced by the media outlets; with time, the participants observed, their relationships improved because they managed to resist the negative stereotypes and recognize points of connection that they share with their in-laws. The same process is undergone when one is developing their

162 spousal identity. The popularized through various media outlets meanings about spousal behavior can also negatively impact the development of spousal relationships:

As a matter of fact, I almost didn’t marry [my husband] because of… I felt like [my in-laws] were controlling. It was the main reason. I was afraid that our whole life we were going to live under almost like, “Are we going to move in with them and just let them tell us what to do all our lives?” A lot of it was false perception, and a lot of it was my pride, and my wanting everything to be my way. All kinds of TV-show stereotypes about in-laws and brides didn’t help either. It was almost like I want to control [my husband], not his parents control him. Not thinking of him as an actual person, but how can he make me happy. I would say it started off a little bit rocky.

To each others faces we were always kind. I don’t think there was ever a time where we had a falling out. We never yelled at each other, or got mad at each other. I don’t think there ever was

[an open conflict]. (Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The meanings of controlling and disrespectful in-laws and peevish brides advanced by popular culture outlets such as reality TV-shows significantly influence relational health and quality of in-law relationships. The participants were aware of the influence of popular culture on their perceptions of in-law relationships:

In our culture, in-laws can be perceived as a nuisance, as meddling, and there are a lot of

jokes about that relationship. That is personified by a lot of the Hollywood and a lot of

the hype that we have in our culture. That’s they way I think they’re typically viewed. I

don’t think that many people look at them as an extension of a family; the way it is in the

school or the old countries, like in Italy, and some of the old European countries. (Alex,

Orthodox convert, American, no religious background)

163

My participants reported that the popular culture outlets traditionally offer negative perceptions of in-laws: “...all the sitcoms I’ve ever seen have always been like “Your mother’s coming again?” you know, or like “I can’t, your father just drives me crazy!” (Liz, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past).

The participants recognized the negative affects of the popularized meanings on the quality of in-law relationships and often tried to resist these meanings in their attempt to form positive in-law relationships or to improve them through changing their perceptions of their in- laws. This resistance is a product of Christian discourses of love and respect of the elders, which means respect of old family traditions:

In-laws are protective, pushy, kind of uncomfortable for awhile, and maybe for some people I’ve talked to for a long time...I mean you hear all that on TV, from friends, sometimes from your own family...but my relationships are much better than what I hear from friends, TV shows, you know... I know my parents-in-law are loving people. They love my husband, they gave me a great husband, so I love them for that. They are a great family and I appreciate that my kids learn things from them as well. (Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The theme of loving in-laws despite difficulties and appreciating in-laws for who they are, occurred frequently when the participants described the quality of their in-law relationships and their perceptions of their parents-in-law: “There is a lot of tensions with my in-laws. But I learned to love them. I ought to love them, they are my family, right? We have good times...I still try to reach out and invite [my mother-in-law] over to play with the kids” (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past). The participants want to create a positive image of their in-law identity. They resist the dominant popular culture meanings that ascribe negative connotations to the roles that they themselves play in their families at this moment: “Mothers-in-

164 law are always mocked in our culture. Yeah, mothers-in-law can be very vocal and controlling.

But I decided long time ago when my boys get married, I will zip up my mouth...I will be patient and loving as much as I can” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant).

Many participants when they talked about the beginning of their marriage and their in- law relationships described themselves as young. This is another meaning of the discourse of preserving family culture. It is associated with the idea that the newly forming family lacks spousal unity and family identity; these notions were paralleled in the discourse. Another idea that accompanies the first one is that in the beginning of a spousal relationship there exists a resistance to pressure from parents and parents-in-law who are trying to preserve their family cultures by intervening into the formation of new family culture. This dynamic signifies the opposition of the young, hence weak families with undeveloped family identity versus old, hence strong families with developed family identity. Being young for many participants does not necessarily mean their age but rather their perception of self-sustainability as a couple:

[My in-laws were kind of controlling because they were] afraid of letting [us] make [our] own decision almost in the beginning. As we’ve grown, and things have happened [like kids and home and travels and decisions], and things have changed I don’t feel that as much, but because we were a young couple just getting married. (Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The participants also noted that the definition of young does not necessarily include the number of years into marriage. It is the moment or a set of moments in spousal life when spouses realize and demonstrate their independence from their families of origin. There are several milestones, such as the birth of their children, acquiring financial sustainability, making independent decisions for the sake of their own family and other family related events that

165 signify to spouses that they gradually acquire the status of independence from their parents, another meaning in the discourse of preservation of family culture: “As we started having kids and then bought our own house, I felt I had more reasons to stand up and say things... I would never do that before...I had no idea where we were going as a family yet, we didn’t know who we were” (Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past). Below, I present an example that demonstrates the significance of the meaning of spouses’ status of independence for the relational health and relational quality of marriage:

[His parents would often make him feel guilty, I think. I think [they] did early on,

especially because we were young, and we had to learn to make that leap of, “I choose

you over anybody else.” I think we were still trying to keep our families happy. We

were so young that we didn’t even know who we were. Now, I see us… and we had to

learn to trust each other. I had to learn that he would choose me. I had to learn to trust it

more then he did. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

The meaning of status of independence occupies a special place in the worldview of the

Orthodox spouses. As I discussed in the previous part of the chapter, the Orthodox identity is the minority identity and often a stigmatized identity in American Midwestern families. Orthodox

Christian identity is often stigmatized by others. However, Orthodox Christians stigmatize other

Christian identities as well. For some Orthodox Christians, the inability to confront their parents of different Christian denominations in such life defining decisions as the choice of religious traditions for a wedding ceremony, seem impossible. It is considered as an impossible sacrifice of family religious traditions. For some of the participants, it was so intense that the couple had to come up with unusual decisions and to overcome difficult tasks to accomplish their goal of

166 combining two different religious traditions in their wedding ceremony and, at the same time, to satisfy their families:

I loved my faith. I was very active in my faith. I saw nothing that would ever take me

away from it. I just couldn’t even believe that, and we had a very difficult… we were up

to like 4:00 in the morning, kind of conversation, crying and, “How are we going to

figure this out?” We decided to table it. We ended up getting engaged, and we met with

different priests from both churches to say, “How could we ever make this work?” We

knew that faith was important. We knew that we wanted to share our life in our faith, but

we didn’t know how to make that happen. He felt very strongly about his faith, and I felt

strongly about mine. Then, we knew we had to be married in the Orthodox Church

because of the Orthodox tradition. He can’t be married anywhere else. We actually

invited both priests, Roman Catholic and Orthodox to talk through things. Thankfully the

two priests worked together, but the hoops that we jumped through I can’t even begin to

tell you. That was that, and we got married in the Orthodox Right in the building of my

church with a blessing from the Catholic Church, so we were both in good standing with

both of our churches. My family was very happy and glad that we were including both

churches. I think that they felt like they won the battle, so to speak, that it was in our

church. The fact that it was in a different Right, I don’t think, because of what it looked

like, it looked like we went there and got married, so for them, I think it was fine. I think

[my husband’s] family, even though we were married in the Right, felt they lost the

battle, because it wasn’t in their building. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman

Catholic in the past)

167

In this example, Helen also referred to her and her spouse’s qualities of being on good standing in church and feeling strongly about their faith. These meanings are parts of Christian discourse of a good Christian = devoted to faith Christian. The set of meaning from this discourse generate the discourse of preserving family culture, which occupies a special place in

Christian families, because, according to my participants, preserving their Christian family traditions by bringing more people into their faith means being a good Christian family.

These are different means that parents and parents-in-law employ to transfer their family religious traditions to the newly developing family culture. The strategies that families use at the beginning of their in-law relationships further define the qualities of relationships between in-law families. The example provided above demonstrated the “battle” of the families over their religious traditions. This “battle” took place on the grounds of wedding planning. Both Helen and her spouse talked about how their in-law relationships developed after the moment of their wedding, and they have very different stories. As Helen remarked in this example, her family felt they “won the battle” to have the wedding in their family church, while Helen’s in-laws felt they were defeated. Helen later told me that since that moment her relationship with the in-laws have been challenging and maladaptive, while Helen’s spouse reported pleasant or at least non- troubling relationships with Helen’s parents. Helen’s family “victory” over her in-laws provided

Helen with satisfaction that she managed to “please” her parents. At the same time, she also recognized that this event might have had upset her spouse because his parents “lost” the battle.

In her attempt to balance her happiness about her wedding and her unhappiness about possible disappointment that their wedding may have caused to her spouse, it was important to Helen to

“include” her spouse into her parents’ family circle as soon as possible and find as many justifications for that as possible. When I asked Helen about her in-law relationship she

168 emphasized that she did not feel she belonged to the family circle of her in-laws. However, she reported that her spouse became a part of her family soon after he was introduced to her parents.

I noticed that every time Helen talked about her tensions with her in-laws, she immediately added that for her spouse, her own parents had provided family conditions of love and care that were better than what he could get from his own parents: “My mom treats him like her own son.

I think [my husband] found more love and care in this home, with my parents. . . he told me that he feels it’s his family sometimes more than when he goes to his parents. . . I am very happy about this” (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past). I conclude that providing satisfaction for the parents is one of the most frequently used discourses in spousal and in-law relationships. It usually is paired with the opposing discourse of providing satisfaction for the spouse, which is another dialectical tension common for in-law relationships.

I see the roots of this tension in religious discourses about simultaneous obedience and pleasing of others.

Helen’s spouse also referred to the event of their wedding when I asked him about what significance his family’s faith has to him. He reported it was fundamental for him and for his family as well as for his wife and her family:

We had to come up with an alternative... we were married in a Roman Catholic church by

an Orthodox priest who followed all Orthodox traditions of wedding service...there was a

written document put together, that was at least for her, allowing her to have a wedding

that was recognised by the Catholic Church...It was signed by somebody from Catholic

Church... it was something from like 1974, some ecumenical agreement. . .but I am glad

we were married in the Orthodox faith. . . For [my wife], I think, it was an evolution of

some sort...things that she thought were right before, now seem funny. . . it was a

169

spiritual development for her. . . I am glad we did that but I am glad that now we live our

faith together as a family. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle

Eastern decent)

Their decision to celebrate their wedding by combining religious traditions of both

Roman Catholic and Orthodox faiths represents a moment where their own family culture was conceived. This example explicitly demonstrates the beginning point of in-law and spousal identity development. The contexts of cultural differences between families of origin, which collide in the arena of in-law relationships make the difference more explicit for both sides of the in-law relationship and provide a rich example that enhances our understanding of the nature of this kind of relationship. It is specifically intriguing to explore the in-law relationship in the context of religious differences when these differences concern fundamental family cultural traditions of celebration, grieving, and child rearing that signify family life milestones. Studying religious differences between in-laws exposes talk about culturally taboo topics of religion and the negotiation of decisions regarding the life defining characteristics of their family cultures.

The following examples show that both women and men considered the evolution of their spousal relationships at the moment when one or both partners realized and demonstrated that they choose the interests of their own developing family over the interests of their families of origin. The set of meanings associated with this notion I call the choice of family church. In the world of Christian families, the choice of family church for a newly developing family is an important marker for their spousal identity development. According to my participants, church is a place that is as significant as home. The life-defining event is also the one when one or both spouses choose their own family church that is different from one or both families’ of origin. For

170 the Orthodox Christians20 this moment becomes a breaking point in their relationships with their families of origin and the in-laws because they choose a church that is not only “different” but also “unknown” and “strange” for their non-Orthodox families. These meanings related to the discourse of stigmatization of Orthodox Christianity in American Midwestern families create more challenges for in-laws to develop positive relationships:

[My parents] have no concept. They don’t . . . Orthodoxy is left out of the history books.

It’s like we don’t exist. There’s the Catholics, and there wasn’t anything before Catholics.

So I guess the guys who wrote the history books must be Catholics, because religion

starts with the Catholics for them. . . My father did not speak to me for eight months after

I told them I was going to the Orthodox church [with my husband]. . . For my parents,

[my husband] stole heir daughter and their grandkids, took them away to this strange,

wrong place. (Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Irene’s husband also refers to the connection between quality of in-law relationships and the choices spouses make about church affiliation. The decision regarding church affiliation is another big milestone in the development of spousal identities of the couple. At the same time, if the couple decides that their church’s affiliation will be different from their families of origin, for some in-law relationships it may create an insurmountable gaps between the in-laws. Based on the stories of the participants, the gap is greater in the relationships between parents-in-law and their son-in-law. In the families of the participants, the male figure is traditionally perceived as the one responsible for their own family’s social encounters that include the decisions regarding church affiliations:

I think when we moved back here, they asked [my wife] if we were going to go to their

church and she said probably and then I’m gonna assume they asked her what church I

20 These are mostly converts, but also both cradle and revert Orthodox if they marry outside of their faith.

171

went to, and as soon as she said that I was Orthodox, a) they had no idea what that was,

and b) since they didn’t know what it was, it was wrong. So, it didn’t matter. . . they were

and still are completely ignorant. . . I am the interloper for them, I stole their daughter

and grandkids. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European

decent)

Preservation of family culture is one of the dominant discourses in the American

Orthodox Christian families who recognize their minority status in this region. The strategies that the Orthodox Christian families use to preserve their family traditions through religious identity are similar to immigrant families that strive to preserve their ethnic identities. Among American

Orthodox Christian families there are some for whom attending family church is associated not only with the preservation of family ties but, more importantly, the preservation of ethnic identity. That is why the choice of faith and choice of church the new family chooses to attend is considered as a threat to the preservation of ethnic identity. The pressure on the new family is specifically strong when the new-coming in-law is not considering conversion into the faith of the hosting family. The following example demonstrates how these ideas are conceptualized in the mind of someone whose family strived to preserve their family religious traditions in the new family in order to preserve their ethnic identity:

I said, at least that’s what I told him, is that [my wife’s conversion’s] got to be of her own

free will, her own acceptance versus just doing it for family, neighbour, family

reputation. I don’t think my mom really cared. Now my dad, he cared pretty strongly.

And I think they had a different family members might make a comment here and there,

her being and I probably pushed harder too, probably based on family pressure, ya know.

And now my brother and his new wife...So, she is Syrian. She’s actually born in Syria,

172

but she’s I think of a Presbyterian background. I think they probably had some arguments

or debates over it, cause a couple times he called me, you know, to get my advice, but

sometimes they go to a Bible study or a class at the church, and she might argue with him

afterwards about maybe saints or about this or that, that from her religious upbringing

disagreed with. I think probably the big mistake back then was not trying to let it be of

her own free will. But I think at least with regards to her, that’s the one lesson I learned

that I told my brother, you’ve gotta let it be of her own free will and not pushing it. (Ben,

Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern decent)

One of the most common ways is to pass Orthodox traditions on to following generations through marrying children to families with the same religious background. Besides preserving the culture, it is easier to establish better connections with the new family if both families have common cultural grounds:

I think where it gets more challenging is that maybe Orthodoxy never wanted to go

outside of the bounds of their kids not marrying outside the faith, cause they didn’t want

to have to deal with that. Cause if the kids stayed in the faith and they had the basic fabric

of worship and some of the ethnic background that didn’t make accepting of differences

so big to bear. And so now, as kids have gone out and married different people from

different ethnic backgrounds, they now have to figure out a way to be accepting of

differences, where before they didn’t have to worry about it because we’re all alike and

we’re all the same and, you know, one less problem to worry about. One less thing for me

to try to become patient and accepting of differences...we know we got the worship

figured out, we know that they bless themselves the same way, we know that they like

lamb, we know that they like this, we know that they’re gonna make an Easter basket; I

173

mean, all that stuff doesn’t have to be negotiated or figured out or understood. Or saying:

“What the heck are they doing?” cause they knew. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation

American of Eastern European decent)

These examples also provide evidence about how important it is to consider the intergroup perspective in the study of in-law relationships. In-law relationships are not only affected by the quality of relationships between the immediate participants in the in-law love triangle. The voices of the remote others who also contribute to the formation of family culture may have a significant influence on the relational health and quality of in-law relationships.

In the Orthodox Christian families, where one or both spouses’ families attend ethnic churches, the migration of their children/children-in-law to the church that is affiliated with a different ethnicity, even it is in the same religion, is also considered unacceptable. The meaning of ethnic church and the qualities associated with it significantly effects the quality of the relationship between the young family and the family or families of their parents/parents-in-law:

I finally said [to my in-laws], “This isn’t going to work for me.” I need that community.

“I’m going to [another church]; I’m taking the kids, and I’m going there.” “I choose to

raise them in your faith, but this is where… “We’re doing this for our family,” “God

gave us these children, and it’s our responsibility to raise them; you made your

decisions, and we’re making our.” “You need to respect it.” I really held to that, “You

have to respect it, and if you don’t, if every time we come over you’re going to keep

broaching us like this, then we’re not going to come over, make your choice.” Honestly,

that was rare decision that I pushed them. It was a rare time that I was part of the

confrontation that normally took place between them and [my husband]. (Helen,

Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

174

As I stated earlier, the in-law love triangle may be a convenient communication pattern when in-laws have disagreement. However, according to my participants, there are at least two major themes when tensions between in-laws differ from this communication pattern. One theme is the change of family church. This shows the significance of this topic and meanings associated with it in the discursive opposition of preserving old family culture – developing new family culture. Helen’s spouse also later refers to this event and explains his parent’s reaction from the position of differences in ethnic affiliation of the churches:

I think if we were to stop going to church it would be a, I think it would, I don’t think

[my father] would be happy about it. And I don’t think, how do you say it, I don’t think

they’re, how do you say it (laughs), this is funny. I shouldn’t tell you this. We went to the

Russians. We went to the Russians, which was an equivalent of us stopping going to

church. . .cause we went to the OCA parish, we went to the Russians. I don’t think he’s

happy about that. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern

decent)

In some Orthodox families, ethnic and religious identities are closely tied, especially when the person belongs to a family where one or both parents are Orthodox immigrants. The following example demonstrates that the choice to leave one of the spouses’ family church was a significant sacrifice of a participant’s ethnic identity for the sake of the well-being of his newly developing family. It was also a significant point in the development of their spousal identities, which are always associated with positive relational dynamics:

That’s when we left [my husband’s family church], but that was a time when [my

husband]… I think, from then I knew, because that was huge for him. He had to do what

I had to do, as far as, I’m choosing my family and what’s best for us. To me, that was a

175

huge point in the understanding that he really would choose us. He really would choose

me, and there would be times when he would make his family unhappy for the better of

our family. Now, when there’s the conflict over Thanksgiving [and the issue of who gets

to go where and when], or whatever, we laugh about it together. (Helen, Orthodox

convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

Even outside of ethnic Orthodox communities, Orthodox Christian families often expected that their religious traditions would be carried on by their children and their newly developing families: “People who were in OCA parishes, I think they probably always secretly wished that their children would marry somebody in the faith, or would at least be able to explain their faith well enough to have their significant others or their husbands or wives want to come into the faith.” (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent)

As Eva observes, there is a tendency for immigrant groups whose families express strong desire to preserve cultural traditions of their culture of origins to try and marry their children within their religion or ethnicity. Comparing the previous and the following examples shows how these family expectations can be communicated directly to the children in a very demanding form:

I think that heavy influence on marrying in the faith, it was almost like an all or none deal

for us [in our family]. You either find someone Orthodox to marry, or you find someone

who’s not Orthodox, but you don’t leave your faith to follow theirs. It was pretty harshly

said to us, very harshly said to us. In fact, I’m going to be very candid: “If you leave the

Orthodox faith I will consider you like a Jew does when Jews leave the faith, and

consider you dead and have a funeral service for you. . . (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd

generation American of Eastern European decent)

176

Family expectations is another meaning that influences the quality of spousal and in-law relationships. The ways these expectations are communicated and whether they are met or not define the quality of both relationships.

In fact, there was a discussion about a month before we were married from his uncle who

was the priest, saying, “We agreed to this whole thing because then we knew that you

would convert, and you would be a part of it, and you would raise the kids.” At that

point, I was like, “Listen, this is ripping my heart out, and I made this decision based on

my heart, and not on making [your family] happy.” “I would hope that you would respect

that; I would hope you would be glad that I’m not doing this in name only.” “I feel that

maybe in my heart I will get there some day, but I’m not there now.” “I will be a part of

the family; I will support [my husband], but I am not ready to make that decision.” I

would say that’s how the families looked about a year before we got married. We were

engaged for two years; it’s not like we were about t divorce or something after we got

married, but it was definitely not a pleasant time in [my relationship with my husband].

(Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

These expectations may indirectly affect the qualities of spousal relationships and directly affect the qualities of in-law relationships. Helen notes that the pressure from her Middle

Eastern Orthodox in-laws that she experienced in the beginning of her marriage started the distance and alienation in her relationship with her in-laws. This distance and alienation that she was experiencing in her relationship with her in-laws to a certain degree created tensions in her spousal relationship.

The discourse of sacrifice, which has Christian origins, is a common way to describe qualities of spousal and in-law relationships and some of its meanings become a part of the

177 discourse of developing new family culture. In the story Helen and her spouse shared with me, sacrifice on one side of the in-law relationship was directly related to the recognition or non- recognition of made sacrifice on the other side of the relationship. The meanings of recognition/non-recognition of sacrifices in-laws make for the sake of well being of their families tremendously effects the perception of quality of in-law relationships. In the families of

Orthodox Christians the discourse of sacrifice is often associated with one spouse’s conversion into the faith of another spouse. In Helen’s story, the fact that her Orthodox in-laws did not recognize the depth of her sacrifice when she took the faith of their family has created for Helen an ongoing resentment of her in-laws:

When I converted, they did not know. They were not there. I did not want them a part of

it. In fact, his priest had said, “You should invite your parents and Georges parents.” I

said, “No, my parents are being supportive, but this is hard for them, and I will not make

this harder.” It’s too hard for them, and I won’t do that.” I said, “[My husband’s]

parents, frankly, don’t deserve it, and I don’t want them to ever think it was because of

them.” “It would be distracting to me; I want this to be a spiritual day.” That would have

been a source of anger that I don’t need, so we didn’t have them there. . .Sometimes

there’s a conflict between family events and sometimes we’ll go to my parents and

sometimes theirs for holidays or whatever. I really struggle when they get upset, because

I’m like, “You got the biggest thing,” because that is what my parents would have really

wanted. “You don’t get it; you don’t even appreciate [my conversion].” That honestly

ripped my heart out. It changed my whole world. I’m really glad for it now, but going

through it was very hard. I feel like I gave them the biggest part of me, and they don’t

see that. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

178

When an in-law recognized sacrifices that a daughter or son in-law made, the relational quality changed. The following example demonstrates that the relationship between a mother-in- law and her daughter-in-law significantly improved when the mother-in-law recognized her daughter’s-in-law conversion into the Orthodox faith: “I came to her after the ceremony, gave her a hug, and thanked her for being such a good wife to my son. . . She was pleased. I think it was important that I do that. It is important to love your daughter-in-law so they are good to your son” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant). This example also demonstrates how relational expectations form the standards of a “good” daughter-in-law. These expectations are formed through the meanings connected to the idea of a good wife who follows, or obeys, her husband following the traditions of Christianity. This particular set of meanings associated with gender and gender roles has tremendous impact on the quality of in-law relationships. Some other meanings associated with this discourse are discussed in a few pages.

The Christian discourse of sacrifice is also associated with one or another spouse’s agreement to rear children in one or another faith. This kind of sacrifice in Orthodox Christian families is also a marker of a “good” in-law:

[My brother-in-law] pursued stuff on his own to understand the faith. I think he knew

how important it was to my sister, and based on what I had told you about, you know,

the fact that she wasn’t going to leave her faith to embrace the Methodist faith, he

wanted to understand it. And then from what I gathered from their discussions about the

raising of their children, they kind of agreed on the fact that they would be brought up in

the Orthodox Church. So that, from what I was told and believe to be true, was talked

about and agreed upon. And so again, I think he read and wanted to learn and explore

179

and understand. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European

decent)

In the world of some Orthodox Christians the choice is made in favor of the Orthodox faith when a new family is conceived. Orthodoxy is perceived as more conservative and traditional than other Christian denominations, which for some is a marker of a good environment for children’s development. In fact, the discourse of the quality of children’s religious future that entails the quality of their education, up-bringing, and care associated with the choice of religion, is another “heated” topic in in-law relationships. According to the stories shared by my participants, it is easy for in-laws to enter an open conflict when their children’s/grandchildren’s religious education and up-bringing is at stake.

We had made the agreement that we would raise our kids Orthodox. I think so of it was

[my husband] really wanted to keep his tradition, but I think why I agreed to it was

because I saw how conservative and traditional it was. I thought, “You could never go

wrong in that way.” The deeper it was the better that would be for my kids; when I think

back, is why I agreed to that. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in

the past)

In the minds of the Orthodox Christians, conversion of their non-Orthodox spouses into their faith is also associated with the evolution of a spouse’s spirituality, which is a precursor for positive development of spousal relationships. The meaning of spiritual evolution is related to one of the discourses associated with Orthodoxy as the right and only true Christianity:

So I think over time it’s been an evolution for her, you know, so there’s things that she,

that like when I was, when we first got married or whatever, I was in high school or

college, things that she thought were great now she kind of looks back at it and . . . you

180

know, some things might be trite, but then there’s other things that she just has more of a

fullness. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern decent)

In the Orthodox Christian families, it is a common belief that becoming of one faith for spouses means positive growth of their relationships. This meaning is referred to the discourse of unity that also has roots in Christian culture. My participants commonly agree that it is better for spouses to profess one faith for the sake of well being of their own family. It becomes especially important when spouses have children because religion in the world of Orthodox Christians is also viewed as a system of instructions on how to care for, educate, and bring up children. The disagreements that may arise on the basis of different understandings of customs and traditions associated with rearing of children is just another barrier for peace and harmony in family life, according to my participants. The following example speaks directly to this idea. When asked about the quality of her unmarried and childless relationship with her partner who is professing a different faith, Eva describes how complicated her relationship would be if she and her partner had children:

Not having children with [my partner], and having this sort of more of a friendship

relationship really eases that tension between our differences in religion. It forces, it’s a

way to stay connected and have somebody in your life, but not with all the other shit,

excuse me, that comes along with those choices. I think, as I reflect back now at 53, I

don’t think I could have told you that at 42. But I can tell you that at 53. I have that in my

head now. And probably with my sister’s divorce I have it more in my head. That

religious part is a very strong part of marriage. It’s gonna come up later, right, [when you

have obligations, mutual commitments]. That’s not the reason my sister’s divorced, I

don’t believe that, but the fact that my brother-in-all didn’t fully ever embrace

181

Orthodoxy, whether it means that he became a practicing Orthodox I think certainly was

a piece of it. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European

decent)

The discourse of unity about family and qualities of family relationships is directly connected to the understanding of church as a unity between the Church and God and understanding of family as a church. Church means it is a part of a family, a part of who one is.

Leaving church means leaving the family, turning one’s back on the family:

My mother’s side, her sister, she has three siblings, and her one sister who lives right

across that field, also goes to that church, and her children. So, it was a very family-

oriented thing...Switching churches was extremely difficult for my family. My family

experienced a lot of flack from the King side because we left that church. You know, it’s

like turning your back on them. Well, I mean, we’d gone there, my parents had gone

there for 30 years and left. And the minister at the church in (unknown word) was

fantastic. And you know, I know it caused hard feelings. Now, I think everyone’s over

that now, but for a while I feel like my parents were kind of . . . which I didn’t get at the

time, because I was in college . . . but I think there was some, I don’t want to say

shunning, but I’m sure they were out of the loop on some things. (Irene, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

When asked about how religious differences between family members are played out in everyday life of Orthodox Christian families, they often refer to the meaning of broken family ties, which is opposed to the meaning of unity. “Being under one roof as a family” means “going to the same church.” When spouses leave their family church, it signifies both growing unity between spouses and growing distance between in-laws:

182

Religion really did play some kind of role in [our relationships with our parents on both

sides]. There’s tension without there being tension, if that makes any sense. They’re still

very loving to us. We go to family events, and we all get along great, but I feel an

underlining tension. I think so, because everybody goes to the same church from my

family. Besides us. . . For us, it was a great moment is our relationship. We made this

step together which is huge for us. (Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the

past)

On the other hand, when one or another spouse decide to remain in the faith of their parents, it is often perceived as a factor that leads to broken family ties between spouses and is viewed as a precursor of negative tendencies in the relational health and quality of spousal relationship. Thus, spousal religious preferences can be both points of connection and disconnection in all of the relationships that constitute the in-law love triangle. If a spouse stays with the faith of their parents, it may be a factor that stretches their spousal relationship. If the spouse prefers the faith of her partner, it may distant them from their parents and get closer to their parents-in-law. If both spouses leave the faith of their families of origins for a new one, it may result in distancing of both parent – child and in-law relationships:

If the person has made a decision to be of like faith with you, like if they converted so to

speak, I think that you stand a decent chance, but if they’re of a different faith and their

family is of a different faith, I think it’s, you know, that’s just going to be a source of

tension like all your life. I mean, if it’s important to you, then it’s got to be, you know? I

mean, if I was Orthodox and [my husband] wasn’t it would be a disaster. I mean and the

same way the other way. I don’t know how people do it, I don’t know how you could do

that. You know, to say the single most important thing to me is this, and for you it’s

183

different, you know, I think that would just be [a nightmare for marriage]. (Liz, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

At the same time, one or another spouse’s decision to convert into one’s or another’s faith can be defined as a positive dynamic in the evolution of spousal relationships. It is important to note that the conversion has to be done voluntarily for the positive dynamics of spousal relationships:

That was when I started to feel it. That’s when we made the decision to raise the children

Orthodox, and when I felt like I would some day convert. At that point, it wasn’t in my

heart... In the end, my cousin, who was the priest helping us when the Catholic and

things, pulled me aside and just said, “I think you need to take a step back; I don’t see

this in your heart, and I think you need to do this because of the right reason, and if you

don’t, you will resent [your husband] and that will destroy your marriage.” That was the

best advice he ever gave, because I think back and think, “Oh my gosh, it would have.” I

know I would have because he let me come to it on my own, and loved me through that.

And I love him more for that. The joy I felt when I did convert on my own time was

much better. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

Some of the participants, who are Orthodox parents/parents-in-law, reported that in the families of their children/children-in-law sometimes the Orthodox traditions may be kept through the upbringing of the next generation of grandchildren. If a son- or a daughter-in-law of the

Orthodox parents/parents-in-law chose to do so, it significantly improves the in-law relationship.

The son- or the daughter-in-law acquired a new status of a good in-law. The status of a good in- law carries special meaning for the relational quality and health of spousal relationships. Many of the participants reported that it was important for them to have good relationships with their

184 parents and that they want to please them. The pleasing of one’s own parents includes having a good spouse in the eyes of one’s own parents. When it does not happen, it leads to internal personal tensions and relational hardships:

It makes it a lot easier if you know you have the support of both parents. It makes it a lot

easier in anything you do if you know that parental support is there. And that parental . . .

not affirmation, but that love and affection and acknowledgment that you’re doing things

right. I have always . . . if I have a fault, yeah I have lot of faults, but it’s, I have always

wanted to please. I want to please my parents. I want to please my brother. I need their

approval and I’ve always wanted that, and if you don’t have that, which I didn’t have for

a while, it’s very hard, very hard [on me and how I am with my family sometimes].

(Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

In other Orthodox Christian families, it is expected that the new in-law converts into the

Orthodox faith. Nevertheless, there is always more pressure on non-Orthodox daughters-in-law than on the non-Orthodox sons-in-law. It is a result of the traditional thinking associated with the discourse of women being obedient to their husbands21.

Overall, the examples introduced above have demonstrated that the in-law identity development is accompanied by the development of the spousal identity development. This development represents gradual dissolution of the in-law love triangle when spouses develop their own relational space without involvement of the third party – their parents. At the same time, the spouses find it important for the sake of their own spousal relationship to have good, close relationships with their own parents. Establishing or reestabilishing closeness with one’s own parents after the dissolution of the in-law love triangle includes establishing good

21 More discussion of the perception of gender and gender roles in the families of the Orthodox Christians are provided in a separate section of this chapter.

185 relationships between one’s own parents and their spouses. That good relationship means at least positive percpetion of both parties of the in-law relationship:

I try really hard not to talk about things between [my husband] and I. I don’t like

discussing our relationship with [my in-laws] just because that’s gone badly in the past. I

used to...If I complained about [my husband] they tend to complain more and make me

more upset. . .We’ve had just kind of a good working relationship that we’re all sort of

happy with for a while. We haven’t tried to make any forward steps. But, when we first

married, oh just any little thing that bugs you when you’re first married and you can’t

believe this other person does this. You know, if I went down there and complained about

it, it turns out it would have annoyed them too or something, when he lived there. And so

then they’d take my side, so to speak and I’d go up ten times angrier than I went down.

So, I just learned really fast that I was going to have to present a “[My husband] and I are

good,” you know, face to them. I tend to be on the defensive a lot of the times with my

relationship with [my husband] to both sets of parents. Just because especially with

school and stuff, I feel like all of them sometimes feel like this is all [his] idea and I’m

just getting drugged along, you know, or something like that. (Liz, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

In the previous passage, the participant also talked about how her decision to become defensive of her spousal relationship in front of her parents also constrained the relationship between her parents and her spouse. The gradual dissolution of the in-law love triangle may improve the quality of the spousal relationship but put more distance between the in-laws, which may be undesirable for the child/spouse. This dialectical desire to have both independence from parents and a positive relationship with the spouse and at the same time maintain closeness with

186 one’s own parents signified the dialectical tension of integration – privacy that guided both spousal and in-law relationships simultaneously. The communication strategies that the participants employed to manage the dialectical tension of integration – privacy signify another dialectical tension that is openness – closedness. What all of the above examples demonstrate is that the in-laws/spouses experience a constant tension of being close yet being independent with their parents/parents-in-law. The decisions they make to pay attention to one or the other dialectic significantly impacts the quality of in-law relationships as well as spousal relationship.

Therefore, the quality of both in-law and spousal relationships become products of both dialectical tensions of integration – privacy and openness – closedness. In their stories, the participants implied that they wanted to overcome this dialectical tension expressed in such remarks as: “I wish everyone could just live their little happy lives and have good time when are together” (Irene, Orthodox converts, American, Protestant in the past). A similar comment was made by another participant: “We do not discuss certain things. Its like there is tension without a tension. . . When we don’t talk about what we do and what our kids do and they don’t ask, its like you are happy and we are happy” (Ann, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past).

Finally, my participants saw the importance in comparing and connecting spousal and in- law relationship qualities and argued that quality of spousal relationship always defined the qualities of in-law relationships:

My sister loved [her husband/my brother-in-law], so we did too, and he became a part of

the family, I mean really. You know, he, it wasn’t an issue that he wasn’t in agreement

that the kids would become Orthodox and grow up in the faith so it wasn’t like we were

tooth and nail fighting with him, that he wanted to keep his kids as Methodist or

anything. So, I don’t think we had, like, a road barrier there. And again, nice guy, he

187

loved my sister, so we loved him. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of

Eastern European decent)

The examples and my interpretive analysis of them provided in this section demonstrate several important qualities of in-law relationships. First, they demonstrate that the evolution of in-law identity is accompanied by the evolution of spousal identity and vice versa. The evolution of both of these identities happened through the development of spousal and in-law relationships.

In this section, I traced this evolution through the prism of discursive opposition preserving old family culture – developing new family culture prevalent in stories about in-law relationships shared with me by my participants. This discursive opposition in the context of Orthodox

Christian families is mainly affected by two opposing discourses of larger cultures, two discursive systems, in which these relationships are situated. First, it is the discursive system of the popular culture, which advances certain understanding of relational quality and relational health of spouses and in-laws. The second system is constituted by discourses of American

Christianity, in general, and American Orthodox Christianity, in particular. These two discursive systems form major dialectical tensions that are properties of this particular context. These contextual dialectical tensions create challenges in the simultaneous development of spousal and in-law identities and relationships. Particular meanings outlined in this section, meanings that belong to both discursive systems, guide the participants in their creation and assessment of their simultaneous spousal and in-law relationships. Below, I provide the list of dialectical tensions in which my participants live their relationships within the in-law love triangle:

• independent, avoiding, disrespectful children/children-in-law – loving, connecting, pleasing, respectful children/children-in-law;

• controlling, invasive parent/parents-in-law – loving, supporting parents-in-law;

188

• demanding in-laws/spouses/parents – patient in-laws/spouse/parents;

• sacrificing, obedient spouses/in-laws/parents – egocentric, resistant spouses/in- laws/parents;

• family unifying in-laws/spouses/parents – family separating in-laws/spouses/parents;

• pleasing spouses – pleasing children.

The framework that outlines my approach to in-law relationships in these families focuses attention on relationships as cultural products with the meaning residing in the discourses that constitute those cultures as they enter the domain of personal relationships and dictate their qualities. I argue that challenges with which the in-laws deal throughout the course of their relationships are conditioned by the incommensurable meanings about the quality of in- law relationships. These meanings also enter the domain of spousal relationships because spouses are connected, or want to be connected, to their parents. Therefore, the relational quality spouses have with their own parents affect the qualities of their relationship with each other.

These meanings are larger than the relational contexts in which the in-law find themselves; they are parts of two incommensurable discourses of two broader cultures – contemporary popular culture and Christianity.

While trying to simultaneously manage their closely intertwined spousal and in-law relationships in and out of the in-law love triangle they find themselves in another dialectical tension represented by discursive opposition of integration – privacy which includes another discursive opposition of openness – closedness. In the next section, I will be introducing sets of meanings that constitute these discursive oppositions.

189

Management of Discursive Oppositions

Integration – Privacy and Openness – Closedness In and Out of In-law Love Triangle

The dialectical tension of integration – privacy is managed by communication strategies that control the exposure of Orthodox and non-Orthodox in-laws to each other through careful selection of places for interaction and the topics for discussion. The participants reported that they want to maintain a certain degree of openness with their parents, but at the same time manage it so that it does not influence the quality of openness and trust in their spousal relationships. To maintain positive relationships with both parents and spouses by maintaining the same degree of openness is impossible. Therefore, the participants find themselves in the process of constant balance between disclosing and reserving information about one or another family. This balancing process signifies the presence of an openness – closedness dialectical tension. Both dialectical tensions are products of two colliding broader cultures – pop culture and

Orthodox Christian culture.

These dialectical tensions are present in both spousal and in-law relationships and mutually effect both sets of relationships. This section introduces the opposition of two discourses – staged (fake) in-law relationship and real (natural) in-law relationships – by providing evidence for the presence of both dialectical tensions in in-law and spousal relationships and how the interconnection influences relational quality. By staged (fake) in-law relationships I mean the relationships in which the in-laws do not act like themselves and pretend to be someone else. For example, they pretend that the Orthodox traditions are not all that important for them; they choose not to disclose their real selves to the in-laws and remain cordial22. By real (natural) in-law relationships I mean relationships in which participants are being themselves and feel comfortable exposing, for example, their Orthodox religions identity.

22 I specifically discuss the meanings of cordial in-law relationships in one of the subsections.

190

Most of the participants reported that the in-law relationships where they can be open about their religious identity were ideal.

This discursive opposition is generated through participants’ desire to overcome the in- law love triangle. Leaving the in-law love triangle means that spouses want to have their own space where they can develop the culture of their own family. At the same time, a desired ideal in-law relationship is the one in which in-laws are included in the extended family circle. The dissolution of the in-law love triangle provides that desired quality of in-law relationships in which the in-laws communicate directly and can influence the quality of their relationships. The directness of communication between the in-laws is perceived as a positive relational dynamic in in-law relationships. There are several sets of meanings that are attached to one or another discourse of the opposition. Further, I introduce them together with the examples in the contexts of which these meanings arise.

The next two sections include examples that represent meanings that constitute the discursive opposition of staged (fake) – real (natural) in-law relationships. It was hard to separate meanings that belonged to one or another discourse because the meanings of both discourses are intertwined: when participants were asked to describe the qualities of their current in-law relationships, which signify the meanings that belong to the discourse of staged (fake) in- law relationships, they often simultaneously portrayed meanings of ideal in-law relationships, which belong to the discourse of real (natural) in-law relationships. The meanings of the opposition are tightly intertwined.

The Discourse of Real (Natural) In-law Relationships

The meanings that constitute this discourse are associated with positive dynamics of in- law relationships. The meanings that make up this discourse are related to the notion of in-laws

191 being close and open in their relationships. This kind of in-law relationship is often portrayed as an ideal in-law relationship. However, in some cases under some circumstances this kind of relationships can be perceived as negative. It is when the in-laws, specifically younger couples, desire privacy and space away from their parents/parents-in-law to develop their own family identity and family culture.

The meaning of being in, being accepted into the family circle often is among the most desired states of in-law relationships and is a part of the discourse of real (natural) in-law relationship. This relational quality assumes direct relationship with the in-laws without the mediator – their child/spouse. Spending time together with their in-laws and being directly invited to the intimate family gatherings is how some in-laws assess their in-law relationships as positive ones: “[I’ve always had good relationships with them. They are nice, loving people.] I knew I was in because of being invited to birthday parties, and family events that were intimate.

They would come to me and tell me personally, not to my wife” (Ed, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant Christian in the past).

Another meaning associated with the relational quality and health of in-law relationships that is also a part of the real (natural) in-law relationship is the meaning of openness in communication between the in-laws which is connected to the meaning of natural, real in-law relationships:

I like family time together. I like having a lot of time to spend with her family, and my

family. Just a comfortableness where you can feel like you can be yourself and not that

you don’t have to try to… You don’t have to hide subjects, or try not to talk about things;

not feel uncomfortable without saying anything. That you can feel like you can be

192

completely accepted and listened to...I do not have that right now because of our

conversion into our faith. (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Most of the participants saw that the way their in-law relationship could become better if the in-laws were more accepting and open to each other. They all saw the value of good in-law relationships for the health of family and the comfort of children growing in the family. It is also important for good in-law relationships to develop a sense of trust and being natural and sincere with each other. The in-laws also should be respectful of social and family status of each other through mutual respect, recognition of achievements, and sharing of children/grandchildren:

[In-laws] can provide a lot of love, comfort, help. Not financially, but just help in raising

. . . they should be involved raising their grandchildren, in-laws can be involved in the

lives of their children and their children’s children to the point that they’re positive role

models, positive influences. There can be a lot of good come out of it. Communication-

wise [ideal in-law relationships] would just be open. You wouldn’t be afraid to say

something to, oh you can’t say this and you can’t say that. Just openness, that you

shouldn’t be afraid to express an opinion or an idea or a thought because someone else

may disagree with it. You shouldn’t be afraid of that. You should be able to do that. Or,

we’re adults. I’m not a teenager where my opinion doesn’t matter. This is my home.

These are my children and I’m gonna have my own ideas of what I think is right or

should be done. And you can have an impact or some influence on that but you don’t

have to. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European

descent)

The following example introduced the meaning of artificial in-law relationships that belongs to the discourse of staged (fake) in-law relationships discussed in more detailed in the

193 next section. In this case, the participants reported, the in-laws would always set the stage, wear masks, and would not being themselves. When asked about ideal relationships, the participants often referred to the desire to be themselves with their in-laws and to be accepted by their in-laws for who they are:

I don’t think there is any kind of expectation other than family get-togethers...I think it

gets back to a relationship with people, but if your in-laws come in, you want to get the

house clean. You want everything to be perfect, and set the stage. If you have a real,

good relationship with someone, you really don’t care about certain things. (Ed,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The discourse of being yourself around your in-laws that marks positive in-law relationships has special meaning in the minds of the Orthodox converts when they talk about their non-Orthodox in-laws. Most of them note that one of the challenges they acquired after converting to a different from their extended families faith is to find a space where they could explain themselves, their reasons for conversion and their new traditions of worshipping:

I would love to talk to my in-laws about what I believe in. Unfortunately, I do not have

that space, as you said. I would look more to how me and my dad talk about it. I try to

look at it from their perspective, and since I was Protestant, I try to approach from that

perspective in talking with my dad. Same thing if I get to that place with them, I would

first say, “Everything we do is based on our relationship with Christ and who Christ is.”

From there, you try to expound on, “Why do we pray a certain way?” “What are the

traditions?” A lot of our traditions have Jewish roots for worship. There’s a menorah on

the alter. There’s chanting, which the Jewish people do. (Ed, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

194

Orthodoxy is often perceived as “unknown”, “elitist”, “ethnic”, hence “different” or

“weird”. When both spouses convert into Orthodoxy, it complicates not only the in-law relationship but also the child–parent relationship, which intensifies the need for the converts to find a space where they could explain themselves to their families. It creates another tension when couples find themselves within opposing desires to talk about their faith with their non-

Orthodox families and to keep it private (sometimes, secretive) to avoid arguments or even open conflicts:

That’s what causes all of that tension, because I think [my parents] were nervous enough

when they thought we were going off the deep end when we started exploring the

Mennonite churches and things, and I had my little scarf on all the time, and I was

wearing skirts and dresses. I think they were nervous enough but it was still familiar

territory: I was leaving them saying me and my Bible are going over here, and saying

“me and my Bible” so it was still okay. But then suddenly when we jump into the world

of priests and incense, and tradition, and saints and Confession and the Pascha (Easter),

it’s like “They’ve just lost it!” And we can’t really explain to them, they don’t want to

hear. So, it is like still us with them, but we are different with them (Liz, Orthodox

convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Qualities of good in-law relationships are connected to the understanding of the value of family ties, which are reflected in the set of meanings of being natural, real with the in-laws. In families where family members have strong ties, the newly acquired family members become as strongly connected to their new family as their spouses. In-laws are perceived as an extension of the family member who gets married to the in-law. In-law relationship becomes an important aspect of marriage and spousal relationships and just generally speaking for the person who is

195 starting a new relationship, a new family. The participants reported that it was important for them to keep that connection as a part of a newly developing in-law identity that connected both of their family cultures:

I think you do [need in-laws] because for your true essence of family just because

somebody leaves their mother and father and clings to a husband or wife, the relationship

with the family, their parents, that won’t go away, because they’re the people that, that,

first had the string that was attached to them. So, I think somehow, yeah, there has to be

some sort of thread that connects that, whether it has to be what it was in the days of old,

where you lived two houses down from them, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” similar

story. No, but I think somehow, because to me the in-law is a part of the person that you

have hooked up with as a husband or a wife. And you have to figure out how to keep that

thread in there, as a part of the fabric. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of

Eastern European decent)

Good quality in-law relationship means that at least one party of the relationship (child- in-law in this case) have to realise that there is a lot of trust that parents in-law need to develop towards her/him when they give away their child. Like any other relationship, this relationship takes time and effort from both relational parties. It is also important to consider, as Eva suggested, that both parties accept the realities of this relationship, which is involuntary by its nature. Moreover, the participants observed that the in-law relationships can never be the same as the relationship one’s spouse has with her/his own parents:

It’s not going to be the same level of involvement or feelings that, let’s say, your husband

or your wife, their child, has with them, and it never will be, cause they’re the kid. I think

you have to, I think in some ways there’s a trust element, because obviously you’ve

196

entered into a relationship with their child, and they have to make sure that they’re okay

with that, first of all, and that they too have the responsibility to look at you and accept

you, who you are. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of eastern European

decent)

Like any other positive relationship, good quality in-law relationships require the understanding of personal boundaries, production of mutual respect, and provision of support:

I don’t believe that the role of an in-law is to guide and direct somebody else’s

relationship. You can offer opinions and offer suggestions if you’re asked. So do I feel

that my role is appropriate? Yeah, I feel that it’s, I think it’s on track because I don’t feel

like I’m overly extending myself into their daily lives... I think that when those unions go

together, my brother and my sister-in-law, my sister and my brother-in-law, that that

union then makes decisions relative to the functioning of their family, and me as the

sister-in-law, is there to support whatever decisions that the two of them have made.

Okay? Not to decide for them what they should do. And I extend that even to the mother-

in-law, to the daughter-in-law, for the mother-in-law, to the son-in-law. You shouldn’t

decide. You should be there to support. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American

of Eastern European decent)

Other meanings that constitute the discourse of real (natural) in-law relationships are meanings of being natural around the in-laws and signify the desire to include the in-laws into the family circle through performing household chores. Being natural also means asking for and accepting help from the in-laws:

I think it would just be more like the relationship I have with my own family. I think it

would just be more accepting and more natural and more come up and pitch in and help

197

and be a part of the daily life. I think that’s a problem with it too because we have this

independent family mindset that you can do everything by yourself, that you’re still

trying to present this face to these people that are really close enough to you to see past it,

and I think that creates that tension. Where if you just accepted that you needed them, I

think that would be easier. (Liz, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The same discourse includes meaning of being comfortable in asking for help which is being yourself and admitting you need help as a marker of open, close in-law relationships. This participant also notes how important it is for her to be open about asking for help when her mother-in-law comes to visit:

If my in-laws came I couldn’t get over treating them like guests. My mom could come

and I’d be like there’s three loads of laundry that need’s done, I haven’t mopped the floor

in two weeks, you know, I want a nap. You take a baby and I’m gonna go sleep, and try

to manage the rest of the house too. And my in-laws would come and I’d spend the whole

week beforehand scrubbing every corner of the house, and you know, making sure there

was nothing for them to do when they got here. Because they weren’t family to me, they

were guests. As much as I tried to think of them as family, they’re still guests...We had

them up this past weekend and I think I made some progress because I didn’t go nuts

before they got here, and they helped. They did a ton while they were here. We had this

huge work day out in the yard, and my mother-in-law mowed the lawn and I think it was

a good step forward in our relationship, because we stopped being strangers and guests,

and I was like, “Here’s what I need help with,” and they’re like “Okay!” It was the

greatest thing ever for our relationship (Liz, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in

the past)

198

Even though Liz wants to have closer relationship with her in-laws, she keeps treating them like guests, which marks the dialectical tension of integration – separation that Liz finds herself in. Also, treating in-laws like guests, i.e. cleaning the house, preparing for their visit signifies for Liz the social distance that characterizes the quality of Liz’s in-law relationships.

Social distance assumes that relational parties belong to different groups, different cultures and socialize, interact, without interfering into the matters of each other’s group (Wark & Galliher,

2007). Keeping the social distance by treating in-laws like guests is a part of the staged (fake) in- law relationship discourse.

The Discourse of Staged (Fake) In-law Relationships: Cordial In-laws and the Quality of

Spousal Relationships

Social distance is an important concept in my research, because it allows me to describe the quality of in-law relationships that are influenced by the meanings in the discourse of staged

(fake) in-law relationships. In my research, I treat families as social units with their own cultures and borders. Therefore, based on the provided examples, I conclude that the quality of in-law relationships also depended on how well the in-laws can maintain the social distance in their in- law relationships without crossing the “cultural borders” of each other’s family. The simultaneous desires to maintain in-law relationships within the social distance and desire to escape social distance marks another characteristic of the dialectical tensions integration – separation and openness – closedness. Social distance in in-law relationships becomes visible through the epithets that the in-laws attribute to the quality of their relationships. The next group of examples demonstrates how in-laws describe the social distance in their in-law relationships.

199

The major part of the discourse is the meaning of cordial in-laws. The epithet cordial also signifies the social distance between the in-laws. Cordial in-law relationships are working or guest-like relationships that for some mean positive relationships under certain circumstances.

Usually, these circumstances are related to the evolution of spousal identity and the development of their own family culture at the very beginning of their marriage. In this case cordial or working relationships is a desired quality because the social distance that they signify provide some privacy for the spouses to get accustomed to each other and to build a space where they are to develop their own family culture: “Fist, we’ve had just kind of a good working relationship that we’re all sort of happy with for a while. We haven’t tried to make any forward steps. . .”

(Liz, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past). For Liz, maintaining social distance in the in-law relationships signified better spousal relationship. Another participant desired the same quality from her in-law relationship when she was describing the ideal setting for the evolution of her spousal relationship:

You see some families who are very close. Sometimes they even live on the same

properties; in-laws and…and they seem to get along fine with that, like the [Smiths].

[Here, Ann is referring to one of the immigrant families who are a part of her religious

community]. I just can’t imagine myself being okay with that, and I don’t know if that’s

our culture where we each have such a strong desire to be an individual in our culture.

Individuality is a big thing, so I think I like having them at an arms length. I would have

to say that I feel that same way for my family too though. (Ann, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

Both of these examples demonstrated participants’ needs for personal space, in this case, the space within the borders of their own families. In her report, Ann recognized that her need of the

200 space that she marks as individuality was a meaning that was a property of American culture.

Maintenance of private distance in relationships is associated with non-invasiveness and respect of personal borders, hence a sign of positive relational dynamic. At the same time, cordial state of in-law relationships can also be perceived as a negative dynamic. The negative perception of cordial is often reported by the participants whose background is non-American. By non-

American I mean those who within their families adhere to communication standards, norms, and rules of culture that is foreign to the American one. In the minds of these participants, the maintenance of one’s family private space by establishing cordial relationships with the in-laws was considered a failure in the in-law relationship: “Nothing, you know, nothing to write home about, but at least she was cordial to me and I was cordial to her, you know, that kind of relationship, nothing special” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant). When I asked about her relationships with her American daughters-in-law, Jennifer, emphasized the lack of relational integration and openness between her and her daughter-in-law:

After that big thing that basically separated us from [our son’s family], we don’t really

talk anymore. So, we are going to see my family and I don’t know if they are going and I

don’t care. And [my husband] says: “Well, suppose we sit at the same table.” I said: “We

sit at the same table, I will be cordial, just like them, that’s all. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert,

Eastern European immigrant)

Another participant pointed out that he considered himself Eastern European through the culture of his family of origin and that cordial in-law relationship in his culture was viewed as negative.

For Matthew, cordial state of in-law relationship means absence of that relationship: “We’re cordial. I’m polite [to my in-laws], I’m not rude, I’m not antagonist, I don’t pick, you know, try to upset anything...That means I do not have a relationships with them, and at this point I don’t

201 care anymore” (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European descent).

It has been almost 20 years since Hall (1997) offered his classification of cultures, in which we find the opposition individual-centered and community-centered cultures. Several times the participants referred to the connection between the quality of in-law relationship and ethnic backgrounds of their in-laws. The examples provided above demonstrate that for some this categorization is well alive in their multicultural in-law relationships in which cordial state of in-law relationships signifies either positive of negative relational dynamic. Positive cordial in-law relationships mean that in-laws provide personal space to each other and maintain a desirable social distance. When cordial in-law relationships are perceived negatively on the basis of the assumption that this kind of relationship lacks openness and closedness, it signifies that the social distance between the in-laws is undesirable.

Moreover, ethnic background of the in-laws can be both points of connection or disconnection between the in-laws. Many examples provided in this subsection demonstrated how discourses of broader popular culture that dictated the formation of stereotypes about certain ethnic cultures got directly transferred onto the personal qualities of in-laws. For example,

Italians or Eastern Europeans were stereotypically “touchy-feely”23 cultures for some of my participants. Thus, families with those ethnic roots would automatically fall under this category and the members of those family will automatically acquire positive personal qualities. On the other hand, Germans were stereotypical perceived as reserved in their emotions, distant, and cold. Thus, families of German descent would automatically carry that ethnic feature and be rated as problematic for some:

23 Cultures in which people more openly express emotions and have different understanding of personal space and boundaries.

202

Now [my son’s new] fiancée, she is Italian descent and she makes all kind of pastries and

stuff like that... She’s an Italian gal. Very close-knit with her family, her father. And she

comes over almost once or twice a week, she’ll walk over with [my son] because they

live a stone’s throw from our house. And they’ll walk over and they’ll stay for a half

hour, 45 minutes. And then she’ll get up and then she’ll give me a big hug and kiss and

they go out. But [from the others] I’ve never gotten what you’d call, you know, other

than the holidays when you wish them a merry Christmas or you get a kiss, but never

otherwise, you know? When we would go over to [my other son’s] house, for any

birthdays, especially the children, we would go there and her father would be there. He

would never say hello to us, [my husband] and I. We would walk in, now we’re walking

in and you know how we are. We walk in and how are you, hug, kiss and all that kind of

stuff. Not him. He wouldn’t say boo unless you spoke first, because he was German.

(Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant)

The same participant also noted that the ethnic origins of her family and their immigrant status also made a difference in the quality of her in-law relationships with one of her daughters-in-law as well as her daughter’s-in-law father. She attributed the distancing and coldness of her

American in-laws towards them as the sign that their immigrant background was somehow judged and, as a result, they were not welcomed in the family of her in-laws. This is an example of how the discourses of the larger culture about immigrants as the outcasts in the dominant culture enter the domain of in-law relationships and effect the quality of it:

[My daughter’s-in-law father] looked down his nose at us. That’s what I told [my

husband]. I said “He thinks he’s so much better than you. You’ve got an accent. You

weren’t born in this country. And he doesn’t like you.” And if you would say hello then

203

he would say hello, but that would be the end of the conversation. Cordial, yes, cordial,

but that’s it. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant)

Prentice (2008) also applies the epithet cordial when she argues that in-laws prefer to have their conflicts to be mediated through their child/spouse in order to maintain their relationship cordial. Cordial in-law relationship can later lead to a friendship between the in- laws. The following example demonstrates that when cordial in-law relationships are desired in order to maintain friendship between families, relational parties choose to socialize only on topics that are culturally acceptable within the social distance between relational parties. The choice of topics with the help of which in-laws socialize is dictated by meanings associated with the standards of communication within the social distance. These standards are dictated by

American culture in which these relationships develop and redevelop. This kind of communication is described as small talks about politics, recipes, and children/grandchildren:

I think the parents were very cordial with each other and really developed a friendship

over the years. My dad and his political views mirrored very closely to {my brother’s-in-

law father’s] conservative, Republican views. So they had that common thread. And

politics is always the gathering conversation spot for people, it is. So I think that kind of

brought them together, too. Their interactions, you know, my parents grew to. I think it

was just small talk about everything from [my sister’s] mother-in-law was a great cook so

talking about recipes and kids and the grandkids I think became the centre of the topic of

conversation. Where the guys would do everything from politics to religion to the best

cigar to the best wine to. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern

European decent)

204

Social distance in in-law relationships means a space in which in-laws can maintaining their relationships without engaging into conflict. It is the involvement of the “third” parties with the “help” of whom the in-laws ”escape” talking about themselves with each other and their relationship. These “third” parties are independent from the relationship individuals the ones who do not effect the quality of the relationship such as other relatives, coworkers, children/grandchildren, friends, acquaintances, fellow church goers, politicians, celebrities, etc.

Cordial relationships signify family borders in which in-law communication, which is managed within the social space, becomes communication of the outsiders or strangers. The concepts of outsiders or strangers as communication partners who enage into interraction maintaining social distance originate in the works of Bogardus (Wark & Galliher, 2007). The same concepts were used by some of the participants who were asked to describe their in-laws.

When I asked my participants why they referred to their in-laws as outsiders or strangers they often connected it to the quality of communication they had with their in-laws and the topics they chose to discuss with them. The choices of the topics for in-laws’ get-togethers were strategies that helped some of the particpiants to manage family’s borders by including or excluding the in- laws through managing the depth and breadth of shared information.

The examples provided above also demonstrated how the norms and standards of broader cultures, in this case, American and ethnic cultures, influence the perception of the quality of in- law relationships. In cultures that are more individual-centered, cordial quality of in-law relationships was perceived as a positive dynamic. In cultures that emphasize the community- focus values this kind or in-law relationships was perceived as a negative outcome.

The development of cordial relationships between the in-laws also tells us about the dynamics within the in-law love triangle. Cordial state of in-law relationships is conditioned by

205 gradual dissolution of the in-law love triangle. As couples grow stronger in their relationship, the borders of the newly developing family become more visible. At the same time, the ties between spouses and their own parents become weaker. For the in-laws who desire some personal space, these dynamics are positive. For those who want more integration and oppennes with their in- laws, these dynamics are negative. This data does not provide any examples on whether and how cordial quality of in-law relationships impact the relational health and quality of parent – child relationship that is also a prt of the in-law love triangle. This particulal aspect of in-law relationships will be one of the foci of my future research.

The examples provided above demonstrated that the discourse of staged (fake) in-law relationships, to which the meaning of cordial in-law relationship belong, did not necessarily consist of only negative meanings. For some, staged in-law relationships can be desirable at a certain point, certain cituation, and relational condition. In the next subsection, I continue discussing the discourses that constitute the discoursive opposition of staged – real in-laws by looking at it through the lens of Orthodox Christianity.

Discoursive Opposition of Staged (Fake) – Real (Natural) In-law Relationships through the Lens

of the Church Discourse

The choice of discussion topics, which the in-laws choose for their time together has important significance for most of the participants who have non-Orthodox in-laws. The rules of cordial in-law and the social space that it signifies bans Orthodox in-laws to initiate conversations about their religion and traditions of worshiping. At the same time, the church discourse often is a part of in-law communication in the families of my participant who sometimes call their region the Bible Belt region: “I think we’re a bit of the Bible Belt, you

206 know, kind of like you have in the South. I think there is a bit of that. I mean, especially in Ohio.

Especially in the more rural communities, it’s just, it’s what you do, I mean everybody goes to church” (Liz, Orthodox converts, American, Protestant in the past).

From the stories of my participants, I have learned that there are two levels of the church discourse: the upper level is similar in quality to the “socialization” topics I have described above which entails discussing mutual friends, acquaintances they know through their churches or abstract theological revelations. The lower, or deeper, level concerns personal beliefs, values, attitudes, differences in the traditions of worshipping and understanding of the teachings of

Christ. My participants reported that when they used the church discourse in their in-law communication, they did not activate meanings that would bring up personal beliefs, attitudes, and values, and they did not talk about the differences in their understanding of Christianity.

However, the opportunity to activate those meanings in the relationships with their non-

Orthodox in-laws was important for the participants. Following example is an illustration of how in-laws chose to communicate using the upper level of the church discourse that did not touch upon personal beliefs, attitudes, and values:

After we had gone out for a while, [my wife] would bring me home for maybe

somebody’s wedding, or, I think that may have been the first time I came here, was to

go to a wedding, and we got along fine...We would talk about work, if it’s with the older

people of her, like her parents’ age, where are you working, or how’s work going, they

could be telling you about, I mean, they equate success with work, the harder you work

the better. Religion wasn’t . . . you didn’t worry about that until Sunday. If it wasn’t

Sunday you never spoke of it. And then they just still would talk about people they

207

know from church. (Matthew, Cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern

European decent)

In this abstract, the reader can observe how Matthew directly connected the quality of talk about religion to the quality of participants of this talk. This meaning is related to the discussion of the discursive opposition of stigmatized – stigmatizing Orthodox Christians, in which meanings connected to the quality of Christian denominations among non-Orthodox in- laws of my participants were connected to the meanings about the personal qualities of people who adhered certain Christian teachings. Orthodoxy for Matthew become a system of criteria according to which he assessed and navigated his in-law relationship. If the church discourse was used by his in-laws as a socialization topic, it was not a quality connection between

Matthew and his in-laws. The reader can sense the irony in Matthew’s words about his in-laws.

He also communicated the significance of religion in his life that happened on the days other than Sunday and the effects of this void that he saw in the life of his in-laws on his perception of the quality of his in-law relationships.

For my participants, the quality of conversation about religion with their in-laws was a significant marker of the quality of in-law relationship. Many of them reported the lack of depth and breadth of conversations about their religion with their non-Orthodox in-laws. The quality of conversation about religion become a point of connection or disconnection for the participants in their relationships with the non-Orthodox in-laws. Next several examples provide evidence of how important the quality of conversations about Orthodoxy was for the perceptions of the relational quality between Orthodox and non-Orthodox in-laws.

From the stories shared with me by my participants, I learned that there were various ways the Orthodox meanings entered the in-law relationships in the families of the participants

208 and their non-Orthodox in-laws. The production of meanings about Orthodoxy starts with an exposure to Orthodox church or Orthodox traditions during family gatherings that celebrate family milestones such as weddings, births, deaths, baptisms: “The exposure on both family members outside of the baptisms really was not there, I mean really they didn’t, other than the services, the liturgy, services involved with baptisms or marriage, they really had no exposure to the church outside of those events” (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern

European decent). Normally, it is during this kind of events that the participants would have opportunities to explain their faith to their non-Orthodox in-laws. However, even then, the conversations lacked the depth and insight that would had helped the Orthodox to build a connection with their in-laws by explaining their beliefs. Participants reported that their non-

Orthodox in-laws did not provide space for this conversation by silencing the topic: I guess I wish they would try to understand it more. Sometimes I wish they would ask more questions, or what to understand why, because we’ve never talked about… They’ve never asked; it’s almost like, “Just don’t talk about it.” You’re happy, and we’re happy” (Ann, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past).

The meanings that represent Orthodox beliefs, interpretations of Christianity, and traditions of worshipping are a part of the deeper level of the church discourse that is silenced because it is considered inappropriate for the kind of relationships the in-laws develop (i.e., the kind of in-law relationships that reside in the social distance between the in-laws). This silencing creates additional tensions in in-law relationships because it opens room to inaccurate interpretations of the meanings of the Orthodox faith. Silencing of the topic also means that the

Orthodox in-laws cannot get a clear picture of how their religious identity is perceived by their non-Orthodox in-laws. Silencing pushes the in-laws only further from each other. It is especially

209 noticeable in the families where one or both spouses converted into the Orthodox faith. It is only in occasional short comments that the in-laws abruptly learn about each other’s perceptions of the Orthodoxy. These occasional small talks about the faith normally look like small squabbles:

I took [my mom] shopping Tuesday and she said “Why do you have all those pictures in

the house? You shouldn’t worship those pictures.” I said “Mom, they’re not, I don’t

worship those pictures.” I said “We’re picture kissers, but we don’t worship them.”

They’re not idols, but see, that was, I remember, that’s part of that heretic revolution that

took place in the Orthodox church, where they started saying that idols were bad, and

icons were bad, because they were idols. . . So, she remembers that and judges based on

that. (Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Some of the participants also shared with me that often it was challenging for them to explain their Orthodox faith to the non-Orthodox in-laws. Thus, sometimes they wished they could escape the conversation about their faith in order to avoid creating even more confusion in the understanding of the faith. They feared this confusion because it would complicate their in- law relationships even more:

Sometime, my brother-in-law would make a comment here and there. . . but never

directly about me and [my husband]. . . he would bring up a thing about fasting for

example and would refer to Roman Catholics saying that fasting is wrong and have no

meaning in today’s life. We get upset. . . but we don’t say anything. Sometimes, I feel I

am not ready to talk about my faith because I am still learning about it myself. (Ann,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

It is not only between the in-laws who practice different types of Christianity that the deeper levels is the church discourse are silenced in their communication. The same happens

210 with the non-Orthodox parents and their converted children like the example below demonstrates:

[My husband and I] talked about it all the time, incessantly, when we first converted,

every time we got together it was a discussion about how this is this and “Mom, I can’t

believe you don’t believe in the ever virginity of Mary. Let’s just have an hours long

conversation about this.” And they would talk about it. . . kinda. . . And then there was a

couple years of dead silence about everything, you know, like we’re all just gonna be

quiet because we’re just gonna make each other mad if we talk about this. This was very

hurting to me that I could not talk about it with my own family. (Liz, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

Another participant also reported that it was hard for him to talk about his new faith with his own father because of the cultural stigmatisation of his new faith. However, his father allowed him the space to talk about his new religious identity which created a positive relational dynamic between them. The participant’s identity disclosure before his father was a positive experience that helped him to build even closer ties with his father:

At some point during that time, I decided to have a meeting with my dad. At the point

that we really thought that this was really the direction we think we should be heading; I

need to sit down and let my dad know. I remember calling him and telling him that I

need to talk to him. Going over there, I was nervous...That meeting went well. I let him

know that this is the way we’re moving right now. He was okay with that. He said,

“You know I’m always going to support you in whatever you do,” so it was a very

encouraging meeting, and very supporting. (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant

in the past)

211

Later, Ed also shared that the disclosure of his religious identity to his father made it is easier for his wife to reveal her religious identity to his parents/her in-laws. Together, his wife and him, they became more comfortable in re-exposing their religious identity to his parents/her in-laws.

However, his wife has a different experience with her own parents which affected Ed’s in-law relationship with them. It is during her attempt to disclose her newly acquired religious identity to her parents that certain expectations for the relationship between her own family and her parents’ family were communicated. That is that the conversations about their newly acquired religious identity will be silenced in this relationship in order not to disturb the ordinaries of their family life and communication:

I talked to my dad, and [my wife] talked to her parents. She’s only talked to her parents

about this twice. They were very uncomfortable when she met with them and let them

know where we would be going to church. They didn’t really know what that was. I

think it was the second time that she started trying to talk about the church and what she

believes about it. I think her mom said something that just let [my wife] know that… It

made her feel like she didn’t think she could share everything here; this is going to be a

confrontation instead. They were rejecting things. [My wife’s] bringing something up

and if her mom would say, “As long they’re filled with the Holy Spirit and the

understanding at this other church.” Understanding that there’s going to be differences,

and how that is perceived and no chance to talk about it. (Ed, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

The disclosure of newly acquired identity to parents may also result a long lasting excommunication of the Orthodox converts from their non-Orthodox families. Changing of religion is associated with betrayal of family values and traditions. It is associated with the

212 demonstration of neglect of and disagreement with the fundamentals of family culture. At the same time, the participants share similar feelings of betrayal of them by their parents when the parents do not care about learning about this newly acquired identity:

My dad didn’t speak to me for eight months. When we left the church . . .Because we left

the church he was going to, so in essence what we were saying is “You’re going to the

wrong church and we’re going somewhere else that’s better, because yours is wrong. . .

and even now, 7 years later, they know very little because they don’t want to care about.

They don’t want to talk about it. What few things I’ve tried to say, they’ll change the

subject. (Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The excommunication happens not only in the families of the Orthodox converts and their non-Orthodox parents/parents-in-law, but also in the families of the cradle Orthodox when children follow their non-Orthodox spouses and leave Orthodoxy for another faith. In the example provided bellow, Alex, who converted into the faith because of his Orthodox wife, remarked that they as a couple were “dead” to her parents until they made the decision to get married in the Orthodox faith. He compares the intensity of his experience to the experience of his brother-in-law, who was excommunicated by his cradle Orthodox parents when he announced he was following his Catholic wife and was becoming Roman Catholic:

I understood earlier in my life how pivotal it was [for us and for my in-laws], these types

of decisions, in terms of living dead to [my in-laws], and then we made a decision to get

married, and then we were alive to them. Ironically, I will give a little bit of a tangent.

One of the worst nights I ever had in [my in-laws’] house is when my brother-in-law said

that he was leaving Orthodoxy to become Roman Catholic for his marriage. It was the

only time I’ve ever heard raised voices in that house, ever. They basically

213

excommunicated him from the family for a period of years because of his decision to

leave Orthodoxy. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious background)

Silencing in situations like the one describe by Alex become a strategy that is used not only to manage the relationships within the in-law love triangle but also is a way to communicate family expectations regarding newly developing family culture. For many Orthodox converts, silencing of their newly acquired Orthodox identity by their parents/parents-in-law triggers the dialectical tension of openness – closedness related to disclosure yet hiding of their new religious identity. Usually, the Orthodox converts take the initiative to disclose their conversion to the parents/parents-in-law. However, it is after this initial disclosure that the practice of silencing becomes prominent in the in-law relationships. In the families of the Orthodox converts, the silencing of the topic about Orthodoxy also stimulates the movements of the relational dynamics of the entire in-law love triangle in which the child/parent relationship triggers changes in spousal and/or in-law relationships. Depending on how the newly acquired Orthodox identity is taken by the parents, the spousal and/or in-law relationships either improve and become even more distant and constrained.

Silencing makes relationships between children and their parents straining which in its turn has a significant affect on the structure of the in-law love triangle. Morr Serewicz (2006) argues that during in-law conflicts the triangle becomes a communication pattern between the in- laws. However, she does not specify nuances of relational fluctuations that are affected by such relational circumstances as the topics in in-law communication. Her description of the in-law love triangle paints an equilateral triangle (See Figure 4.1). As it is showed in Figure 4.2, I extend Morr Serewicz’s model by adding meaning to the shape of the triangle in which its sides represent distance between relational parties and its angles – the level of personal influence these

214 relational parties have on the relationships within the triangle. The further the distance between children and their parents, the closer the spouses, the further need the parents-in-law to reach out for their children-in-law (See Figure 4.2)

The examples in this section have demonstrated that no matter what topics are on the table when in-laws communicate, the in-law love triangle never completely dissolves despite the occasional desires of all three of its parties for its dissolution. The triangle is well alive when it comes to the negotiation of family expectations regarding in-law’s religious identities. It is considered a taboo topic and in case some expectations about in-law’s religious preferences are needed to be communicated, it is done through the mediator – the child/spouse. The in-laws silence this topic in their communication is order to maintain their relationship within the social space that dictates non-interferences into the personal matters of the individuals neither of their own families.

The in-law love triangle never dissolves, but, rather, under the influence of the topics in in-law communication, it represents a moving structure in which the length of its sides represents the distance between the relational parties. Thus, depending on the quality of all three of the relationships at a particular point of time, the triangle will change its structure by shifting the lengths of its sides and the degree of its angles that represent the quality of connection between two relationships (two sides) provided by one of the triangular relational parties .The variations of the degree of its angles and length of its sides represent different distance between relational parties of the triangle and their personal influence on the relational quality and health of triangle’s relationships. As I show in Figure 4.2, when spouses are close, the distance between them and the parents/parents-in-law enlarges and level of their influence of the relational health and quality of triangle’s relationships increase. Silencing of the newly acquired religion identify

215 of children creates larger distance in parent – child relationship of the triangle. It is often reported by the participants that the children-in-law become the centre of conflict and aggression coming from spouse’s parents/parents-in-law.

In the next figure (See Figure 4.3), I demonstrate how the closeness of child with her/his parents increases parents’/parents-in-law’s influence on the relational health and quality of the triangle’s relationships and decreases the power of child’s-in-law/spouse’ voice in the triangle. It also shows that in such situations, the child-in-law/spouse has a larger distance to overcome to reach out for her/his in-laws:

I do [think in-law relationships are important for marital health] because even though I’m an adult and married and moved away and my mom is two hours and fifteen minutes away, it is really important to me that I please her, you know, and that she’s happy with me and she’s satisfied, and so if [my husband] doesn’t have a good relationship with her, then that’s hard on me, you know, and I’ll take it out on him, you know. (Liz, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past)

216

It is more often that this relational dynamic is present in the in-law love triangles when the participants are the female spouse/child, her parents, and her spouse. More of the discussion on how gender identity of the participants and the performance of their gender identity impacts the relational health and quality of the in-law relationships is discussed in a separate section analysing in-law relationships through the prism of gender discourse.

The stories shared with me by my participants provided evidence that in reality this triangle is rather amorphous and is constantly shifting (See Figure 4.4). The reconfiguration of spousal and parent/child relationships affect the distance between the in-laws. The closer, hence, the stronger spousal relationships, the stronger the influence of the child-in-law/spouse on the relational dynamics of the triangle and the weaker the influence of parents/parents-in-law of the relational dynamics of the triangle. The fluctuation of the in-law love triangle is conditioned by the existing dialectical tensions that enter the domain of personal relationships within the triangle. These various dialectical tensions of the in-law relationships of the Orthodox Christians were presented in the sections above.

The acceptance of newly acquired religious identity in parent – child relationship balances out the triangle’s relationships and for certain moments makes the triangle equilateral in which the distance between the relational parties and the degrees of their influence on each other’s relationship are distributed equally:

My husband’s dad is very interested in learning more about our faith, he has come to our

church several times and participates in the book club. He has accepted our new faith and

I think it. . . after [my husband] talked to him about it. . . I think it made my relationship

with him even better. . . I don’t have to pretend, we don’t have to pretend. (Ann,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

217

In families, where both spouses have converted into Orthodoxy, the acceptance of the newly acquired religious identity in child/parent relationship also brings closer the in-laws. Hence, the triangle balances out and becomes smaller:

After we decided to get married in the Orthodox church, in the Orthodox faith, we came

alive to [my in-laws] again. I did not realise how big of a deal it was for them until we

announced we were getting married in the Orthodox church. . . it changed everything in

my relationship with them. They saw I was willing to convert and, I think, were grateful,

her mom was, at least. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious background)

Similar dynamics can be found in families in which the conversion of a non-Orthodox spouse/child-in-law is voluntary and accepted by the Orthodox family with gratitude. I have found similar descriptions of balanced in-law relationships in some of the stories when I asked my participants to describe ideal in-law relationships:

218

I wish my in-laws were not so pushy at the beginning. If they could just give me time and

waited patiently, it probably would be different, but they pushed this so hard on us, on

me. . . I wish they appreciated the sacrifice I made, I mean, I have given away one of the

most important things, I mean, at that time. I am happy with my choice now, but I wish

my in-laws could understand how hard it was for me to give that away. If to think about

ideal in-law relationships, I think that in my case, it would be it. (Helen, Orthodox

convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

Figure 4.4 represents the ideal state of in-law relationships described in some of the stories shared by the participants. For some, ideal in-law relationships are the ones that are within the in-law love triangle but when the triangle’s relationships are equally balanced and controlled by all of the relational parties. The examples grouped in this subsection have demonstrated that there are moments when the in-laws reach this ideal state of their relationships.

As the in-laws grow closer, the in-law love triangle became smaller and had the possibility to completely dissolve when the in-laws reached the maximum point of their integration and openness. The kind of in-law relationship that reaches the maximum point of in- laws’ integration were only moments in in-law relationships that happen when in-laws unite.

There are several occasions when such integration happens. It is when the in-laws group together against a third party, another family member, for example:

This spring, we had a very difficult time with my sister-in-law, and I was on the phone

fighting for [the relationship between her and her parents, my in-laws]. I was on the

phone with her, saying, “Your parents love you.” In my head, I have other things I could

say about this, but I didn’t say anything. I was trying to preserve that. My mother-in-law

219

knew I was on her team, and I was fighting for her, and it was kind of the same thing. In

that moment, her heart softened to me and I knew we had one of those very rare moments

when we were one team, one family. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman

Catholic in the past)

The participants also reported that they reached the maximum point of integration with their in-laws when they were united by having a same opinion regarding, for example, a family event. This kind of situations are mostly reported by women as they are usually involved into the planning of family activities, and thus, communicate with one another more often. These are the moments when the religious differences between the in-laws become secondary factors that affect the quality of their communication and the in-laws are united by arranging family matters:

I do spend time with my daughter-in-law but mostly it is when we are planning

something together. We are actually a pretty good team when it comes to planning things,

others don’t even interfere. They know we are good and we don’t need anybody. Yeah, it

bothers me that she is not Orthodox but at different times. When we need to plan

something or to figure out something important, I just stop thinking about it. (Barb,

cradle Orthodox, Eastern European immigrant)

The acceptance of the newly acquired Orthodox religious identity by non-Orthodox families on one side and the voluntary conversion into the Orthodoxy by a non-Orthodox newcomer to the Orthodox families are important markers of the integration and closeness between the in-laws and other members of the in-law love triangle. Thus, the church discourse which includes the meanings in-laws attach to their religious differences and meanings associated with how in-laws deal with their religious differences is important for the understanding of in-law relationship dynamic in the families of the Orthodox Christians. The

220 examples in this subsection demonstrated that there is a significant impact of the meanings associated with church and religion of the in-laws on the quality of their relationship. The examples also showed that religious differences between the in-laws impact spousal and parent- child relationships and vice versa. The church discourse is one of the predominant systems of meanings that constitute family cultures of the Orthodox Christians.

The Children/Grandchildren Discourse in the In-law Love Triangle

Church discourse plays another important role in the relationships of the in-law love triangle. Moreover, it changes the constitution of the triangle. In the previous section, I have provided evidence that in-laws normally do not enter the deeper levels of the church discourse that portray person’s religious beliefs and traditions and rituals of worshipping. In-laws avoid talking about such things in order to maintain the social distance in their relationships. However, all the borders between the in-laws collide when it comes to the conversation about religious upbringing, caregiving, and education of children/grandchildren that are considered as a mutual, or shared, territory among parents and grandparents. When the children discourse is activated, all of sudden new meanings of religion arise in the conversations related to this topic. Religion becomes a system that dictates certain traditions of children’s education, caregiving, and upbringing. In such communicative situations, children/grandchildren enter the domain of the in- law love triangle and transfigure its constitution (See Figure 4.5).

In the families of the participants, all women chose to stay home and take care of their children until the children reach the at least the school age. There are also three families who homeschool their children. All participants reported that up-bringing of their children and care taking are aligned with the traditions of the Orthodox faith. That means that children learn the

Church history by familiarizing themselves with the Church Fathers and the writings of the

221

Apostles. It also means that children read the Bible and know the Orthodox prayers. Most of the children also fast when it comes to the fasting season and attend liturgies and special services on

Feast days. Traditionally, children are taught to say a short prayer or to listen to a short prayer before meals and/or put a sign of a cross on themselves. In the Orthodox households, there is normally a prayer corner where families pray before meals, in the morning, and at night before the family goes to sleep. In some families, children have their own prayer corners. They venerate icons by placing a kiss on them. All Orthodox children wear Orthodox cross necklaces or small medallions with the portraits of Christ, Virgin Mary, or an Orthodox Saint. According to the tradition, the cross necklaces are not taken off at any occasion and are worn from the moment of the baptism. Most of these traditions of worshipping become visible when children go the houses of their non-Orthodox grandparents. These traditions of worshipping performed by children and observed by their non-Orthodox grandparents often spark comments among the non-Orthodox grandparents regarding the value of rituals in the process of children’s upbringing and education.

Many non-Orthodox grandparents also view some of the traditions such as fasting or certain food restrictions as unhealthy choices for the children. These comments create more tensions and condition further disintegration between the in-laws. Some families, in order to avoid unpleasant such moments in their in-law relationships and preserve the cordial status of their relationships, instruct their children to reserve their developing religious identities when they go to their non-

Orthodox grandparents’ house: “What we tell the girls when we go over, anytime, we let them know that you’re a guest. You can feel comfortable eating whatever is offered to you, and if you don’t want to eat something; don’t put it on your plate. This is your own personal discipline, so you don’t need to share it with other people” (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past).

222

In this subsection, I have grouped examples that demonstrate how in-laws manage their relationships in the context of their religious differences when at stake are the traditions of upbringing, care-taking, and education. Here, I demonstrate another set of identities of the participants. In the abstracts grouped here the reader will see them as parents, grandparents, and aunts. When the participants are asked about qualities of their in-law relationships, their children, grandchildren, or nieces and nephews become points of connection and disconnection in their in- law relationships. Nevertheless, the majority of the participants note that it is important to keep connections with their parents/parents-in-law for the well-being of their children: “In-law relationship is important. Especially for the children’s part of it” (Irene, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past).

Keeping the on-going connection with the in-laws become a priority for many parents-in- law who become grandparents. The participants who were grandparents all reported that in many ways they became dependent on the children/children-in-law, more vulnerable in in-law

223 relationships and have less control over their in-law relationship dynamic when at stake was their connection with their grandchildren: “It is important for me to keep that connection going no matter what I think about how they do things in their family because I want to see my grandchildren and I want them to get to know me well” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern

European immigrant).

In many cases, children become points of connection between the in-laws, because it is mostly for the children that the in-laws arrange time together. Children become a special connection for women who traditionally perform their roles of caretakers. Even, when in-law relationships are challenging and maladaptive, the in-laws find connections through their children/grandchildren. It is mostly women who reach out for each other through their children/grandchildren. The following two examples demonstrate my point: 1) “My mother-in- law and I mostly talk about children. She calls me sometimes asks about the kids or I call her to talk about them. Kids is what we mostly connect in” (Ann, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past); 2) “I want to connect to my mother-in-law more now because she is a grandma now and I know it is important for her to see her grandkids. I know my father-in-law enjoys spending time with them too, but I mostly try to connect to my mother-in-law” (Liz,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past).

Children/nephews and nieces also often become points of connection between siblings- in-law. The quality of relationship is often measured by the amount of time siblings-in-law spend with their nephews and nieces:

I spent a lot of time with [my sister and my brother-in-law] specifically when they

needed me to help with the kids, or they would go on vacation and I’d stay with the kids

or to pick somebody up from a ballgame because they needed a ride, I mean, it was that

224

kind of stuff. Or Easter time, like going over to make eggs, making a cake, you know,

that was always you know . . . I would say kids, if they had not had children, the

connections would not be as engrained as they are. I think the kids were the connection

line. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European decent)

At the same time, children can become points of disconnection when it comes to the arguments between their Orthodox parents and non-Orthodox grandparents regarding their religious upbringing. It is regarding children’s/grandchildren’s religious upbringing that the in-laws may get into open arguments that in other situations are regularly managed through their spouses/children.

I can think of one time; I can’t remember what it was, but he kind of nailed me on

something with the kids, something about parenting. That one I stood my ground on. I

can’t remember, but I was just kind of like, “You know, you can tell me my cooking

stinks, and you hate my house if you want to, I really don’t care, but when it comes to

my kids and my faith, those are off limits.” I said that once, and he kind of knows not to

push that now. I’m kind of glad. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic

in the past)

Normally tabooed topics that reveal deeper levels of the church discourse come onto surface through comments that are made by in-laws to each other. Normally, these comments do not lead to open arguments as the in-laws still strive to maintain positive, cordial, relationships with each other. The meanings of safety of children or well-being of children are often brought up by the non-Orthodox in-laws/grandparents to negotiate their views:

225

[My mother in-law] has never asked anything about our faith, or anything, and she did

come to the baptism and Chrismation24, so she knows. [She doesn’t ask, because] I don’t

think she cares, or wants to know. Sometimes I’ll feel a ting of... They can tend to think

that making kids stand there for that long in a service is wrong. They wouldn’t say that in

a mean way, but you can tell, and like I said, they have a tendency to be judgmental…

They really want and think it Godly to give your kids everything; it seems like

sometimes, or makes them have a happy life. Almost give them everything that they

want, and why would you make them stand? “Why would you make them stand through

liturgy in a two hour service?” “Kids don’t understand what’s going on.” Almost like

that’s cruel or something. She tends to be a little bit more passive-aggressive...She’ll say

it in a sort of, “I don’t understand why you would even put kids through that, but oh

well,” which leaves me to be like, “I have nothing to say. (Ann, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant background)

The next example demonstrates another instance when parents-in-law voice their disagreement regarding worshipping traditions of the new faith of their children/children-in-law.

In these instances children/grandchildren may become a means of manipulation that the non-

Orthodox parents/parents-in-law/grandparents employ to stigmatize Orthodox identity of their children/children-in-law:

[My mother-in-law] tends to be a little bit more passive, as well, but she will tell you

exactly how she feels when it is about the kids. She’s very… for my personality it’s

uncomfortable, because I don’t know how to take it sometimes when somebody says

something that’s kind of mean, and very direct. But she’ll say it in a sort of, “I don’t

understand why you would even put kids through that, but oh well,” which leaves me to

24 Chrismation, of confirmation, is a sacrament of receiving into the Orthodox Church.

226

be like, “I have nothing to say. ”It was probably in the beginning when we would say,

“We’re going to church.” “Another service?” They know we would go Saturday for

Vespers, and Sunday. It was like, “Isn’t that a lot for the kids?” There was a couple of

times where like, “Let us keep the kids and you guys go, so they don’t have to, and then

you guys get free time,” like it’s a date night or something. But for me, I’m like, “This is

my family, this is important to us as a family to go.” A couple of times we might have

done that, or if they called and said… It’s like they know that we go on Saturdays, but

they would call and say, “We want to take the kids here,” and sometimes we would let

them. I’ve never said… I still struggle with being confrontational, or saying like, “This is

important to me, this is important to my family. I am getting better at it though. I think

over time she stopped bugging me, us because she just gave up. (Ann, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

The meanings from the children discourse are also often brought up when the in-laws negotiate the importance of preserving the old family culture and/or arranging space for developing of new family culture with different traditions: “I don’t think [my in-laws] would care that much if I left their church, but it is all about the kids, their grandchildren. It’s almost like “See I have my grandchildren with me here on Sundays. Thus, I have a good family, I am successful” (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past). Another participant also reports that his children were brought up during the conversation about the fact they him and his spouse decided to switch churches and start going to the Orthodox church: “I really think it is still all centered around them and their interests. Like, ‘I have my daughter and my grandkids here with me’. So all is good. They just brought the kids up to make us, [my wife]

227 to feel bad. So manipulative, you know ” (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European descent).

Both sides of the relationships which in the examples provided above were parents/parents-in-law/grandparents and children/children-in-law/parents talk about the power dynamics which allow the younger couples with young children to have more control over their relationships with their parents/parents-in-law. It is when they describe such situations that the meanings of qualities of good Christians arise in their descriptions: “I mean, I do not want to argue. I am trying to hold it and think about how they have their own reasons to be worried and how it is my job to love them no matter what. They love their grandkids, and I have no right to somehow spoil this relationship of love” (Ann, Orthodox converts, American, Protestant in the past). Another participant directly relates her experiences in in-law relationships and arguments with them regarding her children to the qualities of good Christian:

My in-laws sure get me to confessions a lot. [My priest] said once that my in-law

relationship is my path to salvation (laughs). . . I can think of a time when we were

negotiating over Christmas, and I finally had to say to her, “I want to respect what you

want; I can either be there for all of the extended family things that you want, but then

you never get your Christmas with just you being grandma with your kids. (Helen,

Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

This example together with others that constitute this part of the chapter represent the meanings of the children discourse that is a part of larger discursive opposition of preserving old family culture – developing new family culture. Children are considered as “shared territory” between the in-laws and between the two family cultures – the culture of their parents and their

228 grandparents. In this tension of competing discourses children become the center of attention as they are viewed as “products” of this negotiation.

The meanings that constitute the children discourse also reveal interesting dynamics in the in-law love triangle. Children enter the triangle and occupy their place as the mediators between the two families – the family of their parents and the family of their grandparents. The analysis revealed that the children discourse changes the power dynamics in in-law relationships.

When this triangle is placed into the context of negotiation of religious differences between these families, children become the mediators in the negotiation of religious differences like it was shown earlier in Figure 4.5.

The inclusion of children/grandchildren into the in-law relational dynamics also changes the relational power distribution. Parents/parents-in-law/grandparents reported that they felt they had less control over their in-law relationships because they were more dependent on the decisions the parents of their grandchildren. The parents/parents-in-law/grandparents would argue less against these decisions because they felt a degree of vulnerability in the relationship with their children and especially in their relationship with their children/in-law. The females participants who were parents/parents-in-law/grandparents often reported that is was more challenging for them to confront their daughters-in-law assuming that their daughters-in-law, mothers of their grandchildren, are primary decision makers about the quality of care and upbringing of their children25. The children discourse has also outlined new meanings of religion that in-laws with different religions generate when they enter discussions about their children/grandchildren. Religion in these discussions became a system that dictated its own traditions of care, education, and up-bringing of children.

25 I discuss in details the conceptualization of gender and its intersections with the Orthodox identity in the next section.

229

Religion in In-law Relationships through the Gender Lens

Previous sections have presented several discursive oppositions signifying the relational dialectics of integration – separation and openness – closedness that guide in-law relationships in the families of the Orthodox Christians. Many of the examples presented in previous sections carry some kind of meaning that belongs to the gender discourse. Meanings related to gender, gender roles, and their performance are ubiquitous. Thus, the dialectical tensions that guide in- law relationships between the Orthodox and their non-Orthodox relatives can be analyzed through the prism of their understanding of gender and gender roles.

What the participants know and understand about gender and gender roles is defined by mostly the teachings of Christianity which provide very clear division between men and women based on their biological sex. It is specifically emphasized in the understanding of the notion of marriage and ministry. Christianity affirms that God created people to be born into families with heterosexual marriage (Yarhouse, 2013). I have explored how the participants conceptualized gender and gender roles by asking them to provide their understanding of marriage and ministry and share their opinions on the distribution of gender roles in church and family. The understanding of gender as a category that is directly tied to person’s biological sex is shared by all participants. The participants reinforce the meaning of appropriation of heterosexuality in marriages as the means of procreation. Thus, the conceptualization of gender is directly connected to sexual orientation that has its purpose of procreation. Homosexuality is perceived as a biological that needs to be controlled by zealous prayer and celibacy. However, the participants disagree on the opinions on the distribution of gender roles among men and women in church and at home. The next several examples demonstrate how the participants responded to my questions.

230

Gender discourse reveals several findings: First, the discussion of gender and gender roles is directly connected to the politics of the OCA and its leadership. Secondly, gender by many participants is conceptualized as an unnecessary category; the participants argue that gender as category only complicates the understanding of God’s world creation and confuses those who are “seeking the truth” about the nature of the world. Meanwhile, gender is one of the fundamental categories that define how Orthodox Christian in-laws approach their in-laws and develop relationships with them.

The theme that arose first once the participants were asked about their understanding of gender concerned the issue of Church’s ministry, women ordination, and Church’s leadership.

Some participants argue for the only male ministry providing reasons for their argument such as demonstrated in the following example:

There this thing with not ordaining women, that there are theological reasons behind

priests standing in the place of Christ, or putting the vestments on and representing

Christ to us. The idea that women are not ordained in Orthodox Churches is because

they’re a different gender then Christ himself. At the same time, there is the worshiping

of the Mother of God, and she is as important as God in church. She is always there.

She is in the apps usually, and she’s always on the list. She’s never lower, for example.

People are having a lot of problems why women are given a different role in the church.

At the same time, the Orthodox do praise Theotokos at the same level, and she is a

women. She is almost an ideal feminism... I think that this is the ideal for women to

obtain to, just like Christ… also for men to obtain to, but Christ is the example for all of

us; it’s both. Men need to look to Christ and his examples of leadership and love. I

think everybody needs to approach the Theotokos with her humility and love. I think if

231

you look at direct models, you have this feminine model through the Theotokos for

women, and Christ for men. (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

When participants were asked about how their understanding of gender informs their perceptions of their in-law relationships, the participants referred to the meanings of gender and gender roles advanced by two often opposed in values popular and Christian cultures. For some, the competing discourses of opposing to Christian pop culture offer opposing gender ideologies.

These understandings guide participant’s perceptions of their in-laws and the assessment of relational health and quality of relationships with them:

I think women should be equal because a mother raising children, having babies, raising

children, should not be classified as a second class person. Because the men can’t have

children. But we have that responsibility of raising a child, not only raising a child,

having a home and taking care of the home. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European

immigrant)

The meanings that belong to two opposing Christian and pop culture represent competing ideologies that are simultaneously present in the relationships of the in-law love triangle. The tensions within the gender discourse arise when the participants try to fit or escape their own definition of gender and gender roles or those that are ascribed to them by the relational parties in the in-law love triangle. Opposing meanings of gender offered by both broader cultures transfigure relationships of the triangle and make its structure amorphous.

For the participants, gender was defined through the performance of gender, which in the minds of the interviewed Orthodox Christians are prescribed to men and women. The following example demonstrates my point:

232

I think one, is that I feel that we lost in society the respect for the role of a woman. I feel

like God made man and woman for a reason, differently, and gave us different gifts. I

think that’s what I try to celebrate is that he made me this way for a reason. There’s

always the women equality kind of thing that I don’t necessarily… I don’t begrudge

anybody for that. You be what God made you to be, and your talents, but I also see that

I’m really happy that there are things that I can do, especially with raising children that

[my husband] can’t do. I respect that role that I have that is a very blessed role. I see

that, and I guess I also see it when I think about Mary, and what a wonderful example she

is. I see her as the ultimate woman, so trying to emulate that beauty and meekness. That

part I don’t get down very well, but I’m quiet, so… I would say that sort of ties into my

faith. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

The way the participants define and perform gender and gender roles in many ways explains the relational health and relational quality of in-law relationships. The meanings of relational qualities are directly connected to the performance of gender:

It’s easier for me to talk to my mother-in-law. We still have moments of connection, but

with [my father-in-law] no. It’s a woman thing. We connect in that she loves children too.

We love them differently. We love them for different reasons. We do different things

because of that, but she does really enjoy little ones. She does love her grandchildren,

and she delights in them, so we can connect on that. . . I think that I deal directly with her

more because it’s a woman to woman thing. When I envisioned my life, I never expected

to be close to [my father-in-law]. I expected to go shopping and on lunch dates; you

envision something cozy. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the

past)

233

The points of connection between families-in-law can be of various kinds. For example, it is a significant advantage if the men of both families, who are considered the heads of those families, have similar political views. This discourse also speaks to the gendered discourses of connection between representatives of two genders. It is common for men to be the connectors of their families with the outside world:

I think the parents were very cordial with each other and really developed a friendship

over the years. My dad and his political views mirrored very closely, Jim’s conservative,

Republican views. So they had that common thread. And politics is always the gathering

conversation spot for people, it is. So I think that kind of brought them together, too.

Their interactions, you know, my parents grew to . . . (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd

generation American of Eastern European decent)

Therefore, gender is also a category that the participants ascribe to certain relational qualities of their in-law relationships. For many participants, gender of the in-laws determines relational possibilities among family members: men of the families connect with men, women connect with women. The way the participants understand gender and gender roles predetermine with whom and what kind of relationships they will develop. For example, for some women gender identity which is defined by the biological sex becomes the insurmountable barrier for development of relationships with fathers-in-law: “My father-in-law? I don’t really have a relationship with him.

I don’t think he ever thinks that we can sit down and have a conversation. He is nice, but we just don’t really have anything n common, or things to talk about” (Liz, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past). Similar perceptions are shared by male participants about their mothers- in-law: “I don’t really have a relationship with her mother or her sisters. They are nice, but we don’t. . .we don’t really have things to share. Just maybe some random question here and there,

234 but mostly [my wife] spends time with them” (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past).

In their stories, participants shared that they mostly connected with the in-laws of their own gender. These connections were reflected in the ways the participants described their communication with their in-laws. For example, it was common for male participants to emphasise the closeness with their fathers-in-law through the ways they address to each other.

The nicknames that the men give to each other represent their solidarity within the family circle.

The meaning of giving nicknames to each other among men is a marker of friendship, closeness:

When we talk, we’ve got our own nick names for each other. There’s this personal

relationship; I’ll call him, “Sambo,” his name is Sam. I’ll call him, “Sammy,” so there

are different little ways that we’ll connect with each other. We’ll talk about anything.

With my mother-in-law it is also very related, joking, loving, but no, no nicknames... I

think it’s a guy thing, you know. Its the guy friendship thing. (Ed, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant)

The collected stories show that it is more difficult for women, specifically for daughters- in-law to establish closeness with the in-laws of the opposite sex. It is seen through how daughters-in-law struggle with addressing their fathers-in-law. For example, one of the participants reported the following:

I still fumble over my words sometimes when I’m referring to [my father-in-law]. I

guess when I see him; I don’t really have to say anything. I’m just like, “Hi, how are

you?” When I’m talking to [my mother-in-law], and I want to refer to him, sometimes I

stumble over that, because I knew him for so many years as, “Pastor.” Then, I would just

call him, “Pastor,” even though he became my father-in-law, because he was my pastor

235

first. I just kept that. [I worked for him, and he was my boss.] So, I just kept that for a

long time. When he retired, it was like, “What am I going to call him?” Sometimes I just

say, “Dad Smith.” That’s my latest thing that after I fumble around for a minute, I just

say, “Dad Smith” like how my kids would call him. (Ann, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past)

For some women, the meanings ascribed to the ways in-laws chose to address to each other were tremendously important for how they would interpret the quality of in-law relationships. Many women reported that a marker of positive relational dynamics focused on the integration of both families-in-law often become adressing to each other by family names like mom, dad, son, and daughter or other nicknames that are given to family members in the family circle.

My relationship with his mom is very good. I call her mom. When his dad was alive, I

would call him dad. Whenever we go there, I mean, my husband does all the grocery

shopping, we take her groceries, I do laundry, I’ll dye her hair, I’ve cut her hair, cut her

nails, I’ll do whatever she needs help with. She put in a handicap accessible tub, so she

can do that on her own now, but I used to help her with that too. She is like my real mom.

(Irene, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

According to the stories shared with me by the participants, there were also rules of who can call who with what names that were “documented” in family cultures. If the naming suddenly changes it signifies the other relational partner about some changes in their relational dynamics: “[My daughter-in-law] calls me Nanna. She doesn’t call me anything else but Nanna, her kids call me Nanna, so she does to. But there for a few days [when we had that argument] she was calling me [my first name], especially when, you know, I told her what I thought of how she

236 acted towards me” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant). If one crosses a rule and use inappropriate for a certain relationship name or nickname, it may lead to arguments or relational tensions:

[My daughter-in-law told me] “I’m not gonna call you Mom, but can I call you Nana?”

That’s what the grandkids call me. I said “That’s fine!” But, I resent the fact that now

[my son] calls me Nana. I’m not your Nana! She wants to call me Nana, fine, that’s fine

with me, if she feels uncomfortable calling me Mom, but I’m your mother, son. Don’t

you fall in that rut! Well, he did. He calls me Nana. Now he doesn’t call me anything

because he doesn’t talk to me. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant)

For some women, the ways in-laws choose to address each other predetermines the entire course of the relationship. For example, when in-laws do not develop any kind of tradition of addressing to each other, it is interpreted as a block in the development of the relationship:

I never knew what to call them. They’re not those kind of people that…you know. . . you

can have easy relationship with. I’ve always struggled and it started with how I did not

know how to call them and they never stepped out and explained. So, here is another

tension. Honest to goodness, I’ve been married 16 years, and it’s basically like a, “Hey

you,” kind of thing. Now, I refer to my father-in-law in the way my kids call him. If I

need to address them alone without the kids there, I’m just going to start talking to them,

because I don’t know what to say. . . So, I don’t really talk to them, to him especially,

because it is kinda intimidating. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in

the past)

The collected narratives showed that women spent more time talking about the quality of communication they have with their in-laws. The collected narratives reveal how much women

237 paid attention to various signs which would tell them which way their in-law relationships develop. Moreover, many women inadvertently talked about the importance to gain a certain status in the new family, to be accepted into the family circle which signifies the desired quality of in-law relationships. The acceptance was important not only for the daughters-in-law when they enter the family of their parents-in-law but also for mothers-in-law who strive to keep connections with newly developing family of their children: “It was important for me to have a relationship with [my daughter-in-law]. So, I kept my mouth shut and just went with everything she wanted” (Barb, cradle Orthodox, Eastern European immigrant).

Some men who were sons-in-law also noticed that their mothers-in-law “worked” or “put and effort” to establish relationships with them. They also reported that it was more important for women to get integrated into the family matters of both families. Thus, women were viewed as the ones who were more concerned about reaching out for their in-laws and spending more time thinking about the strategies to make their relationships with the in-laws pleasant and how to keep connection and peace between the families:

My mother-in-law really does try to make a, I mean a lot of times she treats me better

than my own mom, you know, when it comes to gifts and this and that, she really spoils .

. . you know, even though I might feel this way . . . at least as far as I can tell, she treats

me basically equal to how they would treat [my wife]. She makes me feel like this is my

family too. My father-in-law, he is a nice guy, but its not his thing you know. (Ben,

Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern decent)

Some of the male participants expressed the expectations that their own mothers and their wives should work on the integration of their relationships which strengthens relationships between

238 families. These men see their mothers and wives as key elements in relational health and qualities in relationships between older and younger families:

My mom and [my wife]...uh...Well, my mom does babysit. You get the feeling like she

wants us home as soon as possible. She’s gotta leave. Or like, she won’t hang out and

visit . . . She babysits. We come to the door, five minutes later she’s out. [She is] not

distant or cold but she could probably open up more, and be more relating, you know,

kind of sit and be more social. I think she’ll go to like, maybe her siblings, be there all

day long, you know, eat and drink and whatever, and she’s more comfortable in that

situation, but maybe around us she’s less comfortable. That definitely puts tensions

between families. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern

decent)

Moreover, many men inadvertently implied that they were not necessarily concerned regarding the quality of their in-law relationships and were more dedicated to keep connection with their own parents and siblings. They did expect that their wives, mothers, and mothers-in-law would work on that connection between their families.

I think it is [my wife’s] thing to keep in touch with her parents, and I will do the same

with my parents. When my in-laws need me, I will gladly help them, but, otherwise, I

won’t initiate the contact. Even now, if we’re getting together or something, that usually

goes through [my wife]...For me, I feel like I have to keep the connection open with my

parents, but I don’t really feel like I need to connect with my in-laws as much as [my

wife] needs to be connected with them. I think she does a pretty good job maintaining

connections with both families and I feel like I do not need to change anything or

interfere with that. (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

239

Same views were shared not only by sons-in-law but also fathers-in-law. When it comes to the initiation of relationships, fathers-in-law expect that their daughters-in-law would reach out and work on establishing relationships with them:

I have lots of grandkids...but I don’t see them, I don’t know about them... most of them. .

.my daughters-in-law think I don’t care...One, for example, she never talks to me really,

maybe just quickly asks how I’m doing and passes over to my son... She does not even

call me anyhow...[Did you ever tell her how she could address you? How she can

approach you?] - No, I think she should have done that, not me approaching her.

(Christopher, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

Performing relational qualities ascribed by gender stereotypes and meeting the expectations ascribed by traditional interpretations of gender roles performed in spousal relationships for many is a sign of positive relational dynamics. The expectations are imposed on both sides of the in-law relationships – from both parents- and children-in-law. For example, it is a bad sign for the parents-in-law, specifically mothers-in-law when their children-in-law are not being good spouses, good care-providers, caretakers for their children. For parents-in-law, in signifies the relational disintegration:

I do think more often than not it revolves around the mother of the child’s relationship

with whoever that person’s married. I think there’s more a mother-child bond,

particularly a mother-son bond; that really becomes quite difficult when that son goes

out, because I really see it even with my brother and who he married. I think my parents

were somewhat judgmental on my sister-in-law, you know, in terms of right or wrong,

what she did, the woman’s perceived role, you know . . . to cook, to clean, to do this,

that’s not my sister-in-law... I think that’s the pressure on son-in-law is to a lesser extent.

240

I don’t know if it’s the stereotype of a woman’s perceived role in a marriage, you know,

and a mother’s view of that, like, you know, I raised my son and I did this and this and

this for him, you know, and now somebody else is going to take over that role, and are

they going to do it as well as I can? Or are they going to replace me? I mean, not in a

twisted way, I don’t mean it like that, but you know, “I took care of my boy and now my

boy is out on his own and somebody has to quote ‘take care of him.’ Is she going to do as

good a job as I did? I think fathers worry about their daughter’s safety more but it’s in a

different way, because a man’s perspective on that is not the same as a woman. And the

mom for the daughter-in-law, or the mom for the daughter, I don’t look at it the same. I

look at it, again, maybe it’s because what women’s roles are perceived to be. You know,

the mom says “Well, I raised you to cook and clean and do all these things and I know

you’re gonna be a good wife. (Eva, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern

European decent)

Same negative dynamics in in-law relationships are predetermined when children-in-law, specifically daughters-in-law, do not see good qualities of parenting in their parents-in-law:

I think I’m disappointed in the mother that she is. I don’t want to be the mother that she

is. I think she’s just very insecure, and she’s very… just insecure. She worries what

people think a lot, so she would throw her kids under the bus in order to make a good

appearance to everyone else, and that’s not me. My thing is my kids. I don’t care what

anybody else thinks. My kids are going to get the best of me. We just have a very

different way of doing things. I think that makes it hard. I expect her to think like I do,

and she doesn’t, and she wouldn’t. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic

in the past)

241

Some men have reported that positive in-law relationships are build when men possess qualities of a good parents, safe and reliable provider and a caretaker of their spouses and children: “I’ve been praised [by my in-laws], I’ve been praised for, you know, taking good care of their daughter and the grandkids and being a good father. I’ll get a lot more of that from my mother- in-law than from my father-in-law, just because it’s guy versus girl” (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern decent). For other men meeting or not meeting the stereotypical expectations of being family’s leader and a good husband who can provide for one’s daughter predetermines the course of further development of the in-law relationships:

I think that a lot of parents have expectations and hopes and dreams for their kids, and

sometimes when a potential partner or spouse comes into the family that doesn’t really

meet that expectation, stated; otherwise, it becomes a source of conflict, and then it just

continues to magnify because the in-laws will make comments like, “If you were more

like this or that, or if you had a better job; if you were better for my daughter,” that’s

starts it, and then things get reinforced. (Alex, Orthodox convert, American, no religious

background)

Another male participant also notes that matching or not matching in the way gender roles are performed in families-in-law also determines positive or negative relational dynamics between the in-laws:

[My in-laws] have never really been that accepting of any of the spouses of their children

because no one will be good enough. They are far from perfect [themselves, but] they

will find fault with anyone that you were to bring home. No male can be anywhere near

an equivalent to the father figure, and no female will ever be close to the mother figure.

242

You will always be less than they are. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation

American of Eastern European descent)

When asked about expectations that they hold regarding relational qualities of in-law relationships, most of the female participants shared that they envisioned that women of both families connected by spending time together while shopping or dining together, or taking care of household chores together. These meanings were associated with girl-to-girl friendship. These meanings reflected qualities of good mother-in-law that were emphasized more frequently than others in my conversations about in-law relationships in multicultural Orthodox families. First, good mothers-in-law are the ones who do the outreach job. For example, they initiate a warm welcome of the daughters-in-law by arranging wedding showers, baby showers, helping with the wedding preparations if they are asked. Second, mothers-in-law always recognize their limit and leave it up to the daughter’s-in-law decision to be invited to the event planning or not. It also expected for mothers-in-law to initiate her relationship with her daughter-in-law outside of the

“love triangle” between the two women and their son/spouse:

[My daughter-in-law] was not the type of person that would pick up the phone and call

me. Like I would, before my dad died I would call my mother almost every morning. She

never called me. She . . . the one time I, right after they were married I called her up and I

said “I’d like to take you to lunch. I had given her a shower, I had given her an

engagement party, and planned the wedding. I didn’t butt in at the wedding. She told me

to get the names out that I wanted invited. She planned her own wedding and except for

the invitation I’d had nothing to do with it. The only thing I asked was what color are

your, you know, what color is your mother wearing, and I managed to not have the same,

you know, dress or whatever as her mother. I respected her for that. I didn’t want to

243

interfere with their wedding. They did it. We paid for it. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert,

Eastern European immigrant)

However, it was also expected by the participants that daughters-in-law would take over to initiate further development of her relationship with her mother-in-law or both parents-in-law.

Daughters were expected to understand the importance of grandmother’s presence in the life of their children. It was also suggested that the daughters-in-law should initiate the relationship outside of the in-law love triangle by calling their mothers-in-law and sharing their ideas, family news, or asking for advice, or initiating a time together:

If you want to have good relationship with your mother-in-law, I think I would break the

ice and maybe take her to lunch, and maybe take her, just in the mall shopping around. Or

go somewhere . . .and it should come from you, that invitation. Or you could go and go

up in Michigan somewhere, Ann Arbor or wherever you know, and take her to lunch and

walk around, or even to Perry’s Landing. It breaks the ice. That’s what I wanted to have

with Linda, when I asked her for lunch. It is important . It’s your son’s grandmother. And

he’s got to have a relationship, and if he feels, and he can sense, children can sense, if

there’s no, nothing with the grandmother then he’s gonna feel that way too. For me, I

expect minimum things like calling...I understand she may be scared of me, but that is her

sacrifice. I have made my sacrifices. I gave them my sons. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert,

Eastern European immigrant)

At the same time, when the expectations dictated by traditional meanings of the quality of time women spend together are not met, it creates barriers in relational integration:

What I envisioned as a young girl is that my mother-in-law would have taken me out to

lunch; and that we could have had a relationship outside of me and [my husband]. Where

244

she could pick up the phone, and say, “How are you doing?” And, she would generally

care about me. And, that doesn’t happen. I think that what we have is like a residual. If I

were sick, she would care because it affects George or the kids. If I die tomorrow, I don’t

think she would morn me; she would morn, “Oh those poor kids, or poor [my

son/husband].” That’s a real sad situation. I don’t think she would be like, “I will miss

her. (Helen, 38, Orthodox convert, American of German descent, Roman Catholic in the

past)

This example also demonstrates how the gender discourse interfere into relational life of the in- laws. Women were also considered to be cunning or, on the other hand artful instrumental in creating negative or positive family atmosphere and influencing the development of relationships in negative or positive ways: “When I had cancer and was going through chemo, they never called. Even my sons. I do think that their wives have something to do with that. Only two called and [the other two] didn’t. The wives say things, my boys listen to them” (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant). The following two examples contain metaphors that describe mothers-in-law as the Wicked Witch of the West and the Ice Queen. Both of these personages introduce women as cunning and adverse:

So when [my daughter-in-law], when she asked me why did I change the code on my

garage door and why I changed the locks on my doors, I told her “Well, it’s my house,”

and then she turned around and she yelled at me. She says: “Well, you’re not really liked

around here, you know!” I said: “No, I didn’t realize that.” She says: “Well, you’re

known as the Ice Queen of the neighborhood... She meant the family. She didn’t mean

the neighbors. She meant the family. Horrible, so disrespectful. (Jennifer, Orthodox

revert, Eastern European immigrant)

245

Female cunning would often be opposed to male strengths and bravery. Many participants referred to female cunning when they described their in-law relationships or the in-law relationships that would be desirable for them in order to avoid conflict with their in-laws. In female discourses, the notion of women’s cunning was not represented with negative connotation, but rather female cunning was often perceived as a useful skill for building pleasant family relationships:

I have a former student, who’s a music teacher and a good friend, and her mom is my age

and they have a great relationship with her parents. Her and her husband and her

daughters, they go on vacations with her mom and dad, they’ll take bike trips, her other

sisters will come along. I mean her entire family is so good together. And his mother is

the Wicked Witch of the West, she knows how to find ways, to get around, to get people

on her side, to get people to do what she needs them to do. And that might be why they

have such a good relationship with the one family, with her parents. . . I think that’s what

women are good at, we might not be brave and strong, but we can figure other ways to

get where we need, we are smart like that (laughs). (Irene, Orthodox convert, Protestant

in the past)

The meanings related to women cunning were also shared by the men. When men talked about women’s cunning, they often opposed this characteristic to the weakness of men in their inability to confront women. In men’s gender discourses, a reverse, submissive husband acquired negative connotations and are perceived as “puppets”. In male gender discourse, female cunning had negative connotations:

So it’s usually not directly to [my wife] but sometimes they might, especially my mom,

try to put the blame, she might think that [my wife’s] the one that’s . . . I get the

246

impression or [my wife] might get the impression that she’s the one that, [my wife’s]

keeping us from, keeping me from socialising more or . . .I think they might have this old

school stereotype like, [my wife’s] calling the shots behind the scenes and I’m just the

puppet. (Ben, Orthodox revert, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern decent)

Overall, it was more challenging to talk to the male participants about their in-law relationships.

It took longer for me to get men to reveal some information regarding the dynamics of their in- law relationships. I felt that that relationship was not of a great importance in their lives. I would often get comments such as:

What do you mean “challenges in in-law relationship? I do not have any problems with

my in-laws, my wife takes care of our family gatherings and I help her if she asks me to,

like cook or buy food, or pick them up. But I don’t have any challenges. I just don’t

care. So, it’s all good. (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Some men emphasized the importance of working on their own spousal relationships or the relationships with their own parents, rather on the in-law relationships:

I do not see my in-law relationship as challenging, I rarely think about it even if I spend

time with my in-laws. They come and go and then we don’t see them that often. I feel I

need to dedicate my time to work on my relationship with my own parents and it is [my

wife’s] thing to get everybody going. It’s not like I don’t help or don’t care, it’s just she

is better at it. (Mark, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Men perceive women in their families as the gatekeepers of relational health and quality not only within one family but between families as well. In this case, women were expected to take care of familial connections. This expectation was directly connected to the idea that women were the

247 primary caregivers of the children and the family and that the caregiving involves connecting children to their grandparents and other extended family relatives.

In their turn, women themselves see their roles in families as the care providers, caretakers: “I think it is just a women thing, you know. We are more into taking care of everybody, making everybody happy. And I’s ok with that” (Ann, Orthodox convert, Protestant in the past). Another female participant reported that she loved performing this role, because this would put her at a place where she belonged, that she thought was the right fit for her female identity. This place was assumed as a place where her primary duty would be loving her children, receive flowers, and be emotional and childish:

I feel very blessed because I’m doing what I always wanted to do. I love children. I

think about when I die, what I want people to remember is that I loved children, and they

just brought me such joy. I think more like them then I do adults a lot of times. It’s a

woman thing. I hope to be, and I like to be feminine. My hearts and flowers and roses, I

always laugh about, but I’m a girly girl. I love all the feminine things of life. I would

say that’s probably it. (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past)

Men, whose relationships with their mothers-in-law were unpleasant, challenging, and maladaptive, tended to implement stereotypical negative meanings generated in the popular culture about mothers-in-law being invasive and mean to their sons-in-law:

Uh, just the stereotype that you know, you usually have a hard time getting along with the

mother-in-law. Because fathers-in-law are usually so ground down that they don’t care

anymore, which is to the point that I’m at. I don’t give a shit what they do now. They

have no impact on me, so I don’t care. Mothers are close to their children. Mothers are

really close to their daughters. Every now and then you’ll have a girl that’s a daddy’s

248

little girl, but there’s usually still a tight bond between mother and daughter, and the son-

in-law will be the interloper, that’s the enemy. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd generation

American of Eastern European descent)

Personal quality of a woman being daddy’s little girl is a common meaning that is often generated in popular culture. It can be interpreted both as a negative and a a positive personal characteristic. It traditional represents men as “protectors” and women as “protected” which creates positive relational dynamics when both female and male relational partners play into this stereotypical perception. Fitting into the paradigm of expected gender qualities is a marker of successful in-law relationships:

Usually we just talk about family, and the kids with my mother-in-law. She has the twins;

[my husband’s] sister had twins when she died. [My mother in-law] takes care of them a

lot, so we talk about them. Sometimes she complains about husband or my brother-in-

law because it’s hard. Maybe there is a uniqueness where [my mother-in-law] can confide

different things in me as a woman where she knows I would understand things in a

different way than my brother-in-law...With my father-in-law, we seem a lot closer. I

don’t know if, “Closer,” the right word, but maybe is just because I do get a sense that

they take me in as their daughter. I don’t think that they think, “in-law.” I think they

think, “daughter,” and they’re protective, and he’s protective of me. Maybe there’s that

uniqueness as a man over a woman or a girl like protective. (Ann, Orthodox convert,

American, Protestant in the past)

In some families, gender stereotypes borrowed from the Christian culture discourses intensified already existing conflicts between the in-laws when one or another relational parties converted into another faith. For example, even if both spouses converted at the same time, their

249 conversion damaged the in-law relationship more if the in-law was the son rather than a daughter. Stereotypically men were perceived as leaders of families who make decisions regarding family’s communication with the “outside world.” It put men in a conflict with their in-laws:

We talked about [our new faith] all the time, incessantly, when we first converted, every

time we got together it was a discussion about how this is this and “Mom, I can’t believe

you don’t believe in the ever virginity of Mary. Let’s just have an hours long

conversation about this.” And they would talk about it. And then there was a couple years

of dead silence about everything, you know, like we’re all just gonna be quiet because

we’re just gonna make each other mad if we talk about this. My husband talked about it

with my parents too, and he got in much worse trouble because I’m their little girl, I can

do very few wrong things. He’s the evil brainwasher, you know, that’s dragging me

through all this. (Liz, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The same relational dynamic were reported by male participants; men were considered to be responsible for creating the gap between their wives and their wives’ parents by taking their wives to a different faith. Religious differences in this case make the in-law relationship between sons-in-law and their parents-in-law irreplaceable:

I’m the one that has taken their daughter away from their church, but I am the one that

brought her back home, so I was a good guy until I’d done that, once I did that I became

expendable. And then when I took, once she decided to go to . . . even though she

decided to go to the Orthodox Church, I’m the one that did it. I’m . . . I took her away

from their church. It didn’t matter. She could say it a hundred times that it was her

decision. As far as I know she did. She tried to voice her dissatisfaction to them, but they

250

see it as me taking her away... It was the end of it. (Matthew, cradle Orthodox, 3rd

generation American of Eastern European descent)

The interpretation of spousal conversion into another faith that was different from the one practiced in the family of origin was directly connected to the meanings of gender and gender roles. For example, in some families, women were expected to convert into their husbands’ faith:

“[My wife’s] mom said to her: “You gotta take the religion of the husband,” even though her mom’s Catholic, she said “You gotta take the religion of the husband.” You know, that was at least her mind set, so . . . but, she made that comment, she wasn’t always pushing it...” (Ben, cradle Orthodox, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern decent). The same was reported by many women who became orthodox because of their husbands: “I knew it was the right thing to do for me to convert. It made us closer as a couple, it is important for our children that we practice the same faith” (Helen, Orthodox convert, American, Roman Catholic in the past).

When male spouses converted into the faiths of their wives, it was always interpreted as a negative factor in spousal relational dynamic: “When women are leaders in families, there is something wrong. Those families do not live long. My friend’s son converted into whatever she was, in his wife’s religion. To me that is just wrong. Yeah, it is good to be under one faith, one roof, but it is just kinda wrong family power there” (Irene, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past). Many participants shared their predictions regarding the future quality of spousal relationships when they the conversion was done by the female instead of male spouses:

“Well, [my daughter’s-in-law mother] who lives with [my son’s family], she is Lutheran and she goes to her own church. And she was all for the fact that [her daughter], you know, turned to the religion of her husband. She knows how important it is if she wants them to be married for ever”

(Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant).

251

Gender stereotypes about special connection between female family members

(mothers/mothers-in-law and daughters-/daughters-in-law) were a part of meaning making process about qualities of in-law relationships among the female participants. These meanings were used not only by men but also women when they tried to explain why their in-law relationships failed:

I didn’t want to push, because I figured that’s one way of spoiling a relationship between

in-laws, and so I just kind of backed off. I found out that if you want to get along with

your daughters-in-law, is to go along with whatever they say. One of the best advice I got

from a very good friend of mine, she was like mother to me, so she said, “I’m gonna tell

you, when the boys get married you zip your mouth. That’s what you do. And you will be

able to get along with your daughters-in-law. So, I was hoping that by not really pushing

my daughters-in-law, they would actually warm up to me. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert,

Eastern European immigrant)

The stories also revealed the triangular relationship between the mother-in-law, her daughter-in-law, and daughter’s-in-law mother. The participants observed that the closeness between mother and daughter created a larger distance between mother- and daughter-in-law.

The participants who were mothers-in-law felt is was left for them to overcome that distance if they wanted to reach out for their daughters-in-law (See Figure 4.4):

[Daughters-in-law] have their own mothers, and they’re still tied to their mothers,

whereas I’m an outsider, really, if you stop and think. I’m an outsider. I am their

husband’s mother and that’s as far as it goes. And so I respected their wishes. I never

pushed. If they wanted to do something, if this or that... I told myself long time ago

“When the boys get married, you zip your mouth. That’s what you do. And you will be

252

able to get along with your daughters-in-law. (Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern

European immigrant)

Both mothers and daughters recognized how their closeness might negatively impact the relational quality and health of the in-law relationships: “[My relationship with my mother-in- law] is the hardest one. I’d say my mom is the most important one to me. My mother-in-law is the hardest one because I want it to be more like my mom and me, and it’s not, you know.” (Liz,

Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

The intergroup perspective allows us to see the influence that mothers of daughter’s-in- law can have on the quality of the relationships their daughters have with newly acquired mothers-in-law. Some women to whom I talked implemented the model of the in-law relationships between their mothers and their grandmothers on the fathers’ side they have observed while growing up. The observed model of other in-law relationships in the family of origin, which is a part of the family culture, creates perceptions and expectations being communicated in mother-in-law – daughter-in-law relationships. This kind of relational dynamics demonstrates how discourses generated within the borders of one’s family culture enter the domain of in-law relationships:

I am close to my mom, so [my children] are closer to her than to my mother in-law. I

think that it kinda makes it hard to work on my relationship with [my mother-in-law]

cause I have my own mom. Even though we practice the same faith with my in-laws now,

I am still closer to my mom. I ask my mom for advice on what to do, how to be with my

mother-in-law. (Liz, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

Gender stereotypes generated through the meanings that belong to Christian culture also dictate certain expectations that women who are in-laws impose on each other. These meanings

253 prescribe certain qualities of good mothers-/daughters-in-law and the ways they spend time together. Being close with in-laws for female participants mean sharing household duties, being open regarding asking for help with children:

When [my child] was born, and before she was born I had this lovely idea that my

mother-in-law and sister-in-law would come up and stay with me and help, and it would

just be great. You know, they would be a big help and she knows everything about babies

and she’s got six kids, and that this would just be wonderful. And the way that it worked

out was that my mom came and took care of me. (Liz, Orthodox convert, American,

Protestant in the past)

Meanwhile, none of the male participants, when asked about how they find common grounds with their in-laws, mentioned any of these themes. If there was a topic that arose between sons- in-law and their parents it was mostly about family affairs with the outside world. For example, the question about children education and children’s future could be a topic that was discussed between son- and father-in-law:

Actually, one time last winter her dad was helping me out with something and he started

talking, I need to have a talk, we gotta, eventually, he talked to me, cause I think he

thought he could have more influence in talking to me than talking to [my wife] about the

home schooling... maybe thinking if he convinces me than it’s a done deal or something.

He’s like, we’re gonna have to sit down eventually and talk about it. (Ben, cradle

Orthodox, 1st generation American of Middle Eastern decent)

Several male participants emphasised the importance of doing over saying as a quality of good relationships with their fathers-in-law. The doing signified commitment, effort, and engagement into the relationship while the saying reflected insincerity, carelessness, or even insecurity. This

254 speaks to another discourse generated in both Christian and poop culture about the typology of gender communication in which worthy men are traditionally perceived as the doers and unworthy men are perceived as talkers:

I wanted [the relationship with my -in-laws] to get better. I did everything I possibly

could to make it better. Whatever they wanted, whatever the asked, I would do that.

Doing whatever. No matter what the impact on me was. So, it was mostly doing really,

not talking. You know, work is success, so. I tried to do that, not talking, doing things,

because that’s what [my in-laws’] think a good guy would do. (Matthew, cradle

Orthodox, 3rd generation American of Eastern European descent)

Same negative perception of men as talkers was reported by several male participants of the study. The male talkers were portrayed as ones that were not taken seriously:

[My father-in-law] is even getting to the point where he’s complaining about the Pope

and this and that, even though he’s got a very strong Catholic identity. It’s his identity,

but all this other stuff, he’s kind of, who he was fifteen years ago, he’s kind of changed in

a lot of his thoughts. So he’s still mister meat and potatoes guy but sometimes he’s kind

of become maybe more egalitarian, and he talks a lot about, let’s say, he’s kind of

become more, let’s say, maybe more socialist in his thinking, but for everybody else, not

for him. So (laughing), yeah everybody else needs to do all this stuff, but not him. So,

he’ll sit there and argue, about we got to do this and that, the environment this and that or

whatever. One time I was trying to recycle something, and he said: “Oh, just throw it in

the trash,” so there’s just little things here and there that are kinda funny. It’s all talking.

He’s a lot of talk. He’s more talk than he is action, so I don’t know what he really thinks,

255

kinda don’t really take him seriously on that. (Ben, cradle Orthodox, 1st generation

American of Middle Eastern decent)

Here is another example that portrays the same meaning of personal qualities of men in which the talkers have negative connotation and the non-talkers are associated with positive personal qualities: “I am probably closer to my father-in-law because we have similar interests. He’s kind of a quiet guy, so I feel when we get together we don’t have to talk. Similar personalities and sense of humor, and things like that” (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past).

The same participant reinforced the oppositions of personal qualities of the talkers and the non- talkers when he explained why relationships with mothers-in-law can be difficult:

I think it would be the mother-in-law is usually [the ones that are difficult]… I think the

stigma is that the mother-in-law is going to be very vocal. More that the husband’s

mother-in-law, I think that’s most of the stigma. Mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.

Maybe because they’re more vocal in actually expressing feelings. Men usually hide

those things. (Ed, Orthodox convert, American, Protestant in the past)

When female participants referred to the meaning of being vocal it was presented as one’s negative personal quality. The female participants who were mothers-in-law observed that the qualities of a good mother-in-law would involve being a silent mother-in- law:

I found out early in my life that if you want to get along with your daughters-in-law, is to go along with whatever they say. One of the best advice I got from a very good friend of mine, she was like mother to me, so she said, “I’m gonna tell you, when the boys get married you zip your mouth. That’s what you do. And you will be able to get along with your daughters-in-law.

(Jennifer, Orthodox revert, Eastern European immigrant)

256

Examples grouped in this section demonstrate that understanding of gender and gender roles significantly impact relational health and the quality of in-law relationships. The discourses of Christian and pop cultures’ understandings of in-law relationships competed; These oppositional meanings about gender and gender roles enter the domain of the in-law love triangle and create multiple variations of relational dynamics between the relational parties of the triangle. Both male and female participants recognized the influence that daughter’s mothers and mother’s in general have on their children. The intergroup perspective on relational health and quality of in-law relationships provides opportunities to see how the outside parties of the in-law love triangle enter the domain of triangle’s relationships. For example, the voices of the children- in-law’s mothers enter relationships within the triangle through their married daughters and sons.

Moreover, the participants also reported that certain expectations they had about the relational health and relational quality of in-law relationships were dictated by the meanings that constitute gender discourse.

If to look at the relational health and relational quality of in-law relationships through the lens of gender discourse, we can observe at least two sources for tensions that arise within the domain of these relationships that come out in the examples grouped in this section: First, the competing discourses of opposing Christian and pop cultures dictate contradicting interpretations of gender and gender roles that the in-law impose on each others. Second, the in-laws simultaneously try to fit in and escape the imposed on their gender identity stereotypes of gender roles and their performance. These tensions create even more complications for in-laws to find ways to open up to each other and integrate.

257

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Introduction

It is not a secret that the in-law relationships in our culture are stereotyped as the most difficult, challenging, and even maladaptive family relationships. Of course, there are always examples of great in-law relationships in real life. There are numerous studies, qualitative

(Limary, 2002; Merrill, 2009) and quantitative (Morr Serewicz, 2006; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour

& Soliz, 2008) which try to explain what happens when people become in-laws and where the relational complications come from. The major themes that come out of these studies are: 1) In- law relationships are involuntary: people who end up in in-law relationships do not choose these relationships (Morr Serewicz, 2006).; 2) In-law relationships represent a love triangle in which parents-in-law and children in-law are forced to share their child/spouse with each other (Morr

Serewicz, 2006; Prentice, 2008).; 3. In-law identity development is effected by the prevailing cultural stereotypes about mean, controlling, disrespectful in-laws generated by popular culture outlets (Limary, 2002; Merrill, 2009; Prentice, 2008; Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2008).

With my research, I add understanding about how culture and interaction influence in-law relationships, and how they become the arena where three family cultures collide. These cultures develop in both families of origin of the spouses and their own family that they form together.

To make family cultures observable and to understand how family cultures interact, I chose to explore how in-laws communicate religious identities of their families. Therefore, in this research I examined multicultural families of American Orthodox Christians where the negotiations of religious practices are at stake. I went to an Orthodox Christian parish in

Northwest Ohio to ask about people’s in-law relationships. This parish was an ideal setting for

258 this research because the community represents a mix of cradle Orthodox Christians, reverts and converts into the faith. It includes immigrant families from Eastern Europe and Middle East, their Americanized married children, as well as native US families of Orthodox Christian converts. American reverts are those whose families identified themselves as Orthodox but who for one or another reason did not actively maintain their Orthodox identity until the point they reentered Orthodox parishes. The reverts are the ones who came back to the faith on their own due to, mainly, marriage, but also due to other circumstances such as moving back to the area with an Orthodox church around.

My approach to the study of relational health and quality of in-law relationships, which considers the importance of family culture proved to be fundamental in finding answers to how and why the relational quality and health of in-law relationships develops one or another way. In my research, in which I examined the place of in-law relationships in the context of religious differences, it became evident that one of the fundamental elements of family cultures is religion.

Religion, and more particularly, religious practices, is one of the social taboo topics that becomes unavoidable in family communication since the traditions of worshipping and system of values associated with it is fundamental for the formation of family culture. It can be one of the points of connection and disconnection between in-laws when they form and maintain their relationships. When in-laws talked about how they dealt with one of the most difficult topics in their relationship, that is religious difference, it provided much data about the dynamics of in-law relationships, the nature of their development and maintenance strategies. For example, my analysis revealed that religious discourse is one of the dominant discourses in the families of the

Orthodox Christians and their non-Orthodox in-laws. However, the in-laws distinguish two levels of the discourse that mark appropriateness and inappropriateness of the conversations

259 about religion. In order to maintain the social distance of their relationships that is marked by non-intrusion and non-invasiveness of in-laws into the each other’s family matters, the in-laws choose to talk about religion as an abstract notion often discussing third parties (other relatives, friends, and acquaintances through religious communities) and their religious identities. The participants reported that it became inappropriate to share one’s beliefs and values with their in- laws as well as perform their religious identities through rituals of worshipping because of their reactions. The participants note that they are often questioned and/or criticized by their non-

Orthodox in-laws when they invite those to the Liturgies to celebrate the families’ milestones

(i.e., births, baptisms, weddings, funerals).

Theoretical Framework

My theoretical framework is Leslie Baxter’s Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT) which situates relationships into the dimension of culture and considers relationships through the prism of two cultural layers: the local, relational, culture and the broader, social, or contextual, culture

(Baxter, 2004; 2010; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Braithwaite & Baxter, 2011). RDT works with discourses, system of meanings, used in relationships. The discourses live across times and, when utilized in communication, offer meanings that shape our life experiences. This idea is rooted in Mikhail Bakhtin’s philosophy of language and communication; he argued that meanings that arise in the process of interaction is a communal property. Baxter and her colleagues extended the notion of communal property to the understanding of interpersonal relationships by arguing that relationships are cultural products because the meanings that are generated in these relationships are guided and assessed by the meanings that circulate in broader cultures in which these relationships are situated. This argument is based on several fundamental premises of the theory:

260

1. The theory works with meanings that are generated by relational partners.

2. These meanings are parts of larger discourses that represent broader cultures (i.e.: ethnic, religious, gender).

3. The theory gives a tool set to describe what happens with the discourses of larger cultures when they enter the domain of interpersonal relationships.

4. The theory outlines dialectical tensions that are products of existing broader cultures.

5. The theory explains how relationships are complicated by the dialectical tensions, which influence the way we assess and navigate our relationships.

Guided by these premises, the analysis of collected interviews revealed that in-law relationships in the families of the Orthodox Christians who participated in the study are complicated by several dialectical tensions. These dialectical tensions are constructed of discourses that are predominantly products of two broader cultures – Christian and popular

American – meanings of which are usually confrontational to each other. To understand how these broader cultures enter the domain of in-law relationships, I looked at what influences the development of religious and in-law identities. Through the analysis of the collected data, I have discovered that the participants create perceptions of their own religious and in-law identities and the perceptions of the same identities of the in-laws based on the meanings of the broader cultures that they recognize as dominant or normative. In the lives of the participants these dominant cultures are Christian and popular American cultures. To be able to explain and describe how in-law relationships are between the Orthodox Christians and their non-Orthodox in-laws, I used three strategies. First, I looked at the perceptions of the Orthodox identity by the

Orthodox themselves and how they think they are perceived by their non-Orthodox in-laws.

Second, I searched for the meanings that participants attach to the quality of their relationships

261 within the in-law love triangle. Then, I looked at how the presence of children/grandchildren impacted the presence of their religious identities in the in-law relationships and whether and how these relationships are complicated.

The purpose of my research was to describe and explain how in-laws communicate their religious differences and to bring more understanding of the culture of Orthodox Christians in

America. I offered four research questions that guided my analysis of the interviews and participant observation I conducted:

• 1. How do differences between religious affiliations among families-in-law affect

their communication and relationships? What factors are most influential in

family in-law relationships?

• 2. What role does the Orthodox religion play in family relationships?

• 3. What discursive practices characterize Orthodox Christian identity? How are

gender and gender roles played out in these discourses?

• 4. How are the current politics of the Orthodox Church represented in the

everyday life of the parish? What impact does current politics have on the

community? How do community members make sense of these politics and what

meanings do they generate?

To answer my research questions I interviewed members of an Orthodox Christian community and analyzed the discourses they discussed when talking about their in-law relationships. Discourse was my unit of analysis per Relational Dialectics Theory. I organized the discourses into three major dialectics:

• 1. Discourses about development and maintenance of Orthodox Christian identity

• 2. Discourses about points of connection and disconnection in in-law relationships

262

• 3. Discourses that represent gender biases and gender the performance of religious

and in-law identities

Discourses About Development and Maintenance of Orthodox Christian Identity

The research questions outline one main focus areas in my analysis: how religious identities are performed and communicated in in-law relationships when in-laws practice different religions. Religious differences in participant’s in-law relationships created barriers for the relational integration of the in-laws. The in-laws preferred not to discuss religious identities, and participants reported that it was often challenging for them to hide their religious identity from their non-Orthodox in-laws. Their religious identity became observable through the performance of worshipping rituals such as fasting, veneration of icons, putting a sign of the cross on themselves, using prayer books instead of producing an impromptu prayer for occasions, and following the Julian calendar with moveable feasts. These were the most obvious worshipping traditions that differed between Orthodox Christians and Christians of other religions that were their in-laws. The participants reported that their Orthodox traditions of worshipping were unwelcome by their non-Orthodox in-laws. Openness about worshipping traditions in in-law relationships was perceived as a violation of the social space that the in-laws established with one another. Exposure of these worshipping traditions normally happened during family get-togethers. The performance of these traditions invited non-Orthodox in-laws to participate, which normally resulted in confusion, misunderstanding, and/or anger.

According to Wark & Galliher (2007), social distance allows relational parties who belong to different groups to maintain the distance that prevents them from crossing the boundaries of each other’s groups with which they affiliate. In my research, I view families (the family of the spouses and the families of their parents) as groups which have their own cultures,

263 family cultures that dictate certain communicative patterns for their family members, family values and beliefs formed by certain understanding of person’s relationship with God, and the performance of that understanding in daily life. The in-law relationships become the arena in which these groups interact and in which their cultures collide. Crossing the boundaries in most cases lead to relational tensions and conflict. To avoid interference into each other’s group and family cultures, the in-laws interact within a social distance that allows space for non- confrontational, friendship-like relationships. The participants often characterize their in-law relationships as cordial, which signifies the distance that is being maintained in their in-law relationships.

I looked at how the Orthodox perceived themselves and how they thought they were perceived by their non-Orthodox in-laws. The specificity of the context in which I studied in-law relationships helped to reveal other discursive oppositions that were also properties of in-law relationships in the families of the Orthodox Christians. Thus, another opposition that created barriers for the in-laws to overcome was the discursive opposition of stigmatized – stigmatizing

Orthodox identity of the in-laws. Collected interviews showed that the participants negotiated religious differences with their in-laws in the domain of Christianity. All of the participants reported that their non-Orthodox in-laws belonged to other Christian religious groups. This specific knowledge also allowed me to look at how Christians viewed their religious differences within Christianity. Most of the participants reported negative perceptions of their Orthodox identity by their non-Orthodox Christian in-laws.

I found out that the Orthodox were stigmatized as a Christian minority because of odd worshipping rituals, which they exposed to their non-Orthodox in-laws. At the same time, the

Orthodox were stigmatizing their non-Orthodox Christian in-laws because they believed that

264 non-Orthodox, or un-Orthodox, interpretations of Christianity and worshipping styles were fundamentally wrong and untrue. When participants talked about the quality of the in-law relationships and the personal qualities of their in-laws, they demonstrated how discourses of broader Orthodox Christian culture generated the perception of the faith as the only right and true Christian religion and dictated the perceptions of other Christian religions as wrong and untrue. These perceptions of Orthodoxy and other Christian denominations in the minds of the participants were transferred into the perception of personal qualities of their in-laws: the

Orthodox in-laws automatically became closer whereas the distance grew in the relationships with non-Orthodox in-laws.

As Hall (1996a; 1996b; 1997) argues, the perception and performance of identity is directly linked with the ideology and politics of cultural groups. Thus, the examples described in the previous paragraph also represent the current political discourses of the Orthodox Church in

America to which the studied parish belongs. It is common for the parishioners to talk about the place of their Church (OCA) in the context of global Orthodox Christianity. Many criticized the leadership of the organization and reported that the Church’s leadership impacted the way their

Orthodox identity is perceived in the area they reside. The participants often criticized the leadership of the church for the politics of isolationism and elitism and blamed the leadership for creating this kind of relationships with the non-Orthodox environment around them. This kind of church politics confused the participants and occasionally made them question the fundamental premises of the organization and its alignment with the values it proclaims. This knowledge and thinking is reflected in the ways the participants reacted to criticism or stigmatization of their

Orthodox identity in their in-law relationships. Knowing that their church institution was also not a perfect example of Christian organization, they tended to be timid and quiet about revealing

265 information to their non-Orthodox in-laws about the structure of their religious organization and its politics.

Although, the efforts of the OCA today are focused on developing American identity for the US Orthodox Christianity, many Orthodox Christians still strongly affiliate their religion with the ethnic ties. To explore the intersections of ethnic and religious identities and their enactment in in-law relationships, I solicited cradle Orthodox immigrants to the US and their 1st generation American children. Thus, in this study I also looked at how the intersections of ethnic and religious identities are played out in the quality and health of in-law relationships. Some scholars have suggested that religious identities become more salient for immigrants in the

United States than in their nations of origin because of the role religions have in preserving ethnic identities (Haddad, 2003; Harakas, 2003). The scholars who study family relationships in immigrant families (Cadge & Ecklund, 2007; McGoldrick, 2005; McGoldrick, Giordano, &

Garcia-Preto, 2005; Padila & Perez, 2003; Walsh, 2003) suggest that religious identities become more salient for immigrants in the United States and their families than in their nations of origin because of the role religions have in preserving ethnic identities. It was also true for the experiences of the participants when they described their negotiation of religious differences with their non-Orthodox in-laws. The meanings that connect ethnic and religious identities were strongly represented in the discursive opposition of preserving the old family culture – developing new family culture and in the children discourse when at stake were the traditions of caregiving, education, and up-bringing of children/grandchildren. The intersections of ethnicity and religion in in-law relationships were also revealed when the participants construct their understaing of their faith and singled out important worshipping rituals based on their ethnic backgrounds (i.e.: Some participants argued that the sacrement of Confession that is unseparable

266 from the sacrement of the Holy Communion were the central point of worshipping, others disagreed and asserted that Confession was not necessary because it was not taught to be that way in the Mother Churches in which they were brought up). This diversity of understadings formed the criteria for judgements of their non-Orthodox in-laws that was also played out in the discoursive opposition of preserving the onld family culture – developing new family culture.

Discourses About Points of Connection and Disconnection in In-law Relationships

I also looked at the relational dynamics within the in-law love triangle and how the normally opposing meanings of the two broader Christian and popular American cultures dictate dualistic understandings of the distance and the degree of disclosure for in-law relationships. The participants reported that they simultaneously wanted to keep the distance with their in-laws and maintain their Orthodox identity privately and to be included into the family circle and keep revealing their Orthodox identity to them. When the participants talked about their desire for distant and reserved in-law relationships, they often referred to the “American” culture. When the participants expressed the desire to be in integrated and open relationships with their in-laws, they often appealed to the dogmas of Christianity. These dialectical tensions of integration – separation and openness – closeness made the structure of the triangle amorphous as the participants fluctuated between the desire to be close with their parents and parents-in-law and at the same time to keep their distance to maintain closeness in their spousal relationships. Among the dominant discourses that reflect these two relational dialectics was the discursive oppositions of preserving old family culture – developing new family culture and having real, natural verses staged, fake, cordial relationships with the in-laws. These oppositions arose in participants’ descriptions of how the in-laws simultaneously desired to keep the culture of their families of origin, yet to develop a new culture of the families that they created with their spouses.

267

Meanwhile, the in-law relationships, just like any other relationships that relational parties form in their lives, are characterized by the opposing desires of simultaneously being integrated and separated and being open and reserved with their in-laws. Morr Serewicz (2006,

2008) notes that the in-law relationships are challenging because the relational parties involuntary form their relationships. I support Morr Serewicz’s idea and go on to argue that the dynamic of constant pushing into and pulling out of the relationship complicates already challenging in-law relationships. This is represented in the meanings that constitute the discursive oppositions of preserving old family culture – developing new family culture and having real, natural in-law relationships – having staged, cordial in-law relationships.

Along with the previous research of in-law relationships (Morr Serewicz, 2006; Prentice,

2008), the analysis identified triangular relationship dynamics or communicative pattern of in- law relationships. The in-laws tend to communicate through the “shared” family member who is a child/spouse. The participants also reported that normally they implemented this communication pattern when they needed to communicate a disagreement or manage a conflict.

When asked about ideal in-law relationships, the participants reported that they wanted to have independence from the triangular in-law relationships and form dyadic direct relationships with their in-laws. At the same time, the participants also reported that when they played the role of the mediator (when they were in the role of the child/spouse) they often preferred to be in control of the quality of the relationship between their spouse and parents. The dialectic perspective on the triangular in-law relationship created an opportunity to argue that people simultaneously want to be in and out of the in-law love triangle, and that they guide their in-law relationship by constantly shifting from one pole of the dialectical tension to another.

268

In my analysis, I also followed the findings presented by Rittenour and Soliz (Rittenour,

2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2008). In this research, she argues that the quality of in-law relationships depends on the process of the in-law identity development. According to Rittenour, there are different factors that affect this process. These factors include popular culture or the family loyalties which involve personal roles and statuses assigned to new family members within the family circle. My analyses also revealed parallel, simultaneous development of spousal and in-law identities which contributes to the started by Rittenour research of in-law identity development. The development of these identities represent a dialectical tension which is reflected in the desire to be simultaneously a spouse and a child/child-in-law. This is complicated by the constant push and pull of one or another family cultures to which the person belongs. The development of in-law and spousal identities impacted the quality of in-law relationships and was characterized by several discursive oppositions that represent dialectical tensions of integration – separation and openness – closeness in in-law relationships. These discursive oppositions represent meanings that circulate in broader cultures. In the collected interviews, the dominant broader cultures in which the participants situate their in-law relationships were

Christian and contemporary American popular cultures in which meanings often collided when participants tried to make sense of their beliefs and values to build their spousal and in-law relationships.

These discursive oppositions defined relational quality and health of in-law relationships in the families of the Orthodox Christians; they were a property of the relationships that constituted the in-law love triangle. Collier (2005) argued that identities were contingent, they get activated by relational circumstances. Therefore, the complexity of in-law relationships lied in the fact that this relationship existed in a tight knot with two other relationships – the spousal

269 relationship and the relationship between the spouse and her or his own parents. Therefore, there are four prominent identities that are tightly interwoven in in-law relationships. That is in-law identity, spousal identity, parents’ child identity, and a child’s parent’s identity. The differences in family cultures pull the spouses/children/children-in-law in and out of the cultures of the three families to which they belong.

My approach to Morr Serewicz’s (2006) in-law love triangle was slightly different. I utilized the concept of family culture and argued that in-law relationships were the arena in which at least the three family cultures (both cultures of the spouses’ families of origin and the spouses’ own family culture) interact. To describe this interaction, I resorted to the acculturation research. The perspective on acculturation generated by critical scholars (Chang, 2001; Collier et al., 2002; Ngo, 2008; Starosta & Chen, 2003; Stone et al., 2005) argues that acculturation is an ongoing process of (re)adjustment to the norms of the new culture. This scholarship also suggests that acculturation varies depending on the social positions of the individuals in the new culture. Thus, the relationships between the newcomer and the hosting culture vary depending on individual’s class, race, gender, and/or ethnic background. In my analysis, I also incorporated

Rittenour’s notion of family loyalties which includes the role and status given to an individual upon “arrival” to the new family26 (Rittenour, 2009; Rittenour & Soliz, 2009). I have also included the notion of assimilation between the in-laws introduced by Prentice (2008). The analysis revealed that the acculturation of the in-laws to each other is an ongoing process: the acculturation of in-laws is in constant flux. It progresses and regresses depending on the meanings that the participants ascribe to their in-law relationships and their own role in status in in-law families at a given moment of the relationships. The meanings that guide the in-laws are

26 By “new hosting families” I mean that all three families of the in-laws can be new to the members of in- law families.

270 presented in discursive oppositions of preserving old family culture – developing new family culture, staged(fake) – real (natural) in-law relationships.

Lastly, I have approached in-law relationships from an intergroup perspective and argued that in order to understand the dynamics of in-law relationships, we need to assess the input of each family member into the development of in-law relationships including the arrival of children/grandchildren and addition of new members through marriages of siblings and siblings- in-law. The majority of the participants in this research were parents or grandparents. When I asked about how they perform their religious identity in their in-law relationship, they often talked about the quality of education, care taking, and upbringing of their children or grandchildren. The structure of Morr Serewicz’s in-law love triangle is modified when children/grandchildren become the points of connection and disconnection between the in-laws

(see Figure 4.6). Children/grandchildren are considered the mutual property of the families in- law. Thus, when it comes to the exposure of the religious differences between the in-laws, all of a sudden the stakes are high. Often, the in-laws cross the established social distance and engage in communication of open disagreement regarding what and how needs to be done to ensure quality of children/grandchildren’s education, up-bringing, and care-taking. In the context of these conversations, the concept of religion acquires additional meaning as a set of rules and norms about children’s education, care-taking, and up-bringing.

Discourses that Represent the Intersections of Gender and Religious Identities in In-law

Relationships of the Orthodox Christians

In the review of recent studies about the intersections of gender and religious identities,

Cadge and Ecklund (2007) argue that most of the studies fail to include such factors as ethnic background, immigration status, family relationships, the history of a particular religious

271 community’s location, religious traditions, as well as the political and sociological characteristics of the particularly studied community. These factors are considered as ones that shape people’s experiences in the intersections of gender and religious identities. In my approach to describe and explain how the intersections of gender and Orthodox Christian identities are experienced I did precisely that: I looked at family relationships that shaped individual’s conceptualizations of religion and gender, at the ethnic and religious background of the participants, and at the gender politics of the Church. In addition, as a part of my analysis, I analyzed each narrative and traced all the instances in which gender identity dictated individuals’ perceptions of their in-law relationships and the performance of their religious identity. I examined whether the descriptions of the performance of worshipping rituals (i.e.: veneration of icons, bowing, putting the sign of the cross on oneself, pronouncing prayers) reflected a person’s conceptualizations of gender and gender roles. I also looked at how the dominant discourses about gender in the broader cultures

(i.e.: Christian and American popular cultures) shaped the participants’ conceptualizations of gender and gender roles.

The understanding and performance of gender and gender roles among the participants reflected the parish’s level of orthopraxy (Krindatch, 2008), the individual’s or community’s willingness to reconsider Church doctrines in adjustment to social change, to respond to the

(re)conceptualizations of social categories, and/or to adapt to contemporary societal norms.

During the interviews, I asked the participants about their understanding of marriage and reproductive alternatives. The answers to these questions revealed that the participants adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage as, to paraphrase Yarhouse (2013), a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. Another set of questions concerned the understanding of gender roles and the ministry of the Orthodox Church. Although the majority of

272 the participants argued that it was correct to ascribe different church roles to men and women, some argued that in order for the Church to “survive” in America, it has to reconsider its understanding of gender roles in regards to its ministry. My analysis of the responses regarding gender and gender roles in marriage and the Church’s ministry, and its comparison to the typology of orthopraxy presented by Krindatch (2008), revealed that the parish currently represents what Krindatch calls the traditional orthopraxy. Traditional Orthopraxy strives to observe Orthodox tradition and cherishes Church heritage but accepts evolutionary changes, permitting praxis to evolve slowly over time. During the discussion about gender and gender roles in the OCA’s ministry, those who criticized the current position of the Church that distinguished between men’s and women’s appropriation of service in different aspects of the

Church’s life, tied their discussion to the stigmatizing of the Orthodox identity among the non-

Orthodox in-laws. Particularly, they argued that the Church will consistently be perceived as outdated and archaic if the leadership at different levels of the organization does not reconsider the Church’s position regarding this issue. Overall, the questions about gender and the OCA’s politics evoked strong reaction from both the proponents and opponents of current OCA’s position, which signifies, in keeping with recent research into gender and religion (Cadge &

Ecklund, 2007; Ebaugh & Chafetz, 2000; Sterk, 2010) that gender remains a fundamental element of one’s conceptualization of religious identity.

The meanings of gender that the participants portrayed in their narratives when they talked about how they managed their in-law relationships were present throughout the dialectical tensions described in the findings (i.e.: integration – separation and openness – closeness).

These meanings of gender are borrowed from the broader cultures – Orthodox Christian and

American popular cultures – which are dominant in the participants’ construction of their world

273 views. These cultures often offer opposing understandings of gender and gender roles. For example, the participants singled out submissive in relationships communicative behaviors traditionally associated with female identity and opposed them to dominating in relationships communicative behaviors normally affiliated with male identity. For example, in conflict situations with the in-laws, it was convenient for daughters-in-law to appeal to the meanings of

Orthodox Christian culture and act as submissive wives. In other situations, when daughters-in- law had to discuss with their non-Orthodox in-laws the future Orthodox upbringing of their children/grandchildren, it was convenient for them to apply the meanings of broader American culture and act as independent and often dominating figures in their families and in their in-law relationships. Thus, to navigate their in-law relationships, the participants often shifted their gender identities. The shifting of their gender identities depended on the circumstances at a particular moment of their in-law relationships.

The findings briefly discussed above meet the suggestions made by Korovushkina

(2000), Cadge and Ecklund (2007), and Sterk (2010) who proposed that studies of the intersections of gender and religious identities should be analyzed in specific contexts. The specific context in my study was the negotiation of religious differences in in-law relationships between Orthodox and non-Orthodox in-laws. This study also speaks to the notion of shifting gender identities offered by Butler (1990), who suggested that depending on specific contexts and conditions, people enact different gender identities to justify or validate themselves according to the norms and opportunities provided by the contexts.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to this study. Among them is the quantity of the participants and specificity of the location of the studies parish. In the future, it would be interesting to

274 conduct similar interviews with American Orthodox Christians and their families who reside in more culturally diverse locations of the United States and locations that are historically

American Orthodox, such as areas concentrated around major US cities and rural areas in

Pennsylvania and New York where the majority of the second wave immigrants from Eastern

Europe and Greece immigrated in the first half of the 20th century.

Another limitation of the study regards the diversity of identities that are activated in in- law relationships. So far, this study revealed that religious differences between the in-laws created additional relational tensions when the in-laws worked on finding ways to accustom to each other. In the future, it will be important to study in-laws with non-traditional family ties in which couples are not legally married but have committed relationships. This includes Orthodox

Christians with other stigmatized identities such as gay identities, childless couples, or divorced couples. I wonder if their other stigmatized identities minimize the stigmatization of their

Orthodox identities. It is also important to know, for example, how people balance these contradicting identities in their every life family relationships.

Besides, there has to be more data to continue the conversation about how American religious pluralism and the notion of religious secularism impact in-law relationships in multi- religious families. Religious pluralism of the US creates conditions in which one gets involved into “a continuous conversion to the faith in the face of myriad alternatives” (Raboteau, 2008, p.

10). This conversion assumes constant appropriation, internalization, and living out the religious identity inherited or obtained through family relationships and performed in various forms of relational communication including the communication between the in-laws. Some of the participants noted that it was not the preferences to worship Christ in one or another way became a barrier in the development of in-law relationship, but rather the exposure to the abnormal

275 worshipping rituals that were unfamiliar for the dominant Christian groups in the researched area. In the future, I would like to see how the notion of religious pluralism and religious secularism are played out in the in-law relationships of multi-religious families.

The study also did not have any couples in which the spouses retained their religious differences and kept their religious identities of their families of origin. It would be interesting to know how the differences in religious identities in spousal relationships impact relational dynamics of the in-law love triangle.

Another interesting branch of research concerns the quality of life of the children who grew up in multi-religious families. In the era of religious diversity, it is important to know what happens with the religious identity of those who were exposed to several religions at once while growing up. It is important to know how grown-up children of such families conceptualize and handle their religious identities.

Another interesting direction of the research has been outlined in some of the responses of the participants when they revealed other discursive oppositions that arose in the context of constant negotiation and renegotiation of the religious differences between the in-laws. Some of these were finding God – searching for God, engaging – disengaging with the Orthodox community, being Orthodox – not being Orthodox. To understand what it means to live an

Orthodox Christian faith in predominantly non-Orthodox families, it is also important to ask similar questions to the non-Orthodox relatives of the Orthodox Christians. This data can reveal even richer material on how Orthodoxy is perceived in contemporary America.

Some of the stories shared by the participants also revealed interesting power dynamics in in-law relationships. There was a combination of factors that influenced the distribution of power in in-law relationships. These were the age of the in-laws together with the years of

276 marriage, the level of independence of a younger couple from their parents, the distribution of relational power, the history of the relationship from its first initiation stage, and the family culture from which a person enters the in-law relationship. All of these factors deserve special attention. According to this data, the age of a person in combination with the years of marriage defined the distribution of power in in-law relationships at its initial stage. If a couple married young when they were 18 - 20 years old, cohabited with one or another set of parents, had no separate income, their marital relationship would be dominated by the relationship they had with their parents and parents-in-law. The parents at this stage had more power in the in-law relationship. When the parents aged, they lost their authority in in-law relationships and became dependent of the families of their children. One of the most frequent themes that came out when the grandparents talked about their vulnerability in their in-law relationships was their access to their grandchildren that were often controlled by their children-in-law (mostly, daughters-in- law).

There has to be more said about the politics of the Orthodox Church of America and its effects on Orthodox identities of its parishioners. When answering the question about politics in the parish, participants often talked about how the parish was split into cliques between the cradle Orthodox, the immigrants or the children of the immigrants and their families, on one side, and converts and reverts into the faith on the other side. This kind of relational dynamics of the group was reflected in the perceptions that there was no clear identity in the studied parish. It affected people’s self-identification as Orthodox Christians, especially converts who had no affiliation with ethnic Orthodox cultures and their rituals of worshipping.

Overall, this study has demonstrated the importance of studying relational quality and health in multi-religious families. Goulborne and colleagues (Goulborne et al., 2010) have

277 argued that the international, interfaith marriages have become a norm. The differences in the inherited beliefs, rituals, traditions, and customs shaped by families of origin’s ethnicities, nationalities, and/or faiths become salient when the two worlds of families collide. This collision becomes observable in the in-law relationships specifically when the families practice different religions. Religious practices are important aspects in the formation of family culture, its rituals and traditions (McGoldrick, 2003; Walsh, 1993; Walsh & Pryce, 2003). In my research, the in- law relationship is a platform to study how religious identity is (re)conceptualized and

(re)negotiated. By following these premises, this research contributes to the further exploration of the relational qualities and health of the in-law relationships, which are fundamental for the relational health and quality of other family relationships around them. These relationships include spousal relationship, parent – child relationship, and grandparent – grandchild relationship.

Moreover, this research helped to reveal the presence of a large American cultural group, which is often being disregarded in the field of religious and family communication. The history of the Orthodox Christianity in America dates back to 1798 when the first Orthodox monks arrived on the American soil. Furthermore, Orthodox Christians make up 6% of the entire population of the US (Krindatch, 2010). American multicultural mosaic seems incomplete without further research endeavors to explain and describe what it means to be an Orthodox

Christian in contemporary America.

278

REFERENCES

Adam, B., & Allan, S. (1995). Theorizing culture: An interdisciplinary critique after

postmodernism. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Alba, R., Raboteau, A. J., & DeWind, J. (2009). Introduction: Comparisons of migrants and their

religions, past and present. In R. Alba, A. J. Raboteau, & J. DeWind (Eds.), Immigration

and religion in America: Comparative and historical perspectives (pp. 1–24). New

York, NY: New York University Press.

Alexander, B. K. (2010). Br(other) in the classroom: Testimony, reflection, and cultural

negotiation. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical

intercultural communication (pp. 364–381). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Anderson, J. A. (1996). Communication theory: Epistemological foundations. New York, NY:

Guilford.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Epic and novel: Towards a methodology of the study of the novel. In M.

Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (pp. 3–40).

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L.A. (1994). A dialogic approach to relational maintenance. In D. Canary & L. Stafford

(Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 233–254). New York: Academic

Press.

Baxter, L. A. (2004). The dialogues of relating. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna

(Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 107–124).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

279

Baxter, L. A. (2006). Communication as dialogue. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T. Striphas,

(Eds.), Communication as…Perspectives on theory (pp. 101–109). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Baxter, L. A. (2010). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter. L. A. (Eds.). (2006). Engaging theories in family communication :

multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2010). Relational dialectics, theory, applied. In S. W. Smith

& S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research. (pp.

48–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York,

NY: The Guilford Press.

Blair, C. (2006). Communication as collective memory. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T.

Striphas (Eds.), Communication as…Perspectives on theory (pp. 51–59). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bochner, A. P. (2002). Perspectives on inquiry III. In M. L. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), Handbook

of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 73–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bochner, A. P., Ellis, C., & Tillman-Healy, L. (1997). Relationships as stories. In S. W. Duck

(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 307–324). Chichester, UK:

Wiley.

Bradshaw, J. (1996). Bradshaw on the family: A new way of creating solid self-esteem. Deerfield

Beach, FL: Health Communication.

Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (2008). Introduction: Meta-theory and theory in interpersonal

communication research. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories

280

in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp.1–22). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Brockmeier, J., & Carbaugh, D. (2001). Introduction. In J. Brockmeier & D. Carbaugh (Eds.),

Narrative and identity: Studies in autobiography, self, and culture (pp. 1–24).

Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., & Altman, I. (2006). Relationships in home and community

environments: A transactional and dialectic analysis. In D. Perlman & A. Vangelisti

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 673–693). New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse. In L. Nicholson

(Ed.), Feminism/postmodernism (pp. 324–340). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cadge, W., & Ecklund, E. H. (2007). Immigration and religion. Annual Review of Sociology, 33,

359–379.

Carbaugh, D. (2005). Cultures in conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Caughlin, J. P. (2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family

communication and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction? Human

Communication Research, 29, 5–40.

Chen, V. (2010). Authenticity and identity in the portable homeland. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T.

Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 483–494).

Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Chen, Y. (2010). Negotiating intersecting cultural identities, dialectical tensions, and status

relationships: Intercultural relationships in two nonprofit organizations in the southwest

(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from OhioLink: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd

281

Chuang, R. (2003). A postmodern critique of cross-cultural and intercultural communication

research: Contesting essentialism, positivist dualism, and Eurocentrism. In W. J.

Starosta & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis

(pp. 24–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collier, M. J. (1998). Researching cultural identity: Reconciling interpretive and postcolonial

perspectives. In A. Gonzalez & D. V. Dolorez (Eds.), Communication and identity

across cultures (pp. 122–147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collier, M. J. (2001). Transforming communication about culture: An introduction. In M. J.

Collier (Ed.), Transforming communication about culture: Critical new directions (pp.

ix–xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Collier, M. J., Hedge, R. S., Lee, W., Nakayama, T. K., & Yep, G. A. (2002). Dialogue on the

edge: Ferment in communication and culture. In M. J. Collier (Ed.), Transforming

communication about culture: Critical new directions (pp. 219–280). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Condit, C. M. (2006). Communication as rationality. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T.

Striphas, (Eds.), Communication as…Perspectives on theory (pp. 3–12). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cooks, L. (2010). Revisiting the borderlands of critical intercultural communication. In T. K.

Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural

communication (pp.112–129). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Conquergood, D. L. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics.

Communication Monographs, 58, 179–194.

282

Conquergood, D. L. (2003). Performing as a moral act: Ethical dimensions of the ethnography of

performance. In Y. S. Lincoln, & N. K. Denzin (Eds.). Turning points in qualitative

research: Tying knots in a handkerchief (pp. 397–414).

Dawn, M. J. (1995). Reaching out without dumping down: A theology of worship for the turn-of-

the-century culture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Deetz, S. (2008). Engagement as co-generative theorizing. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 36, 289–297.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction. The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative

Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (4th ed., pp. 1–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K. (2000). Interpretive ethnography. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3, 401–

409.

Diggs, R. C., & Socha, T. (2004). Commuication, families, and exploring the boundaries

of cultural diversity. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication

(pp. 249–266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dindia, K. (2000). Self-disclosure, identity, and relational development: A dialectical

perspective. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal

relationships (pp. 147–162). Chichester, UK: Willey & Sons.

Duval, E. (1954). In-laws, pro and con: An original study of interpersonal relations. New York,

NY: Kessinger.

Ebauch, H. R., & Chavetz, J. S. (2002). Introduction. In H. R. Ebauch & J. S. Chavetz (Eds.),

Religion across borders: Transnational immigrant networks (pp. 1–14). Oxford, UK:

AltaMira.

283

Ebaugh, H. R., & Chafetz, J. S. (Eds.). ( 2000). Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities

and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.

Elisheva-Fonrobert, C. (2000). Menstrual purity: Rabbinic and Christian reconstructions of

Biblical gender. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ellis, C. (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 24, 68–98.

Ellis, C. (2009). Revision: Autoethnographic reflections on life and work. Walnut Creek, CA:

Left Coast.

Enyart, S. (2012). The transition to extended family: Examining the links between turbulence and

children-in-laws’ goals, topic avoidance, and relational outcomes (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd

Faulkner, S. L. (2006). Reconstruction: LGBTQ and Jewish. International and Intercultural

Communication Annual, 29, 95–120.

Faulkner, S. L., Baldwin, J. R., Lindsley, S. L., & Hecht, M. L. (2006). Layers of meaning: An

analysis of definitions of culture. In J. R. Baldwin, S. L. Faulkner, Hecht, M. L., &

Lindsley, S. L. (Eds.), Redefining culture: Perspectives across the disciplines (pp. 27–

52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Floyd, K., & Morman, M. (2006). Introduction: On the breadth of the family experience. In K.

Floyd & M. Morman (Eds.). Widening the family circle: New research on family

communication (pp. xi–xvi). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fitch, K. (2010). Culture and personal relationships. In S. W. Smith and S. R. Wilson (Eds.),

New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 245–263). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

284

Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Gassios, P. (2013). [The Orthodox parish in America today]. Unpublished raw data.

Geertz, C. (2000). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The

interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (2000). Religion as a cultural system. In The interpretation of cultures: Selected

essays (pp. 87–125). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Goetting, A. (1990). Patterns of Support Among In-Laws in the United States: A Review

of Research. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 67–90.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Eaglewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gillquist, P. E. (1992). Becoming Orthodox: A journey to the ancient Christian faith. Ben

Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press.

Haddad, R. M. (2003). A response to Fr. Stanley S. Harakas’ “Ecclestical and ethnic

identities within American religious scene”. In A. Vrame (Ed.), The Orthodox

parish in America: Faithfulness to the past and responsibility for the future (pp. 57–

66). Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

Hall, S. (1996a). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert, & K.

Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 596–634).

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Hall, S. (1996b). Introduction: Who needs ‘Identity’? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.),

Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). London, UK: Sage.

Hall, S. (1997). Introduction. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation: Cultural representations and

signifying practices (pp. 1–11). London, UK: Sage.

285

Harakas S. S. (2003). Ecclestical and ethnic identities within American religious scene.

In A. Vrame (Ed.), The Orthodox parish in America: Faithfulness to the past and

responsibility for the future (pp. 43–56). Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox

Press.

Harvey, J. H., Hendrick, S. S., & Tucker, K. (1988). Self-report methods in studying

personal relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships

(pp. 79–97). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Harwood, J. (2006). Communication as social identity. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T.

Striphas, (Eds.), Communication as…Perspectives on theory (pp. 84–90). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harwood, J., & Giles, H. (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives. New York,

NY: Peter Lang.

Harwood, J., Giles, H., & Palomares, N. A. (2005). Intergroup theory and communication

processes. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple

perspectives (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Hecht, M. L., Baldwin, J. R., & Faulkner, S. L. (2006). The (in)conclusion of the matter: Shifting

signs and models of culture. In J. R. Baldwin, S. L. Faulkner, Hecht, M. L., & S. L.

Lindsley (Eds.), Redefining culture: Perspectives across the disciplines (pp. 53–76).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hecht, M. L., Jackson II, R. L., & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and

identity theory. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple

perspectives (pp. 21–42). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

286

Holquist, M. (1990). Introduction. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays

by M.M. Bakhtin (pp. xv-xxxiv). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Hopko, T. (2003). The Orthodox Parish in America. In A. Vrame (Ed.), The Orthodox parish in

America: Faithfulness to the past and responsibility for the future (pp. 1–11). Brookline,

MA: Holy Orthodox Press.

Horsley, G. C. (1996). In-laws: A guide to extended-family therapy. New York, NY: Willey &

Sons.

Jorgensen, J. (1989). Where is the family in family communication: exploring families self-

definitions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 17, 27–41.

Karras, V. A. (2008a). Women in the Byzantine Liturgy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Karras, V. A. (2008b). Orthodox theologies of women and ordained ministry. In A.

Papanikolaou & E. H. Prodromou (Eds.) Thinking through faith: New perspectives from

Orthodox Christian scholars (pp. 113–158). Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary

Press.

Kellas, J. K. (2008). Narrative theories: Making sense of interpersonal communication. In L. A.

Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication:

Multiple perspectives (pp. 241–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kim, Y. Y. (2007). Ideology, identity, and intercultural communication: An analysis of differing

academic conceptions of cultural identity. Journal of Intercultural Communication

Research, 36, 237–253.

Klentos, J. (2003). Liturgical adaptation: Three illustrations. In A. Vrame (Ed.), The Orthodox

parish in America: Faithfulness to the past and responsibility for the future (pp. 155–

164). Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

287

Kormos, J. (2012, September). What does it mean to be a healthy, hopeful Orthodox Christian

community? Presented at the parish meeting of St. George Orthodox Cathedral,

Rossford, OH.

Korovushkina, I. (2000). Paradoxes of gender: Writing history of post-communist Russia 1087-

1998. In L. Davidoff, K. McClelland, & E. Varikas (Eds.), Gender and history:

Retrospect and prospect (pp. 151–165). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Krindatch, A. D. (2008). The Orthodox Church Today. Berkley, CA: Patriarch Athenagoras

Orthodox Institute and Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

Krindatch, A. D. (Ed.). (2010). Atlas of American Orthodox Christian Churches. Brookline, MA:

The Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

Krizek, R. L. (2003). Ethnography as the excavation of personal narrative. In R. P. Clair (Ed.),

Expressions of ethnography: Novel approaches to qualitative methods (pp. 141–152).

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lengel, L., & Warren, J. T. (2005). Introduction: Casting gender. In L. Lengel & J. T. Warren

(Eds.), Casting gender: Women and performance in intercultural contexts (pp. 1– 17).

New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Limary, B. H. (2002). The mother-in-law/daughter-in-law dyad: Narratives of relational

development among in-laws (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from OhioLink:

http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative Communication Research Methods (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lopata, H. Z. (1999). In-laws and the concept of family. Marriage and Family Review, 28, 161–

172.

288

Lossky, V. A. (1974). In the image of likeness of God. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary

Press.

Makris, E. (2008). Learning about ourselves: A snapshot of the Orthodox Church in the twenty-

first century. In A. Papanikolaou & E. H. Prodromou (Eds.) Thinking through faith: new

perspectives from Orthodox Christian scholars (pp. 341–366). Crestwood, NY: St.

Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

McCann, C., & Kim, S.-k. (2010). Introduction. In C. McCann & S-k. Kim, (Eds.), Feminist

theory reader: Local and global perspectives (pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Routledge.

McGoldrick, M. (2003). Culture: A challenge to concepts of normality. In F. Walsh (Ed.),

Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 325–359).

New York, NY: Guilford.

McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Garcia-Preto, N. (2005). Overview: Ethnicity and family

therapy. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & N. Garcia-Preto (Eds.), Ethnicity and family

therapy (3rd ed., pp. 1–42). New York, NY: Guilford.

Meyendorff, J. (1981). The Orthodox Church: Its past and its role in the world today.

Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Meyerstein, I. (1996). A systemic approach to in-law dilemmas. Journal of Marital and Family

Therapy, 22, 469–480.

Merrill, D. M. (2007). Mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law: Understanding the relationship

and what makes them friends or foe. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Moon, D. (2008). Concepts of culture: Implications for intercultural communication research. In

M. K. Asante, Y. Miike, & J. Yin (Eds.), The global intercultural communication reader

(pp. 11–26). New York, NY: Routledge.

289

Morr Serewicz, M. (2006). The difficulties of in-law relationships. In C. Kirkpatrik, S. Duck, &

M. Floyd (Eds.), Relating difficulty: The process of constructing and managing difficult

interaction (pp. 101–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Morr Serewicz, M., & Canary, D. (2006). Assessment of disclosure from the in-laws: Links

among disclosure topics, family privacy orientation, and related quality. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 333–357.

Ngo, V. H. (2008). A critical examination of acculturation theories. Critical Social Work, 9(1).

Retrieved from: http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/a-critical-examination-of-

acculturation-theories

Newhouse, L. (2005). Slavic families: An overview. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & N.

Garcia-Preto (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy (3rd ed., pp. 711–755). New

York, NY: Guilford.

Noller, P., & Feeney, J. (2004). Studying family communication: Multiple methods and

multiple sources. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp.

31–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Norwood, K., & Webb, L. M. (2006). How mothers influence their adult sons’ marital

satisfaction through communication with daughters-in-law: Survey findings from

eight states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International

Communication Association, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden,

Germany Online . 2010-18-12 from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p91628_index.html

Padilla, A., & Perez, W. (2003). Acculturation, social identity and cognition: A new perspective.

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 25, 35–55.

290

Pappas nee Popoff, P. E. (2000). Night time comes to village. Oregon, OH: Pando E. Pappas

(Popoff).

Partridge, C. T., & Turiaso, J. (2005). Widows, women, and the bioethics of care. Christian

Bioethics, 11, 77–92.

Philipsen, G. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. (2007). Ethnic identity development in immigrant families. In J.

Lansfold, K. Deater-Deckard, & M.H. Bornstein (Eds.), Immigrant families in

contemporary society (pp. 51–68). New York, NY: Guilford.

Poulos, C. N. (2008). Accidental ethnography: An inquiry into family secrecy. Walnut Creek,

CA: Left Coast.

Prentice, C. (2008). The assimilation of in-laws: The impact of newcomers on the

communication routines. Journal of Applied Communication, 36, 74–97.

Prentice, C. (2009). Relational dialectics among in-laws. Journal of Family Communication, 9,

67–89.

Prodromou, E. H., & Papanikolaou, A. (2008). Introduction. In A. Papanikolaou & E. H.

Prodromou (Eds.) Thinking through faith: New perspectives from Orthodox Christian

scholars (pp. 13–18). Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Raboteau, A. J. (2008). Forewords. In A. Papanikolaou & E. H. Prodromou (Eds.) Thinking

through faith: New perspectives from Orthodox Christian scholars (pp. 9–12).

Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

291

Rosenwald, G. C., & Ochberg, R. L. (1992). Storied lives: The cultural politics of self-

understanding. London, UK: Yale University Press.

Rittenour, C. E. (2009). Communication and shared family identity in mother-in-law/daughter-

in-law relationships: Implications for relational outcomes and future family functioning.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd

Rittenour, C. E., & Soliz, J. (2009). Communicative and relational dimensions of shared family

identity and relational intentions in mother-in-law daughter-in-law relationships:

Developing a conceptual model for mother-in-law daughter-in-law research. Western

Journal of Communication, 73, 67–90.

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.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sam, D. L. (2006). Acculturation: Conceptual background and core components. In D. L. Sam &

J. W. Berry (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 11–26).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Santiago-Valles, W. F. (2003). Intercultural communication as a social problem in a globalized

context: Ethics of praxis research techniques. In W. J. Starosta & G.-M. Chen (Eds.),

Ferment in the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 57–90). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

292

Semlak, J. L., Pearson, J. C., Amundson, N. G., & Kudak, A. D. H. (2008). Navigating dialectic

contradiction experienced by female African refugees during cross-cultural adaptation.

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 37, 43–64.

Shaver nee Dixon, L. (1998). The cultural deprivation of Oklahoma Cherokee family. In A.

Gonzalez & D. V. Dolorez (Eds.), Communication and identity across cultures (pp. 80–

100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shepherd, G. J. (2006). Communication as transcendence. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T.

Striphas, (Eds.), Communication as…Perspectives on theory (pp. 22–30). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shin, C. I., & Jackson, II, R. L. (2003). A review of identity research in communication theory:

reconceptualizing cultural identity. In W. J. Starosta & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Ferment in

the intercultural field: Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 211–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Sister Magdalen (1996). Orthodox tradition and family life. In A. Walker & C. Carras (Eds.),

Living Orthodoxy in the modern world: Orthodox Christianity and society (pp. 50–63).

Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves

through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32.

Soliz, J., Ribarsky, E., Marko Haregan, M., & Tye-Williams, S. (2010). Perceptions of

communication with gay and lesbian family members: Implications for relational

satisfaction and outgroup attitudes. Communication Quarterly, 58, 77–95.

Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G.-M. (2003). Ferment, an ethic of caring, and the corrective power of

dialogue. In W. J. Starosta & G.-M. Chen (Eds.), Ferment in the intercultural field:

Axiology/value/praxis (pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

293

Starosta, W. J., & Chen, G.-M. (2010). Expanding the circumference of intercultural

communication study. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of

critical intercultural communication (pp.130–146). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Stafford, L., & David, P. (2011). A special issue on religion and spirituality. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 39, 331–333.

Sterk, H. M. (1989). How rhetoric becomes real: Religious sources of gender identity. Journal of

Communication and Religion, 4, 24–33.

Sterk, H. M. (2010). Faith, feminism, and scholarship: The Journal of Communication and

Religion, 1999 - 2009. Journal of Communication and Religion, 33, 206–216.

Stokoe, M., & Kishkovsky, L. (1995). Orthodox Christians in North America 1794 – 1994.

Columbus, OH: Orthodox Christian Publications Center.

Stone, E., Gomez, E., Hotzoglou, D., & Lipnitsky, J. (2005). Transnationalism as a motif in

family stories. Family process, 44, 381–398.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).

Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Thatcher, M. S. (2011). Negotiating the tension between the discourses of Christianity and

Spiritual Pluralism in Alcoholics Anonymous. Journal of Applied Communication

Research, 39, 389-405.

Tillmann-Healy, L. (2003). Friendship as method. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 729–249.

294

Ting-Toomey, S. (1986). Interpersonal ties in intergroup communication. In W. Gudykunst

(Ed.), Intergroup communication (pp. 114–126). London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory: Crossing cultural boundaries. In W. B.

Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211–233).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

VanderVoort, L. A., & Duck, S. W. (2000). Talking about "relationships": Variations on a

theme. In K. Dindia & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships

(pp. 1–12). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Vangelisti, A., Crumley, L., & Baker, J. (1999). Family portraits: Stories as standards for family

relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 335–368.

Vitko, J. (2011). Where there is no vision, the people perish. The Orthodox Church: A Quarterly

publication of the Orthodox Church in America, 46, 4–7.

Vrame, A. C. (2008). Four types of “orthopraxy” among Orthodox Christians in America. In A.

Papanikolaou & E. H. Prodromou (Eds.), Thinking through faith: New perspectives from

Orthodox Christian scholars (pp. 279–308). Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary

Press.

Walsh, F. (1999). Religion and spirituality: Wellsprings for healing and resilience. In F. Walsh

(Ed.), Spiritual resources in family therapy (pp. 3–27). New York, NY: Guilford.

Walsh, F., & Pryce, J. (2003). The spiritual dimension of family life. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal

family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. (3rd ed., pp. 337–374). New York,

NY: Guilford.

295

Ware, K. (1995). The Orthodox Way. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Wark, C., & Galliher, J. F., (2007). Emory Bogardus and the origins of the social distance scale.

The American Sociologist, 38, 383–395.

Yarhouse, M.A. (2013). At the intersection of religious and sexual identities: A Christian

perspective on homosexuality. Retrieved from:

http://www.sexualidentityinstitute.org/academic-papers

Yoshimura, C. G. (2006). Getting along with the in-laws: Relationships with siblings-in-law. In

C. Kirkpatrik, S. Duck, & M. Floyd (Eds.), Relating difficulty: The process of

constructing and managing difficult interaction (pp. 117–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

296

Appendix A

SAMPLE FIELD NOTES

The socialization in the parish hall is usually very sporadic. The hall is about a 2000- square-feet building that stands separately from the cathedral. It has three major areas – the kitchen, the church’s gift shop, and the kids play area. The tables are spread evenly on one side of the hall approximately 2-3 feet apart. There is always someone serving at the kitchen. Many people group around that area at the beginning of the social hour to get the refreshments and to greet each other. Some people migrate from church to the hallway in groups arranged in the pews during the Liturgy or in the hall-way by the exit from the cathedral. The parish members have formed mini circles at different round tables standing across the hall. One of the mini circles represent the “old dudes,” as the younger population calls them, mostly arguing about global and local politics, economy. Often the “old dudes” engage into the discussion about the OCA, revive the memories about the old order, reminiscent about the past and the good old days. Their spouses form another mini circle. These women often talk about their families, the changes in their children or grandchildren’s lives and their everyday house chores. Another group is formed by younger generation of the parish. Young women with children often mingle in the hall watching their children playing and talking to each other about their lives at work and homes. There are also two or three mini circles whose membership vary depending on the attendees. These circles usually consist of occasional visitors, new members, or someone from the core group asking questions to the newcomers. As I enter the hall, I normally focus on feeding my son first and then take a round to greet some of my friends. I do not normally get a chance to talk to everyone during the social hour but recently I have noticed that people want to talk to me more as the news about my research project spreads across the community. I find it very encouraging and inspiring as people start revealing to me more information about themselves, their families, and their backgrounds.

297

Appendix B

INFORMED CONSENT FOR INTERVIEW

Hello,

My name is Anastasia A. Widmer, and I am a doctoral candidate in the School of Media and Communication at the Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. I am conducting a research and would like your help in seeking participants for my study that explores in-law relationships in contemporary Orthodox Christian families in America.

I am interested in how Orthodox Christians in America experience and practice their Faith when they communicate with their in-laws. I would like to ask about what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in-law in contemporary America. I would also like to ask their opinion on whether and how the Church’s (Orthodox Church in America) politics influence their perceptions of the Faith in the context of their family lives. These interviews would be conducted one-on-one between the participant and me. All conversations are confidential; audio recordings of the interview will only be listened to by me, be kept locked in my personal residence, and will not have any identifying markers phyiscally on the tapes or within the recordings that would violate confidentiality. After analysis, the recordings will be erased to ensure further confidentiality. My goal is to be able to describe what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in-law in contemporary American Orthodox and non-Orthodox families. Furthermore, with my research I would like to contribute to the existing research about Orthodox Christianity in contemporary America and to offer a discussion on how the history and traditions of Orthodox Christianity in America impact experience of Orthodox Christians in American with their everyday family relationships.

Please help me by directing me to sources in the Northwest Ohio or identify people who are at least 18 years old who would be willing to meet with me. I would ask that you contact potential participants to provide them with my information so that they may contact me if they are interested in participating in my study.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Anastasia Widmer [email protected] Phone: (419) 490 1332

Hello, My name is Anastasia A. Widmer, and I am a doctoral candidate in the School of Media and Communication at the Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. I am conducting a research and would like your help to identify what it means to be an Orthodox Christian in-law in contemporary America.

I am interested in how you, an Orthodox Christian in America, experience and practice your Faith when you communicate with your in-laws. I would like to ask you about what it means to

298 be an Orthodox Christian in-law in contemporary America and describe your experience and attitudes concerning your in-law relationships as well as your experience of perception of being an Orthodox Christian in contemporary America. I would also like to ask you opinion on whether and how the Church’s (Orthodox Church in America) politics influence your perceptions of the Faith in the context of your family life.

I will conduct a one-on-one interview with you. Our conversation will be confidential. The interview will be between 45 and 90 minutes in length. I would like to audio-record the interview session. Audio recordings of the interview will only be listened to by me, be kept locked in my personal residence, and will not have any identifying markers physically on the tapes or within the recordings that would violate confidentiality. After analysis, the recordings will be erased to ensure further confidentiality. Interviews will take place somewhere you seem most comfortable for the discussion. I would also like to interact with and observe you in a situation that you deem comfortable to you where I can gain insight into your daily life. Some places of interest may include you out shopping, doing errands, attending the Church’s social hour or other various events, or any other context with which you are comfortable. My notes of these observations and interactions will be identified by a code only decipherable by me to maintain your confidentiality. Also, I will send these notes to you before analysis to ensure that what I recorded is accurate and that I have understood what was going on correctly. My end goal of conducting these interviews is to be able to describe the experiences of being an Orthodox Christian in-law and how you understand the role of the Faith and its influence in your family relationships. Furthermore, my purpose is to contribute to the existing research about Orthodox Christianity in contemporary America and to offer a discussion on how the history and traditions of Orthodox Christianity in America impact experience of Orthodox Christians in American with their everyday family relationships.

Your decision to participate or to not participate will in no way impact your relationship with Bowling Green State University. There are few anticipated risks with this study; I ask that you share your story and your understanding of the Faith and how it impacts your family relationships with your in-laws.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Anastasia Widmer [email protected] (Phone: (419) 490 1332)

Your participation in this study consists of answering questions that deal with your experience and attitudes concerning your in-law relationships as well as your experience of perception of being an Orthodox Christian in contemporary America. The questions will be asked in a narrative interview format. The interview will be between 45 and 90 minutes in length. I would like to tape-record the interview session with your consent. (Please, mark the appropriate box at the bottom of the paper.) Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free to stop answering questions at any time. You are also free to deny answering questions during the interview that you do not want to answer.

299

Your responses will be kept confidential. I will be using the data that I collected for my dissertation. I assure you that your name will not appear in connection with this study and your responses. If you agree to participate in this study by making yourself available for the interview, please sign the bottom. Also, please indicate your approval or disapproval of tape recording our session.

Yes, I agree to participate in this study. ______Signature of Participant & Date ______Signature of Anastasia A. Widmer, Researcher & Date ( ) I approve of tape-recording my interview session to ensure accuracy of the data analysis. ( ) I disprove of tape-recording my interview session. ( ) If you would like to receive a free copy of the results of this study once completed, please provide your mailing address or email address below. The results should be available by Summer 2013. Name: Street Address: City, State:

Email address:

------Cut off and keep address (lower part)------Thank you very much for your participation. If you have any questions regarding this study or the result of this study upon completion, feel free to contact me: Anastasia A. Widmer, Bowling Green State University, School of Media and Communication, West Hall 219, Bowling Green, OH 43403

If you have ethical concerns/questions, please contact BGSU Professor ______(IRB Chair) at ______

300

Appendix C

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

1. Demographic Information What is your age? ethnicity? religion native language? What in-law family member would you like to talk about? Why do you want to talk about this particular relationship? (Give participant an option to talk about multiple in-law family members if the participant cannot decide.) How have this person been your in-law? What is the ethnicity of this in-law family member son/daughter/sibling(s)-in-law: What is the religion of this in-law family member? What is the native language of this family member? Tell me about the relationship you have with your son/daughter/husban/wife/sibling. What positive and negative elements do you see in your relationship with this person? Tell me about the relationship you have with your mother/father/son/daughter/sibling(s)-in-law. What positive and negative elements do you perceive in this relationship? • Ask about participant’s personal identity. Tell me a little about yourself. What kind of person you feel you are? • Ask about participant’s social identity. 1) How do you think the in-laws are perceived in this society? Where do you think these perceptions come from? 2) To what extent do you agree with this perception? Why? 4. Ask about immediate family culture (religious and ethnic identity) of the participant. 1) What are the primary beliefs that organize your family? 2) What is the general world view, and are they organized by particular myths, rules, spiritual beliefs, or family secrets? 3) What was passed down through the generations to your family about religious and/or spiritual beliefs? 4) How can you indicate some of the key things passed down to your family regarding your ethnicity and religion? (Some family rituals, for example.) 5) What gender messages were embedded in these actions? 6) How do your family members use or not use religious/spiritual beliefs and practices to cope with life challenges? 7) What kind of relationships are there within your immediate family? Are there any challenges with generational boundaries, conflict, cutoffs, disengagement, power imbalance? 5. Ask about family’s perception of the in-laws’ family culture. 1) When you hear the word “in-law,” what comes to your mind? 2) What are your family members’ relationships with the in-law(s)? 3) What is your family’s perception of your mother/father/son/daughter/sibling(s)-in-law who entered your family circle?

301

4) Is the in-law space filled with cultural, ethnic, or religious bias issues? In other words, are there any cultural, ethnic, or religious biases that you and your in-laws hold against each other? 5) How do you think you were received by your in-law(s)? 6) What are your expectation of your relationships with your in-law(s)? 6. Ask about communication behavior: Tell me about your communication with your in-laws. 1) How do you address to each other? Did the naming simply occur or did you state your preference? 2) Did you experience any difficulties when deciding on how to address your in-law and what you yourself wanted to be called? If difficulties, what kind? 3) Describe ideal communication/relationship with your in-laws and compare it to the relationship that you have with your in-laws. 4) What topics do you talk about? 5) What topics are taboo and you do not want to talk about? 7. Ask about Orthodox identity. 1) How do you present/perform/explain your Orthodox identity to your non-Orthodox family members? 2) How do you think your Orthodox identity is perceived by other non-Orthodox family members? 3) Do you like/dislike the way your Orthodoxy is perceived by other family members? Why? 4) What would you like to do to make sure your Orthodox identity is perceived the way you expect it to be perceived by your in-law family members? 5) What would you like to do to make your relationships with your in-law family members positive? 6) What ways have any of the various identities you have (as a gay person, heterosexual person, bisexual person, woman or man, person with some physical challenges, parent, spouse, a divorced person, and etc.) been supported by the Orthodox traditions? Or not supported? Why do you think they are supported/unsupported? 8. Comments. I have asked you many questions about your family and your relationships with your in-laws. Is there anything that you would like to add to this interview before we end that you feel is important when considering your in-law relationship but that I have not asked you about?

ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families

Phone: (419) 490 1332 (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 Have been in this particular relationship for more than 1 year for more Have been in this particular relationship participate in a approximate and willing to And would be interested You have in-law(s) (parents/children/siblings) have You Orthodox Christians are If you or your in-laws [email protected] 45-90 minute interview about your in-law relationship 45-90 minute interview about edu or by phone: to this call by email: alexaaa@bgsu. Please respond (419) 490 1332. My name is Anastasia Widmer, and I am a doctoral candidate in and I am a doctoral candidate Widmer, Hello! My name is Anastasia State Bowling Green and Communication at the School of Media I am working on my doctoral OH. Bowling Green, University, in American Orthodox in-law relationships explores dissertation that If Christian families. Are you an Orthodox Christian? you an Orthodox Are have in-laws? Do you I am interested in learning your experiences of being an I am interested about America. Referrals are Orthodox Christian in-law in contemporary this participant search. in case you do not ﬁt within appreciated THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATIONS! In Christ, Anastasia Widmer Please take an info slip below. Email: [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected] ANASTASIA A. WIDMER In-law relationships in Orthodox Christian families (419) 490 1332 [email protected]

DATE: August 7, 2012

TO: Anastasia Widmer FROM: Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board

PROJECT TITLE: [348095-2] Family communication and the conceptualization of religious and ethnic identities in American Orthodox Christianity and the relationship between relational quality and relational health in in-law relationships. SUBMISSION TYPE: Revision

ACTION: APPROVED APPROVAL DATE: August 6, 2012 EXPIRATION DATE: July 18, 2013 REVIEW TYPE: Expedited Review

REVIEW CATEGORY: Expedited review category # 7

Thank you for your submission of Revision materials for this project. The Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board has APPROVED your submission. This approval is based on an appropriate risk/benefit ratio and a project design wherein the risks have been minimized. All research must be conducted in accordance with this approved submission.

The final approved version of the consent document(s) is available as a published Board Document in the Review Details page. You must use the approved version of the consent document when obtaining consent from participants. Informed consent must continue throughout the project via a dialogue between the researcher and research participant. Federal regulations require that each participant receives a copy of the consent document.

Please note that you are responsible to conduct the study as approved by the HSRB. If you seek to make any changes in your project activities or procedures, those modifications must be approved by this committee prior to initiation. Please use the modification request form for this procedure.

You have been approved to enroll 10-20 participants. If you wish to enroll additional participants you must seek approval from the HSRB.

All UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS involving risks to subjects or others and SERIOUS and UNEXPECTED adverse events must be reported promptly to this office. All NON-COMPLIANCE issues or COMPLAINTS regarding this project must also be reported promptly to this office.

This approval expires on July 18, 2013. You will receive a continuing review notice before your project expires. If you wish to continue your work after the expiration date, your documentation for continuing review must be received with sufficient time for review and continued approval before the expiration date.

Good luck with your work. If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Research Compliance at 419-372-7716 or [email protected]. Please include your project title and reference number in all correspondence regarding this project.

- 1 - Generated on IRBNet

This letter has been electronically signed in accordance with all applicable regulations, and a copy is retained within Bowling Green State University Human Subjects Review Board's records.

- 2 - Generated on IRBNet