Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Communication Theses Department of Communication 12-4-2006 The Political Use of "Family Values" Rhetoric Elizabeth Caroline Powell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_theses Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Powell, Elizabeth Caroline, "The Political Use of "Family Values" Rhetoric." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/communication_theses/17 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Communication at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE POLITICAL USE OF “FAMILY VALUES” RHETORIC by CAROLINE POWELL Under the Direction of Michael Bruner ABSTRACT The bipartisan political slogan “family values,” coupled with discourse surrounding the supposed breakdown of the American family, is a rhetorical move used by political agencies in an effort to excuse the socio-economic failings in America and to reassign responsibility for these failings to the private sphere. This rhetoric tends to promote the idealized nuclear family, while marginalizing the poor and non-traditional family groups. INDEX WORDS: Family values, American family, Nuclear family, Traditional Family, Welfare reform THE POLITICAL USE OF “FAMILY VALUES” RHETORIC by CAROLINE POWELL A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts In the College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University 2006 Copyright by Elizabeth Caroline Powell Master of Arts THE POLITICAL USE OF “FAMILY VALUES” RHETORIC by CAROLINE POWELL Major Professor: Michael L. Bruner Committee: Mary Stuckey Merrill Morris Electronic Version Approved: Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts and Sciences Georgia State University December 2006 iv Table of Contents Chapter 1: The Problematization of “Family Values” Rhetoric 1 Chapter 2: “Family Values” as an Ideograph 33 Chapter 3: How the Myths and Realities of the Nuclear Family Set Precedents and Influenced Welfare Legislation 52 Chapter 4: Depictions of “Family Values” Rhetoric in the George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton Administration 72 Chapter 5: Legislating Families: Family Values Rhetoric in Welfare Law 121 Chapter 5: Conclusion 138 Afterword: Visiting the PRWORA Ten Years Later 146 Works Cited 147 Chapter 1: The Problematization of “Family Values” Rhetoric I would like to posit that the bipartisan political slogan “family values,” coupled with discourse surrounding the supposed breakdown of the American family, is a rhetorical move used by political agencies in an effort to excuse the socio-economic failings in America and to reassign responsibility for these failings to the private sphere. This rhetoric tends to promote the idealized nuclear family, while marginalizing the poor and non-traditional family groups. In this study I examine the ideological patterns found within this rhetoric and show that these patterns are echoed in certain enacted legislative policies that affect families. The first chapter of my study is a literature review of the history of American family forms prevalent during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and how these forms evolved into the traditional nuclear family consisting of the husband, wife, and children. This family form became the basis for family values rhetoric in the latter half of the twentieth century. This study illustrates that the nuclear family model came to be a highly desired family form, but was not the reality for most impoverished or minority families. Yet, this ideal family form came to represent the American family and became the family form upon which American welfare policies are structured. I also discuss the connection between family values rhetoric and ideas surrounding American welfare recipients and policies. This interconnection gains credibility through the frequent use of this rhetoric in conjunction with welfare discourse. Finally, this chapter gives a brief overview of ideographic analysis. The second chapter establishes the ideographic theoretical framework using the concept founded by American rhetorical theorist and 1 social critic Michael Calvin McGee and backed by studies of ideographic analysis by Celeste Condit, John Lucaites, Carol Winkler, Lisa Cuklanz, Maurice Charland, and Dana Cloud. This chapter explains my methodology of how ideographs are defined and used as tools within our rhetorical culture. I offer various examples of ideographic studies to illustrate the concept of the ideograph and how it is created, defined, and used persuasively. Through these examples the family values ideograph is defined and illustrated in narratives that are divided into themes that operate via other ideographs and labels. Chapter three looks at the myths surrounding the nuclear family form, comparing these myths to some of the “family” realities. I introduce the idea of the “golden age” thought to be a time in our history when “family values” were valued. Also discussed are the variations of what constituted those values and how those values became linked to ideas about the poor and, consequently, about the welfare system to care for the poor. Starting in the 1920’s and moving forward, I document the prevalent attitudes regarding the poor as deserving or undeserving depending upon whatever “values” they are perceived to practice. Chapter four is the ideographic analysis of varying discourse from the George H.W. Bush and the William Jefferson Clinton administrations. Family values are identified as they operate as labels and characterizations within the narratives on families and values. I provide analyses of specific themes and patterns in which the family values ideograph is characterized in various political texts including excerpts from various political speeches, books, and Congressional hearings. These excerpts are identified as narratives, labels or associated ideographs and are divided into seven themes: nostalgia (golden age myth); 2 welfare to workfare; the breakdown of the nuclear family associated with societal problems; marriage as a cure for poverty; stigmatization; morality; and how family values are defined. The fifth chapter correlates these characterizations (patterns) found in the rhetorical examples of chapter four with the language found in the Personal Responsibility Work and Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). This legislation was chosen because family values rhetoric dominates the national discourse on welfare (in historic and contemporary times as well). Other representative policies included are the Family Support Act 1988 and the Defense of Marriage Act 1996. Most of the ideographic themes are present within the policies. Finally, my analysis shows that the “family values” ideograph (and associated characterizations) is present in the political and religious narratives on the family and translate into legally binding policy initiatives and directives. As a sweeping welfare reform package, the PRWORA produced negative effects for many marginalized and impoverished families. The last chapter includes my findings, discussion, conclusions, and a look at the PRWORA ten years later. The problem with the rhetoric of family values in contemporary political discourse is that it points to the family unit as the indicator of the successes or failures of socio- economic power structures. It especially targets those families who do not fall under the traditional nuclear model, such as single parent homes, minorities, and impoverished families. Politicians often refer to the need to return to family values, yet they seem to have no understanding of the social and economic bases that make those values possible. Instead, the populace is persuaded to yearn for some kind of past mythical age when life was safer and better. The rhetoric of family values suggests that our social and economic crises are due to the failures of families rather than any kind of problem with the political 3 system. When things are going well, we credit our family ideal, but when things are not going well we look to the dysfunctional elements of family life for blame (Coontz, 1992, p. 2). Overemphasizing personal responsibility for strengthening family values encourages moralizing rather than mobilizing in order to find solutions. Values are important to Americans, but not to the extent that scapegoating becomes acceptable. Our values make a difference in our response to economic challenges and political institutions, but those same institutions and social support networks reinforce certain values and exclude others (p. 22). The problematization of family values rhetoric is necessary in order to unmask the underlying political powers at work by showing how this rhetoric can be disempowering to those it claims to emancipate. By its very nature, capitalism produces the “haves” and “have nots.” The flaws inherent in the American economic system assure that the poor will always exist. However, rather than attribute inequities to the system, the tendency is to reassign blame for society’s socio-economic problems to the individual. The family values rhetoric tends to promote the idea that financial success and societal inclusion are strictly products of being raised in the “right” kind of families (usually the traditional family because, by association, that