Instant Download Ebook PDF Exploring Family Theories 4th Edition PDF Scribd

(eBook PDF) Exploring Family Theories
4th Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-exploring-family-theories-4th-edition/
Acknowledgments
If you look deeply into the palm of your hand, you will see your parents and all generations of
your ancestors. All of them are alive in this moment. Each is present in your body. You are
the continuation of these people.
Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnamese Monk, Activist and Writer
We thank our grandparents and parents (Ken and Linda Smith, Ray and Pat Kunkle) for
the part they played in our lives and the values and beliefs they instilled in us, such as the
significance of hard work, a sense of curiosity and the importance of education. We thank
our husbands, Brett and Jeff, for their support, patience, and understanding as we worked
on this new edition. Thanks also go to our children, who allowed us to take time away
from them so that we could focus on writing. May they see the values we have worked
hard to instill in them in the palms of their hands as they move forward in their lives.
Education makes us free. The world of knowledge and of the intellect is where all people can
meet and converse. Education liberates people from prejudice.
Daisaku Ikeda, Buddhist Leader, Peacebuilder, Poet and Educator
We thank Sherith Pankratz at Oxford University Press for her encouragement and guid-
ance in regard to the project as we attempt to provide an educational tool that will create
conversation and further knowledge for students in the social sciences. We thank our
fellow educators in our departments for their support of this project and for their devotion
to educating students in a way that prepares them to help people and liberates them from
prejudice. Specifically, we thank the human development department at Washington State
University Vancouver in Vancouver, Washington, and the human development and family
science department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. We also acknowl-
edge Bron Ingoldsby and Beth Miller, who were co-authors with Suzanne Smith on the
first edition of this book. Without their scholarship and friendship, this book would never
have been written. Finally, we thank the many colleagues who graciously gave of their
time and shared their knowledge by reviewing the book as we sought feedback to inform
our revisions for the fourth edition.
• Kelly Campbell, California State University, San Bernardino
• Jean Dawson, Franklin Pierce University
• Debi Grebenik, Newman University
vii
00-Smith-Hamon-FM.indd 7 9/12/16 10:54 AM

viii Ack now l ed gm en ts
• Michael Merten, Oklahoma State University

• Monica Miller-Smith, University of Connecticut
• Francis A. O’Connor, LaGrange College
• Candace Philbrick, North Dakota State University
• Tyler M. Smith, Baylor University
• Anthony Walker, Indiana State University

About the Authors
Suzanne R. Smith is an associate professor of human development at Washington State

University Vancouver, where she serves as the director of academic planning and special
assistant to the vice chancellor. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Georgia. In
addition to serving as an administrator, she teaches courses on human development theo-
ries and family diversity. Dr. Smith’s primary area of research is parent–child relation-
ships, but recently she has spent significant time providing professional development to
teachers in Burundi, Africa, so they can teach positive youth development via the use of
school gardens. She has served as president of both the Northwest Council on Family
Relations and the Teaching Family Science Association and as a member of the Board of
the National Council on Family Relations.
Raeann R. Hamon is a professor of family science and gerontology and chair of the
human development and family science department at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.
Dr. Hamon earned her Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. A certified family life educator, she
teaches courses on family theories, family life education methodology, interpersonal rela-
tionships, marital relationships, and aging. Her research is related to intergenerational re-
lationships, families in later life, issues related to the discipline of family science, teaching
pedagogy, and Bahamian families. Dr. Hamon is an active member of the National Coun-
cil on Family Relations, of which she is a Fellow, and the Family Science Association.
ix

New to the Fourth Edition
In addition to minor changes throughout each chapter, the fourth edition of Exploring
Family Theories features the following major changes:
• Multiple chapters have been reorganized so content is more clear and
understandable.
• The sections on current areas of research have been updated to reflect the most
recent research.
• The majority of supplemental readings now come from more recent publications.
• The history section of multiple chapters has been expanded to include develop-
ments since the last edition of the book.
• More application activities and guiding/reflecting questions for supplemental read-
ings were added.
• An instructor’s manual is now available with related assignments, experiential ac-
tivities, and a test bank.

EX PLOR I NG FA M I LY
THEOR IES

Introduction
“Why do you do that?” “Why does our family insist on doing things that way?” Q uestions
about people’s behaviors are the essence of social science inquiry. The focus may be on
individuals, families, social groups, communities, or cultures. To engage in the process of
social science inquiry, you need two things: research and theory. Before we enter into a
discussion of social science theory, specifically family theory, we first must have a discus-
sion about theory in general.
W H AT IS T H EORY?
A theory is a tool used to understand and describe the world. More specifically, a theory
is a general framework of ideas and how they relate to each other. Theories can be used to
ask and answer questions about particular phenomena. You probably are familiar with
many theories already, such as the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the theory
of the big bang, and the theory of plate tectonics. Theories are also important in the social
sciences, particularly those that help us to study families.
Theories have identifiable components that make up their structures. Assumptions are
beliefs that are taken for granted or believed to be true. They form the foundation under-
lying the theory. Concepts are the terms and specific ideas used in building the theory.
Propositions are statements that demonstrate how concepts fit together in a context. They
are the relationships between the concepts, the “glue” holding the theory together. Thus,
a theory is based on assumptions and should be composed of clearly defined concepts that
fit together in the form of propositions. For these propositions to be useful, they must be
specific enough to help describe, explain, and predict phenomena and to ask questions
that would guide their research in deductive ways.
A theory’s ability to help us generate questions is known as its heuristic value. A
theory can help us decide what to research; the results of that research can, in turn, lead
to the development of new theories, which again can lead to new research. In other words,
theories must be empirically testable. Variables and relationships within the propositional
statements must be operationalized, and the researcher must develop measures to assess
the components outlined. A theory should also be flexible enough to grow and change, so
that new information can be fed back into the theory, causing it to adapt and change in
an inductive feedback loop; but a theory also must be general enough to apply to a wide
variety of specific cases. In short, the usefulness of a theory is determined by its ability to
01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 1 9/12/16 4:50 PM

2 EX PL OR I NG FA M I LY T H EOR I ES
describe more, rather than less, detail; to predict with more, rather than less, accuracy;
and to apply to a broader, rather than a narrower, range of specific cases.
It is also true that theories have a certain point of view, or lens. Depending on our
emphasis, the perspective may be more broad (macro) or more narrow (micro). The lens
we choose is often a function of the question we are asking and so, again, a theory’s use-
fulness depends on the subject at hand. In the social sciences, human situations are com-
plex, and it is difficult to find one theory that can explain or predict every emotion,
behavior, interaction, process, and event. Because of this, social theories function as lenses
we can use to help us interpret or focus on the components of human interactions in
conceptual ways.
Although theories are abstract, they do serve important purposes in our understand-
ing of social phenomena. Theories provide a general framework for understanding data in
an organized way and show us how to intervene (Burr 1995). In social sciences, it is rare
to find someone who believes that there is only one way to understand social phenomena,
particularly phenomena as complicated as individuals and families. Thus, the frustrating
but truthful response to many questions in social science is “It depends.” Indeed, it does
depend on one’s point of view, but that is not the same as one’s opinion. For example,
someone may believe that divorce sets a bad example for children. As scholars, we know
that divorce is too complex to be labeled merely good or bad and that questions about the
effects of divorce on children cannot be easily answered. We need more complex ideas to
analyze such situations, and we must consider multiple elements within families to study
aspects of divorce, its development, and its effects. To decide which theory to use, we
consider the usefulness of the theory, or how well it enables us to answer the questions at
hand. How “well” a theory explains a situation depends on the researcher’s point of view,
or his or her lens. Thus, two social scientists may each choose a different theory to explain
the same situation.
Each theory allows us to look at different aspects of family life. One theory might
suggest that we focus on the roles people play, whereas another might suggest that we
focus more on the individual’s gains and losses. Looking through the lens of the theory
enables us to see how the world looks from that perspective. Each theory has underlying
basic assumptions that focus the lens, just as each has concepts and propositions that
guide what we analyze. Each theory has been developed within a historical context and
has asked different questions; thus, each theory has a different research history. Because
of this, each theory can give us a different answer to our question, which is why “It
depends.”
Where Do Theories Come From?

Theories generally do not emerge fully formed. Instead, they build slowly over time, as
scholars gather data through observation and analysis of evidence, relating concepts to-
gether in different ways. This type of reasoning, moving from specific bits of information
toward a general idea, is known as inductive reasoning. Once the theory exists, scholars use
the general ideas of the theory to generate more specific questions, often in the form of
research questions, thereby moving in the opposite direction. Taking a general idea from
a theory and testing it to tease out the details is known as deductive reasoning. Both kinds
of thinking patterns are common in theory construction and development, and once
again, they demonstrate the link between research and theory.

I n t roduc t ion 3
Theory
(Generalities)
Inductive Deductive
reasoning reasoning
Research
(Specifics)
The cycle of theory building.
However, as you can see from the figure, “The cycle of theory building,” theories are
not stagnant. Theories help us to formulate questions that we test via research. The re-
search generates data, which filter back into the cycle and help us to further refine the
theory. Such a beneficial relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Research poses ques-
tions and then tries to answer them by making observations and collecting data. When
enough data have been collected, patterns emerge, and a theory is developed to try to
explain the patterns that are observed. Thus, theory helps us explain “what’s going on”
and can allow us to predict “what’s going to happen” when certain conditions are present.
As our theoretical ideas change, so do our research questions. There is a continuous feed-
back loop between discovery and confirmation, disconfirmation, or modification. It is also
important to remember that theories do not exist in a cultural vacuum, but that they are
the products of humans and their experiences. As humans redefine their values, their
theories are influenced by those changes. This is particularly evident in theories of social
science but can be seen in natural science theories as well. After all, it was once believed
that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.
Radical changes or shifts in scientific views are known as paradigm shifts (Kuhn 1970).
These shifts occur after significant data that do not fit the current theory have been gath-
ered. Thus, a new theory is needed to explain the data. According to Kuhn, in the natural
sciences, paradigm shifts change science dramatically, as did Einstein’s theory of relativity
or the fact that Columbus did not, in fact, fall off the end of the earth.
In the social sciences, paradigm shifts are not as obvious, because we do not evaluate
our theories from the standpoint of truth, but rather from how useful they are. We, as
scholars, cannot define what is true for all humans or families, so neither can our theo-
retical perspectives. At times, significant changes in culture or human experience can
change theoretical perspectives in radical ways. For instance, it is not uncommon to see
shifts in the most popular theories employed. While reviewing theories in family geron-
tology during the 1990s, Roberto and colleagues (2006) noted a decline in the use of
certain theories and an increase in others. Over time, certain theories can fall out of favor
and be replaced by more relevant and helpful frames of reference. You will note that
between the third and fourth editions of this text, some theories have been used more
heavily than others.

What Are the Functions of Theory?

Theories have a variety of functions in helping us to generate knowledge about families.
Stan Knapp (2009) identifies the “generative” capacity of family theory in each of the fol-
lowing five functions: descriptive function, sensitizing function, integrative function, ex-
planatory function, and value function. Relative to its descriptive function, theories help
name, classify, and organize phenomena in such a way that we can understand them. By
articulating basic concepts and the relationship between events, theory helps us to de-
scribe what we hope to study. As part of a sensitizing function, theory can help us to be
aware of processes, events, and phenomena that we may not have otherwise noticed. It
sensitizes us to matters that we might have missed without calling our attention to them.
The integrative function helps us make connections between events or processes that appear
to be distinct and unrelated. It identifies the interrelatedness of disparate concepts and
propositions, tying together ideas in a new way to make sense of data. The explanatory
function is probably the best known role of theory. Its unique purpose is to explain data.
It attempts to answer the questions “how” and “why,” or why do things happen as they
do? It also attempts to make predictions about phenomena that can be tested in future
research. Finally, theory possesses a value function. Knapp (2009) notes that theories
“become receptacles for valued ideas in making sense of our world” (135). The values
embedded in theoretical assumptions, descriptions of concepts, and the like advocate for
certain value stances. Thus, it is important to be aware of the underlying values espoused
within a particular theory. According to Knapp, we must see the many functions of
theory and not just be consumed by its integrative and explanatory functions or we will
miss the potential to better understand our subject.
How Do We Evaluate Theories?

It is always important to continue to evaluate the theories we are using. How do we do
this? Doherty et al. (1993, 24–26) delineate seventeen criteria that are helpful in assessing
the value and quality of theories in the family field and social sciences in general. Below,
we list these criteria and then explain them in more detail.
1. Richness of ideas refers to the general appeal that a theory offers to its user. Is the
theory original? Does it offer the depth and unique understanding for which a
scholar is looking?
2. Clarity of concepts relates to the extent to which concepts are well defined. Are the
concepts clear and distinct enough from each other that scholars are able to com-
municate about them?
3. Coherence of connections among concepts refers to the ability of the concepts to logically
or intuitively relate well to one another. How easy is it to see the relationships
between theoretical concepts?
4. Simplicity or parsimony refers to the need to weigh a theory’s simplicity against its
effectiveness and utility. Does the theory express its ideas parsimoniously without
being too reductionistic?
5. Clarity of theoretical assumptions and presuppositions relates to how well the origina-
tors of the theory have conveyed their philosophy of science and their assumptions

I n t roduc t ion 5
about family relationships. What are the authors’ underlying assumptions about
human behavior and family dynamics?
6. Consistency with its own assumptions and presuppositions refers to the extent to which
fundamental assumptions are supportive of and related to one another. Is there
internal coherence between underlying assumptions and presuppositions outlined
in the theory?
7. Acknowledgment of its sociocultural context represents the cultural context from which
the theory emerged. What was the cultural context when the theory was devel-
oped? What implications does that have for the theory’s use in light of the current
cultural context?
8. Acknowledgment of underlying value positions refers to the extent to which theorists
have made their values known. What are the values represented in this theory?
What is good? What is right? What is worthwhile?
9. Acknowledgment of theoretical forebears refers to the need to reference the work of
those who have contributed to the continuing development of the theory. Whose
ideas have contributed to the origination and refinement of this theory? Are there
scholars against whom this theorist is reacting in its development?
10. Potential for validation and current level of validation refers to the extent to which
research observations are able to affirm a theory. Does the theory actually seem to
reflect what transpires in the lives of families?
11. Acknowledgment of limits and points of breakdown refers to the critical eye needed to
identify the limits of the theory and its presuppositions. How does the theory fail
to enlighten our understanding of phenomena under consideration?
12. Complementarity with other theories and levels of explanation refers to the extent to
which a theory is able to interface with other conceptual frameworks that exist
within the field. How does the theory fit together with other theoretical frame-
works in the field?
13. Openness to change and modification refers to the willingness to refine, modify, revise,
and even abandon ideas over time, rather than voraciously defend them. Are the
theory’s proponents willing to discuss its merits and shortcomings with others
and modify the theory accordingly?
14. Ethical implications relate to the assumptions about morality on which the theory
is based. What impact does this theory have on the rights and responsibilities of
families and their members? How can the theory be ethically applied to enhance
our understanding of family life?
15. Sensitivity to pluralistic human experience refers to the ability of a theory to accom-
modate a vast range of human and family experiences. To what extent is the
theory sensitive to pluralistic human experiences as related to things like gender,
race, ethnicity, age, social class, and sexual orientation?
16. Ability to combine personal experience and academic rigor refers to the extent to which
a theory enables the scholar to move back and forth between lived personal expe-
riences within families and professional reasoning. How able is the theory to ac-
commodate shifting back and forth between personal immersion and academic
objectivity and distance?

17. Potential to inform application for education, therapy, advocacy, social action, or public
policy refers to the theory’s ability to help theorizers translate theory and related
data into actions that benefit families. Does the theory help to improve the lives
of families via education, therapy, public policy, and advocacy? Can the theory be
applied to real families?
It is important to recognize that no single theory is likely to measure up on all these
items. Nonetheless, these criteria offer one way to more fully appreciate and assess each theory.
The Need for Theorizing

If theories are so important for enhancing our understanding of relationships and the
world around us, how does one tackle this assignment? According to Jetse Sprey (1990),
“theorizing first and foremost is an intentional activity” (22). We must commit ourselves
to the work of developing and testing theory. Many agree that theorizing is a process, not
just a product (Bengtson et al. 2005; Roberto, Blieszner, and Allen 2006). It is something
you do, an activity in which you engage.
Many of the world’s greatest minds, those whose ideas literally changed the way we
understand the world, were theoreticians. For example, we live in a post-Freudian world:
Freud’s theories revolutionized our understanding of the mind, sexuality, and how we deal
with stress. Karl Marx suggested that communism is an alternative to social injustice and
oppression and a method by which all humans could achieve a humane and equitable life.
Freud and Marx brought about significant shifts in the way we thought about issues in
society and human behavior that are still valued today, although we do not believe every
aspect of Freudian psychology, and Marx’s Communist Manifesto is considered to have its
limitations. Similarly, Piaget brought about another paradigm shift in the area of cognitive
development with his insight that children think in ways that are qualitatively different
from adult processes. His theory has undergone modifications, and many researchers still
use his work as a basis for their research, but some of them have also gone beyond his work
and expanded on his ideas. In this way, we evaluate theories based on their useful aspects.
Bengtson et al. (2005) likened theorizing to putting together the pieces of a puzzle.
Each puzzle piece is composed of a bit of family research data. Alone and disorganized,
the pieces do not make sense and are perplexing. However, when assembled in a meaning-
ful way, the puzzle provides a more coherent image or picture. Thus, theorizers use ideas
or abstractions to make sense of data. Because theories are intellectual constructs that are
subject to change as a new puzzle piece or evidence is introduced, theorizers’ work is never
complete. In fact, theories should never be considered static and unchanging. Theorizers
must always scrutinize theories for their utility and relevance across diverse groups and
over the course of time (Bengtson et al. 2005). We need family scholars who commit
themselves to theorizing—assembling, disassembling, and then reassembling the puzzles
of life. Can you imagine yourself as a family theorizer?
FA M ILY T H EORY
James White (2015) argues that it is essential to develop family theories that are distinct
from those used to examine social groups, as used in the fields of sociology. After all, the
family is a unique type of grouping. According to White, Klein, and Martin (2015),

I n t roduc t ion 7
families differ from other social groups in four ways: Families last much longer than most
social groups and require lifetime memberships. Families are intergenerational, unlike
other social groups, and virtually ensure a range of ages. Although most social groups are
primarily based on affinity, families represent biological and affinal (e.g., legal) relation-
ships. Finally, families are connected to larger kinship networks.
So, why study family theory? The family is certainly the most important and endur-
ing of all human social groupings. What, then, could be more fascinating than attempt-
ing to understand family dynamics? Nothing affects our personalities and happiness more
than our family relationships. Why is kinship always the center of any human society?
How do these interactions work, and why are they so influential in our lives?
Because there are so many perspectives to consider, it is not a simple thing to develop
a coherent theory of family interaction. Social science is made even more difficult because
we are attempting to understand ourselves. Whereas in the natural sciences we are exam-
ining objects and life forms that are less complex than we are, in human development we
do not have the advantage of a higher intelligence than the subject to get a good metaper-
spective. With groups like families, there is the added complexity of looking beyond the
individual to the relationships between individuals. All of this makes family theory de-
velopment difficult at best.
We are also hindered by the difficulty of not even having a good and commonly ac-
cepted definition of the term family. An oft-used definition is “two or more people related
by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same unit” (Welsh 2012, 557). However,
there is ongoing scientific and political debate on what we mean when we say “family.” As
we will see, each theory has its own variation on the definition.
This is also a good example of why we need more than one family theory. First, there
is more than one type and one definition of family. Second, even if you agree on how to
define the family, you may disagree on which particular aspect of their interactions or
behaviors your attention should be focused on. Finally, each theory offers an insight that
others cannot provide because of their different lenses.
The purpose of this text is to provide a basic introduction to the major theories per-
taining to the family among professionals today. Each theory addresses different aspects
of family life and answers different questions. Humans are extremely complex, and it is
difficult to analyze ourselves; therefore, every theory will be imperfect. But each one
brings us closer to understanding and being able to make positive change where needed
in family life. Each theory has its own basic assumptions and concepts and is a product of
its own historical context as well. Each is used in answering specific research questions
that other theories may not answer or may answer differently. It will be up to you to try
on the lens of each theory and determine how well you think it explains human and
family behavior.
T EXT ORGA NIZ ATION
We will discuss ten theories about the family that have been widely used and accepted
over the past fifty years. We present these ten theories in a loosely chronological order. It
is difficult to be more precise because most of them experienced a gradual emergence, and
some had long histories as general social theories before they were used to study the
family as a specific social phenomenon. Our order of placement is determined based on

the time when significant publications discussing the theory from a family perspective
appeared.
Symbolic interaction theory is one of the first and most influential theories in the
field of family science. Its roots stem from the pragmatic philosophers of the early 1900s,
and it is based on the belief that we construct our own realities. Events and relationships
take on different meanings based on an individual’s perceptions and the context of a situ-
ation. Symbolic interactionism continues to be a popular family theory today.
Shortly after the Depression and World War II and in the infancy of family theory
building, several other theories took center stage. Structural functionalism, which comes
from sociology and anthropology, takes a macro view of the family within culture. It
looks at the family through the lens of asking what the family does to justify its existence
in society.
Family development theory applies basic-stage theory from psychology to families. It
considers how families change over time in response to normative family events. Al-
though its widespread use comes later, family stress theory, which looks at how the family
as a system deals with challenging situations or events, was developed while studying
family reactions to the Depression and later to wartime during World War II.
In the late 1950s and well into the 1960s, several theories took more of an inside look
at family communication and interaction. First, family systems theory derived from com-
munication and clinical work. It made a micro analysis of how family members relate to
each other in a complex world of multicausality. Rooted in systems theory, ecological
theory emerged with the growing recognition of the need to examine individuals and
families within their environments, primarily the home. Next, conflict theory came from
a sociological perspective and focused on how people and families create stability and
instability in their relationships because of differences in status. Then, social exchange
theory took its inspiration from behaviorism and economics in analyzing family decision
making as a rational process of choosing between rewards and costs.
Our final two theoretical approaches began to receive significant notice in the 1970s.
Feminist theorists began their investigations with the perspective that women’s experi-
ences are central to our understanding of families and focused on the influences of social
situations and politics. Most recently, the biosocial perspective, with its roots in the work
of Charles Darwin, maintains as its general premise that, although humans are driven by
innate structures, the family and cultural environment influence their behaviors.
Each chapter begins with a fictional vignette to introduce a way of using that particu-
lar theory for understanding an aspect of family life. It is followed by a brief history of the
development of the theory and then an explanation of the basic assumptions that under-
gird it. The primary terms and concepts used in understanding the theory are provided.
The usefulness of each theory is highlighted by examples of research and application
within the particular framework. Every theory is critiqued, and its principal problems
and strengths are discussed. Finally, the reader is provided with a series of questions and
exercises designed to relate the implications of the theory to the vignette and to his or her
own personal and family life.
A highlight of this book is the integration of research with theory and practice. After
each chapter, a professional article is included. Each research article illustrates how new
information about families is gained when researchers and practitioners use theories to
guide their efforts. Whereas in the first edition of this text a classic article was included
after each chapter, for this edition, we have chosen more contemporary readings. The

I n t roduc t ion 9
epilogue links the chapters together, using a conceptual model for comparing and con-
trasting the theories. This model indicates how each theory can be useful for understand-
ing and guiding intervention for particular situations from its viewpoint.
It is important to remember that anyone can collect facts, but being a scholar re-
quires understanding the facts in a way that allows for research, testing, comprehension,
and practical application. To be useful, data must be ordered within a theoretical frame-
work. Which theories will you enjoy the most and find the most useful? There is only one
way to find out!
R EFER ENC ES
Bengtson, V., A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, and D. M. Klein. 2005. Theory

and theorizing in family research: Puzzle building and puzzle solving. In Sourcebook of family
theory and research, ed. V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, and
D. M. Klein, 3–33. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burr, W. R. 1995. Using theories in family science. In Research and theory in family science, ed. R. D. Day,
K. R. Gilbert, B. H. Settles, and W. R. Burr, 73–88. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks–Cole.
Doherty, W. J., P. G. Boss, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. 1993. Family theories
and methods: A contextual approach. In Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual
approach, ed. P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz,
3–30. New York: Plenum.
Knapp, S. J. 2009. Critical theorizing: Enhancing theoretical rigor in family research. Journal of
Family Theory and Review 1: 133–145.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberto, K. A., R. Blieszner, and K. R. Allen. 2006. Theorizing in family gerontology: New op-
portunities for research and practice. Family Relations 55: 513–525.
Sprey, J. (ed.). 1990. Fashioning family theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Welsh, K. J. 2012. Family life now. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
White, J. M., D. M. Klein, and T. F. Martin. 2015. Family theories. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

1
Symbolic Interactionism Theory
Keiko and Thanh are leaving the house to attend a cocktail party sponsored by
Thanh’s company. It is important that he be there because he is up for a big pro-
motion this year and wants to make sure those in charge know who he is and can
connect his face with his name because his name is unusual in the United States.
Keiko is tired from working all day and taking care of the children’s needs before
they leave the house, so she is dreading the party. Thanh, however, is excited.
They are greeted at the door by the company vice president and a loud band.
Thanh introduces his wife with pride and accepts champagne for both of them
to sip as they mingle in the crowd. He is really in his element, speaking to every-
one he passes, introducing his wife, and keeping his hand on the small of her
back to make sure she feels comfortable and included. Because she does not
know anyone there, he wants to make sure she is close so he can introduce her
to everyone and make her feel like a part of the group. He is enjoying the music
and expensive champagne and cannot wait for the dancing to begin. Thanh says
to his wife, “Isn’t this the best party you’ve ever been to? And can you believe
who is here—all the important people, and I’ve gotten to talk to all of them.
I can’t imagine a more perfect evening!”
As Keiko looks at him, he knows something is wrong. He asks, “Aren’t you en-
joying yourself?” She does not know what to say to him. The place is too loud
and too crowded, and people are drinking way too much. She wonders how he
can stand knowing that everyone he speaks to is judging both of them. And why
does he have to be so controlling of her? Everywhere they go, he is right by her
side, as if he does not trust her to go out on her own for fear she will say some-
thing that would make him look bad. It is one of the worst nights of her life! How
can two people at the same party in the same place have such different opinions
about what is going on?
So, who was right—was it the best party they had ever been to or a night of feel-
ing controlled and judged? Was the party incredible or incredibly boring? The
answer to those questions, according to symbolic interactionism, is that they are
both right. People define situations based on their personal experiences and
sense of self. Thus, two people can be in the same situation and have different
interpretations of what is going on. We will learn more about this as we discuss
this multifaceted and exciting theory.
10
02-Smith-Hamon-Chap01.indd 10 9/12/16 10:57 AM

S y m bol ic I n ter ac t ion i sm T h eory 11
HISTORY
Of all the theories discussed in this text, symbolic interactionism has probably had the
greatest impact on the study of families. Not only is this theory rich in history because it
has been in use since the early 1900s, but also it is still one of the most commonly used
theoretical perspectives in the field today, perhaps because it continues to develop (Fine
1993). The longevity and popularity of this theory are in part a result of its emphasis on a
conceptual framework that is not only rich in content but also adaptable to any time period.
Such success as a theory also comes from the fact that symbolic interactionism was uniquely
born out of both qualitative and quantitative research (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
Unlike most theories, there is no one person who is most commonly associated with
the development of symbolic interactionism. Thus, we must review the work of many
people to fully understand the basic assumptions of this theory. Although who is covered
in this section will vary from one writing to the next, this particular discussion is based
on the guidance of LaRossa and Reitzes (1993).
Symbolic interactionism has its earliest roots in the United States in the pragmatic
philosophers of the early 1900s, such as William James, John Dewey, Charles Peirce, and
Josiah Royce (Vander Zanden 1987). Not only were these scholars themselves influential
in the development of the theory, but also, perhaps more importantly, they trained their
students, who in turn became the primary contributors to the assumptions and concepts
that make this theory what it is today. The pragmatists did, however, contribute four
important ideas that laid the foundation for the development of symbolic interactionism.
The first important contribution of the pragmatists was to view the world as always
changing, rather than as a static structure whose history was predetermined. Second, the
pragmatists argued that social structure is not fixed in time, but constantly changing and
developing. Third, they were perhaps the first to suggest that meaning comes not from
objects themselves, but from our interactions with objects. For example, the meaning of a
table depends on the person who is viewing or using the table at the time. Finally, “they
exhibited an ideological commitment to progress and to democratic values” (La Rossa and
Reitzes 1993, 136) that could be advanced through science. Thus arose the notion that we
could use research to figure out how societies and people grow and change and how they
do so within the confines of a democratic society that is always evolving.
These four ideas came about at a time in history when people were desperate for in-
formation about how the changing structure of society was going to affect them. This was
the time of the industrial revolution, when people were going from working at home on
the farm to working at the factory, which also meant moving from rural areas to urban
areas closer to work (Mintz and Kellogg 1988). These changes left people feeling that
they had little or no control over their lives, which also meant that they probably had
little control over society. However, the ideas of symbolic interactionism allowed people
to feel as if they gained back a little more of that control because the theory was based on
the idea that people are not victims of some predetermined course of history, but are in-
stead able to change how things happen in society through communication and interac-
tion (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
Not only did these ideas appeal to society in general, but they were also accepted by
scholars because they were grounded in research. Symbolic interactionism provided the
means by which to study social interactions in a scientific fashion. It was at this time that
people began to study the family just as a scientist would study a specimen or an

astronomer would study a constellation (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). This empirical posi-
tion is still appealing to researchers today and continues to be one of the greatest strengths
of the theory (Burnier 2005).
As previously stated, one thing that makes symbolic interactionism unique is that it
is a combination of the efforts of many different researchers. Although many people made
important contributions to the development of this theory, we will focus on just a few:
George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, William Isaac Thomas, Erving Goffman,
and Herbert Blumer.
George Herbert Mead, whose primary contributions focused on the self, is probably
the most recognized of all those who have influenced symbolic interactionism. He be-
lieved that we learn about ourselves through interactions with others that are based on
gestures (Mead 1934/1956). A gesture can be thought of as any action that causes a re-
sponse or reaction in another person. We can all think of certain finger gestures that are
sure to create a response in others, but Mead used the term more broadly to include such
things as language and facial expressions as well. We develop a sense of self-consciousness
when we can anticipate how other people will respond to our gestures. Because of this, it
takes interactions with others to fully develop a sense of self.
How does this process take place? Mead believed that people follow two stages to
develop a sense of self. In the first, the play stage, the child tries to use gestures to practice
the behaviors associated with different roles, such as that of mother, father, firefighter, or
teacher (Vander Zanden 1987). For example, if you have ever watched preschool children
play house, you have probably seen a girl imitate things she has seen her mother do, such
as cooking dinner, changing a baby’s diaper, or helping another child with homework.
Boys, in contrast, if they are in the dramatic play area of the preschool classroom at all,
are likely to be doing such things as pretending to drive the family to an event or orga-
nizing a play activity for the children. While engaged in this dramatic play experience,
children are able to imagine the attitudes of their parent or learn to take on the perspec-
tive of another person. During this stage, children usually assume the role of only one
person at a time.
In the second stage, however, children begin to take on the perspectives of many
people at one time and to see how the individual fits within that group (Mead 1934/1956).
This is called the game stage, and almost any childhood game is a good example. For in-
stance, when you play soccer, you need to think about not only what you are doing on the
field or the purpose of your position, but also what everyone else is doing. Another good
example is that of the family. During the game stage, children can understand what each
person’s role in the family is, including their own, and how the behavior of one family
member affects the interactions of other family members.
The final step in this process is being able to anticipate how one’s behaviors affect not
only those individuals in our immediate environment, but also those in society at large.
Mead (1934/1956) called this being able to take on the role of the “generalized other,”
which means understanding social norms and expectations so that one can guess how
other people will react to a specific gesture or interaction. One example is a young man
who had a schedule change and had to attend an important off-campus meeting at the
last minute. He had never been to the meeting place before and barely made it in time,
taking the first parking place he could find so he would not be late. As he left the build-
ing after the meeting, surrounded by people he considered important members of the
community, he walked up to his car and discovered he had parked in a handicapped

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
accustomed or not to such a scene; their eyes were swollen with the
last night’s frequent flood of grief, and still weeping genuine tears of
regret; the upper part of their cheeks perfectly black, and swollen so
that they could hardly see, with the constant blows they had inflicted
on themselves with their fists.
Among the chiefs and matabooles who were seated on the marly,
all those who were particularly attached to the late king or to his
cause evinced their sorrow by a conduct usual indeed among these
people at the death of a relation, or of a great chief (unless it be that
of Tooitonga, or any of his family), but which to us may well appear
barbarous in the extreme; that is to say, the custom of cutting and
wounding themselves with clubs, stones, knives, or sharp shells; one
at a time, or two or three together, running into the middle of the
circle formed by the spectators to give these proofs of their extreme
sorrow for the death, and great respect for the memory of their
departed friend.
The sentiments expressed by these victims of popular superstition
were to the following purpose. “Finow, I know well your mind; you
have departed to Bolotoo, and left your people under suspicion that I
or some of those about you are unfaithful; but where is the proof of
infidelity? where is a single instance of disrespect?” Then inflicting
violent blows and deep cuts in the head with a club, stone, or knife,
would again exclaim at intervals, “Is this not a proof of my fidelity?
does this not evince loyalty and attachment to the memory of the
departed warrior?” Then perhaps two or three would run on and
endeavour to seize the same club, saying with a furious tone of
voice, “Behold the land is torn with strife, it is smitten to pieces, it is
split by revolts; how my blood boils; let us haste and die! I no longer
wish to live: your death, Finow, shall be mine. But why did I wish
hitherto to live? it was for you alone; it was in your service and
defence only that I wished to breathe; but now, alas! the country is
ruined. Peace and happiness are at an end; your death has insured
ours: henceforth war and destruction alone can prosper.” These
speeches were accompanied with a wild and frantic agitation of the
body, whilst the parties cut and bruised their heads every two or
three words with the knife or club they held in their hands. Others,
somewhat more calm and moderate in their grief, would parade up
and down with rather a wild and agitated step, spinning and whirling
the club about, striking themselves with the edge of it two or three
times violently upon the top or back of the head, and then suddenly
stopping and looking stedfastly at the instrument spattered with
blood, exclaim, “Alas! my club, who could have said that you would
have done this kind office for me, and have enabled me thus to
evince a testimony of my respect for Finow? Never, no never, can
you again tear open the brains of his enemies. Alas! what a great
and mighty warrior has fallen! Oh, Finow, cease to suspect my
loyalty; be convinced of my fidelity! But what absurdity am I talking! if
I had appeared treacherous in your sight, I should have met the fate
of those numerous warriors who have fallen victims to your just
revenge. But do not think, Finow, that I reproach you; no, I wish only
to convince you of my innocence, for who that has thoughts of
harming his chiefs shall grow white headed like me (an expression
used by some of the old men). O cruel gods to deprive us of our
father, of our only hope, for whom alone we wished to live. We have
indeed other chiefs, but they are only chiefs in rank, and not like you,
alas! great and mighty in war.”
Such were their sentiments and conduct on this mournful
occasion. Some, more violent than others, cut their heads to the
skull with such strong and frequent blows, that they caused
themselves to reel, producing afterwards a temporary loss of reason.
It is difficult to say to what length this extravagance would have been
carried, particularly by one old man, if the prince had not ordered Mr.
Mariner to go up and take away the club from him, as well as two
others that were engaged at the same time. It is customary on such
occasions, when a man takes a club from another, to use it himself in
the same way about his own head; but Mr. Mariner, being a
foreigner, was not expected to do this; he therefore went up and,
after some hesitation and struggle, secured the clubs one after
another, and returned with them to his seat, when, after a while, they
were taken by others, who used them in like manner.
After these savage expressions of sorrow had been continued for
nearly three hours, the prince gave orders that the body of his father
should be taken to Felletoa to be buried. In the first place, a bale of
gnatoo was put on a kind of hurdle, and the body laid on the bale;
the prince then ordered that, as his father was the first who
introduced guns in the wars of Tonga, the two carronades should be
loaded and fired twice before the procession set out, and twice after
it had passed out of the marly; he gave directions also that the body
of Finow’s daughter, lately deceased, should be taken out in the
model of a canoe, and carried after the body of her father; that
during his life, as he wished always to have her body in his
neighbourhood, she might now at length be buried with him.
Matters being thus arranged, Mr. Mariner loaded the guns and
fired four times with blank cartridge. The procession then went
forward, and in the course of two hours arrived at Felletoa, where the
body was laid in a house on the marly at some distance from the
grave, till another and smaller house could be brought close to it;
and this was done in course of an hour. The post being taken up, the
four pieces which compose the building (a kind of shed in a
pyramidal form, the eaves reaching within four feet of the ground)
were brought by a sufficient number of men, and put together at the
place where it was wanted. This being done, the body was brought
on the same hurdle or hand-barrow to the newly-erected building (if it
may be so termed); and then being taken off the hurdle, it was laid
within, on the bale of gnatoo, and the house was hung round with
black gnatoo, reaching from the eaves to the ground.
The women, who were all assembled and seated round the body,
began a most dismal lamentation. In the mean time a number of
people, whose business it is to prepare graves, were digging the
place of interment under the direction of a mataboole, whose office is
to superintend such affairs. Having dug about ten feet, they came to
the large stone covering a vault; a rope was fastened double round
one end of the stone, which always remains a little raised for the
purpose, and was raised by the main strength of 150 or 200 men,
pulling at the two ends of the rope towards the opposite edge of the
grave till it was brought up on end. The body being oiled with sandal-
wood oil, and then wrapped in mats, was handed down on a large
bale of gnatoo into the grave; the bale of gnatoo was then, as is
customary, taken by the before-mentioned mataboole as his
perquisite. Next, the body of his daughter, in the model of a canoe,
was let down in like manner, and placed by his side. The great stone
was then lowered down with a loud shout. Immediately certain
matabooles and warriors ran like men frantic round about the place
of sepulture, exclaiming, “Alas! how great is our loss! Finow, you are
departed: witness this proof of our love and loyalty!” At the same
time they cut and bruised their own heads with clubs, knives, axes,
etc.
The whole company now formed themselves into a single line, the
women first, and afterwards the men, but without any particular order
as to rank, and proceeded towards the back of the island for the
purpose of getting a quantity of sand in small baskets.
They sang loudly the whole way, as a signal to all who might be in
the road or adjacent fields to hide themselves as quickly as possible,
for it is sacrilegious for any body to be seen abroad by the
procession during this part of the ceremony; and if any man had
unfortunately made his appearance, he would undoubtedly have
been pursued by one of the party, and soon dispatched with the club.
So strictly is this attended to, that nobody in Mr. Mariner’s time
recollected a breach of a law so well known. Even if a common man
was to be buried, and Finow himself was to be upon the road, or in
the neighbourhood of the procession whilst going to get sand at the
back of the island, he would immediately hide himself; not that they
would knock out the king’s brains on such an occasion, but it would
be thought sacrilegious and unlucky, the gods of Bolotoo being
supposed to be present at the time. The chiefs are particularly
careful not to infringe upon sacred laws, lest they should set an
example of disobedience to the people. The song on this occasion,
which is very short, is sung first by the men and then by the women,
and so on alternately; and intimates (though Mr. Mariner has
forgotten the exact words) that the fala (which is the name of this
part of the ceremony) is coming, and that every body must get out of
the way.
When they arrived at the back of the island, where anybody may
be present, they proceeded to make a small basket of the leaves of
the cocoa-nut tree, holding about two quarts, and to fill it with sand;
this being done, each of the men carried two upon a stick across the
shoulder, one at each end: while the women only carried one,
pressed in general against the left hip, or rather upon it, by the hand
of the same side, and supported by the hand of the opposite side,
brought backwards across the loins, which they consider the easiest
mode for women to carry small burdens; they then proceeded back
the same way, and with ceremony, to the grave. By this time the
grave above the vault was nearly filled with the earth lately dug out,
the remaining small space being left to be filled by the sand, which is
always more than enough for the purpose. It is considered a great
embellishment to a grave to have it thus covered, and is thought to
appear very well from a distance, where the mound of clean sand
may be seen; besides which it is the custom, and nobody can
explain the reason why—which is the case with several of their
customs. This being done, all the baskets in which the sand was
brought, as well as the remaining quantity of earth not used in filling
up the grave, are thrown into the hole out of which the earth was
originally dug. During the whole of this time the company was
seated, still clothed in mats, and their necks strung with the leaves of
the ifi tree; after this they arose and went to their respective
habitations, where they shaved their heads, and burnt their cheeks
with a small lighted roll of tápa, by applying it once upon each cheek
bone; after which, the place was rubbed with the astringent berry of
the matchi, which occasioned it to bleed, and with the blood they
smeared about the wound in a circular form, to about two inches in
diameter, giving themselves a very unseemly appearance.
They repeat this friction with the berry every day, making the
wound bleed afresh; and the men in the meantime neglect to shave
and to oil themselves during the day: they do it, however, at night, for
the comfort which this operation affords. After having, in the first
place, burnt their cheeks and shaved their heads, they built for
themselves small temporary huts for their own accommodation
during the time of mourning, which lasts twenty days. Early in the
morning of the twentieth day, all the relations of the deceased chief,
together with those who formed his household, and also the women
who were tabooed by having touched his dead body whilst oiling and
preparing it, went to the back of the island (without any particular
order or ceremony) to procure a number of flat pebbles, principally
white, but a few black, for which they made baskets on the spot to
carry them in, as before mentioned, when they went to procure sand.
With these they returned to the grave, strewed inside of the house
with the white ones, as also the outside, as a decoration to it; the
black pebbles they strewed only upon the white ones which covered
the ground directly over the body. After this the house over the tomb
was closed up at both ends with a reed fencing, reaching from the
eaves to the ground; and at the front and back with a sort of basket-
work made of the young branches of the cocoa-nut tree, split and
interwoven in a very curious and ornamental way, which remains till
the next burial, when they are taken down, and after the conclusion
of the ceremony new ones are put up in like manner. A large quantity
of provisions was now sent to the marly by the chiefs of the different
districts of the island, ready prepared and cooked, as also a
considerable quantity prepared by Finow’s own household: among
these provisions was a good supply of cava root. After the chiefs,
matabooles, and others were assembled, the provisions and cava
were served out in the usual way. During this time no speech was
made, nor did any particular occurrence take place. The company
afterwards repaired each to his respective house, and got ready for a
grand wrestling-match and entertainment of dancing the Mée too
Buggi (literally, “the dance, standing up with paddles”).
Funeral Obsequies of King Finow.
During the intervals of the dances, several matabooles, warriors,
and others, indulged in bruising and cutting their heads with clubs,
axes, etc., as proofs of their fidelity to the late chief; among them two
boys, one about twelve, the other about fourteen years of age (sons
of matabooles), made themselves very conspicuous in this kind of
self-infliction; the youngest in particular, whose father was killed in
the service of the late chief, dining the great revolution at Tonga,
after having given his head two or three hard knocks, ran up to the
grave in a fit of enthusiasm, and dashing his club with all his force to
the ground, exclaimed, “Finow! why should I attempt thus to express
my love and fidelity towards you? My wish is that the gods of Bolotoo
permit me to live long enough to prove my fidelity to your son.” He
then again raised his club, and running about bruised and cut his
little head in so many places, that he was covered with streams of
blood. This demonstration on the part of the young hero was thought
very highly of by every one present, though, according to custom,
nothing at that time was said in his praise; agreeable to their maxim,
that praise raises a man’s opinions of his own merit too high, and fills
him with self-conceit. The late Finow’s fishermen now advanced
forward to show their love for their deceased master in the usual
way, though instead of a club or axe, each bore the paddle of a
canoe, with which they beat and bruised their heads at intervals,
making similar exclamations to those so often related. In one
respect, however, they were somewhat singular, that is, in having
three arrows stuck through each cheek in a slanting direction, so that
while their points came quite through the cheek into the mouth, the
other ends went over their shoulders, and were kept in that situation
by another arrow, the point of which was tied to the ends of the
arrows passing over one shoulder, and the other end to those of the
arrows passing over the other shoulder, so as to form a triangle; and
with this horrible equipment they walked round the grave, beating
their heads and faces as before stated with the paddles, or pinching
up the skin of the breast and sticking a spear quite through: all this to
show their love and affection for the deceased chief.
After these exhibitions of cruelty were over, this day’s ceremony
(which altogether lasted about six hours) was finished by a grand
wrestling match, which being ended, every one retired to his
respective house or occupation; and thus terminated the ceremony
of burying the King of the Tonga Islands.
The Sandwich Islanders observe a number of singular
ceremonies on the death of their kings and chiefs, and have been till
very recently accustomed to make these events occasions for the
practice of almost every enormity and vice.
“The people here,” writes Mr. Mariner, “had followed only one
fashion in cutting their hair, but we have seen it polled in every
imaginable form; sometimes a small round place only is made bald
just on the crown, which causes them to look like Romish priests; at
other times the whole head is shaved or cropped close, except round
the edge, where, for about half an inch in breadth, the hair hangs
down its usual length. Some make their heads bald on one side, and
leave the hair twelve or eighteen inches long on the other.
Occasionally they cut out a patch in the shape of a horse*-shoe,
either behind or above the forehead; and sometimes we have seen a
number of curved furrows cut from ear to ear, or from the forehead to
the neck. When a chief who had lost a relative or friend had his own
hair cut after any particular pattern, his followers and dependants
usually imitated it in cutting theirs. Not to cut or shave off the hair
indicates want of respect towards the deceased and the surviving
friends; but to have it cut close in any form is enough. Each one
usually follows his own taste, which produces the endless variety in
which this ornamental appendage of the head is worn by the natives
during a season of mourning.
“Another custom, almost as universal on these occasions, was
that of knocking out some of the front teeth, practised by both sexes,
though perhaps most extensively by the men. When a chief died,
those most anxious to show their respect for him or his family, would
be the first to knock out with a stone one of their front teeth. The
chiefs related to the deceased, or on terms of friendship with him,
were expected thus to exhibit their attachment; and when they had
done so, their attendants and tenants felt themselves, by the
influence of custom, obliged to follow their example. Sometimes a
man broke out his own tooth with a stone; more frequently, however,
it was done by another, who fixed one end of a piece of stick or hard
wood against the tooth, and struck the other end with a stone till it
was broken off. When any of the men deferred this operation, the
women often performed it for them while they were asleep. More
than one tooth was seldom destroyed at one time; but the mutilation
being repeated on the decease of every chief of rank or authority,
there are few men to be seen who had arrived at maturity before the
introduction of Christianity to the islands with an entire set of teeth;
and many by this custom have lost the front teeth on both the upper
and lower jaw, which, aside from other inconveniences, causes a
great defect in their speech. Some, however, have dared to be
singular, and though they must have seen many deaths, have parted
with but few of their teeth.
“Cutting one or both ears was formerly practised on these
occasions, but as we never saw more than one or two old men thus
disfigured, the custom appears to have been discontinued.
“Another badge of mourning, assumed principally by the chiefs, is
that of tatooing a black spot or line on the tongue, in the same
manner as other parts of their bodies are tatooed.
“The Sandwich islanders have also another custom almost
peculiar to themselves, viz., singing at the death of their chiefs,
something in the manner of the ancient Peruvians. I have been
peculiarly affected more than once on witnessing this ceremony.
“A day or two after the decease of Keeaumoku, governor of Maui,
and the elder brother of Kuakina, governor of Hawaii, I was sitting
with the surviving relatives, who were weeping around the couch on
which the corpse was lying, when a middle-aged woman came in at
the other end of the large house, and, having proceeded about half
way towards the spot where the body lay, began to sing in a plaintive
tone, accompanying her song with affecting gesticulations, such as
wringing her hands, grasping her hair, and beating her breasts. I
wrote down her monody as she repeated it. She described in a
feeling manner the benevolence of the deceased, and her own
consequent loss. One passage was as follows:—
“‘Alas! alas! dead is my chief!
Dead is my lord and my friend!
My friend in the season of famine,
My friend in the time of drought,
My friend in my poverty,
My friend in the rain and the wind,
My friend in the heat and the sun,
My friend in the cold from the mountain,
My friend in the storm,
My friend in the calm,
My friend in the eight seas.
Alas! alas! gone is my friend,
And no more will return!’
“Other exhibitions of a similar kind I witnessed at Mani. After the

death of Keopuolani we frequently saw the inhabitants of a whole
district that had belonged to her coming to weep on account of her
death. They walked in profound silence, either in single file or two or
three abreast, the old people leading the van and the children
bringing up the rear. They were not covered with ashes, but almost
literally clothed in sackcloth. No ornament, or even decent piece of
cloth, was seen on any one. Dressed only in old fishing nets, dirty
and torn pieces of matting, or tattered garments, and these
sometimes tied on their bodies with pieces of old canoe ropes, they
appeared the most abject and wretched of human beings I ever saw.
When they were within a few hundred yards of the house where the
corpse was lying they began to lament and wail. The crowds of
mourners around the house opened a passage for them to approach
it, and then one or two of their number came forward and, standing a
little before the rest, began a song or recitation, showing her birth,
rank, honours, and virtues, brandishing a staff or piece of sugar-
cane, and accompanying their recitation with attitudes and gestures,
expressive of the most frantic grief. When they had finished they sat
down and mingled with the thronging multitudes in their loud and
ceaseless wailing.”
Though these ceremonies were so popular, and almost universal,
on the decease of their chiefs, they do not appear to have been
practised by the common people among themselves. The wife did
not knock out her teeth on the death of her husband, nor the son his
when he lost his father or mother, neither did parents thus express
their grief when bereaved of an only child. Sometimes they cut their
hair, but in general only indulged in lamentations and weeping for
several days.
Ellis, the Polynesian traveller, makes mention of a singular
building seen by him in Hawaii, called the Hare o Keave (the House
of Keave), a sacred depository of the bones of departed kings and
princes, probably erected for the reception of the bones of the king
whose name it bears, and who reigned in Hawaii about eight
generations back. It is, or was when Mr. Ellis saw it, a compact
building, twenty-four feet by sixteen, constructed with the most
durable timber, and thatched with ti leaves, standing on a bed of lava
that runs out a considerable distance into the sea. It is surrounded
by a strong fence or paling, leaving an area in the front and at each
end about twenty-four feet wide. The pavement is of smooth
fragments of lava, laid down with considerable skill. Several rudely-
carved male and female images of wood were placed on the outside
of the enclosure, some on low pedestals under the shade of an
adjacent tree, others on high posts on the jutting rocks that hung
over the edge of the water. “A number stood on the fence at unequal
distances all round; but the principal assemblage of these frightful
representatives of their former deities was at the south-east end of
the enclosed space, where, forming a semi-circle, twelve of them
stood in grim array, as if perpetual guardians of the mighty dead
reposing in his house adjoining. A pile of stones was neatly laid up in
the form of a crescent, about three feet wide and two feet higher
than the pavement, and in this pile the images were fixed. They
stood on small pedestals three or four feet high, though some were
placed on pillars eight or ten feet in height, and curiously carved. The
principal idol stood in the centre, the others on either hand, the most
powerful being placed nearest to him; he was not so large as some
of the others, but distinguished by the variety and superior carvings
of his body, and especially of his head. Once they had evidently
been clothed, but now they appeared in the most indigent
nakedness. A few tattered shreds round the neck of one that stood
on the left hand side of the door, rotted by the rain and bleached by
the sun, were all that remained of numerous and gaudy garments
with which their votaries had formerly arrayed them. A large pile of
broken calabashes and cocoa-nut shells lay in the centre, and a
considerable heap of dried and partly rotten wreaths of flowers,
branches and shrubs, and bushes and fragments of tapa (the
accumulated offerings of former days), formed an unsightly mound
immediately before each of the images. The horrid stare of these
idols, the tattered garments upon some of them, and the heaps of
rotting offerings before them, seemed to us no improper emblems of
the system they were designed to support, distinguished alike by its
cruelty, folly, and wretchedness.”
Mr. Ellis endeavoured to gain admission to the inside of the
house, but was told it was tabu roa (strictly prohibited), and that
nothing but a direct order from the king or high priest could open the
door. However, by pushing one of the boards across the doorway a
little on one side, he looked in, and saw many large images, some of
wood very much carved, and others of red feathers, with distended
mouths, large rows of sharks’ teeth, and pearl-shell eyes. He also
saw several bundles, apparently of human bones, cleaned carefully,
tied up with cinet made of cocoa-nut fibres, and placed in different
parts of the house, together with some rich shawls and other
valuable articles, probably worn by those to whom the bones
belonged, as the wearing apparel and other personal property of the
chiefs is generally buried with them. When he had gratified his
curiosity, and had taken a drawing of the building and some of its
appendages, he proceeded to examine other remarkable objects of
the place.
Adjoining the Hare o Keave to the southward, he found a Pahio
tabu (sacred enclosure) of considerable extent, and was informed by
his guide that it was one of the Pohonuas of Hawaii, of which he had
often heard the chiefs and others speak. There are only two on the
island—the one which he was then examining, and another at
Waipio on the north-east part of the island, in the district of Kohala.
These Pohonuas were the Hawaiian cities of refuge, and afforded
an inviolable sanctuary to the guilty fugitive, who, when flying from
the avenging spear, was so favoured as to enter their precincts.
They had several wide entrances, some on the side next the sea, the
others facing the mountains. Hither the manslayer, the man who had
broken a tabu, or failed in the observance of its rigid requirements,
the thief, and even the murderer, fled from his incensed pursuers,
and was secure. To whomsoever he belonged, and from whatever
part he came, he was equally certain of admittance, though liable to
be pursued even to the gates of the enclosure. Happily for him,
those gates were perpetually open; and, as soon as the fugitive had
entered, he repaired to the presence of the idol, and made a short
ejaculatory address, expressive of his obligations to him in reaching
the place with security. Whenever war was proclaimed, and during
the period of actual hostilities, a white flag was unfurled on the top of
a tall spear at each end of the enclosure; and until the conclusion of
peace waved the symbol of hope to those who, vanquished in fight,
might flee thither for protection. It was fixed a short distance from the
walls on the outside, and to the spot on which this banner was
unfurled the victorious warrior might chase his routed foes, but here
he must himself fall back; beyond it he must not advance one step,
on pain of forfeiting his life; the priests and their adherents would
immediately put to death any one who should have the temerity to
follow or molest those who were once within the pale of the pahio
tabu, and, as they expressed it, under the shade or protection of the
spirit of Keave, the tutelar deity of the place.
In one part of the enclosure, houses were formerly erected for the
priests, and others for the refugees, who, after a certain period, or at
the cessation of war, were dismissed by the priests, and returned
unmolested to their dwellings and families, no one venturing to injure
those who, when they fled to the gods, had been by them protected.
Mr. Ellis could not learn the length of time it was necessary for them
to remain in the Pohonuas, but it did not appear to be more than two
or three days. After that they either attached themselves to the
service of the priests, or returned to their homes.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
A Samoan inquest—Carrying a body about—Embalming in Samoa—

Samoan grave fires—Catching a spirit—New Zealand burial
customs—The Sexton in Borneo—Dayak funerals—Funeral
customs of the Sea Dayaks—Tombs in the air—Exorcising the
evil spirit—Cruel treatment of widows—The “village of the
dead”—The place of skulls—Praying to the dead—Ojibbeway
mourners—Disposing of the property of the dead—A Chippewa
ghost story—An invisible presence—A spirited ghost—Veneration
for the dead—A royal funeral—The death dance—The last of the
“Stung Serpent.”
n Samoa, another of the Polynesian islands, it is considered a
disgrace to the family of an aged chief if he is not buried
alive· “When an old man feels sick and infirm,” says the
missionary Turner, “and thinks he is dying, he deliberately
tells his children and friends to get all ready and bury him.
They yield to his wishes, dig a round deep pit, wind a number of fine
mats round his body, and lower down the poor old heathen into his
grave in a sitting posture. Live pigs are then brought and tied, each
with a separate cord, the one end of the cord to the pig and the other
to the arm of the old man. The cords are then cut in the middle,
leaving the one half hanging at the arm of the old man, and off the
pigs are taken to be killed and baked for the burial feast. The old
man, however, is still supposed to take the pigs with him to the world
of spirits. The greater the chief the more numerous the pigs, and the
more numerous the pigs the better the reception in their Hades of
heathenism. The poor old man thus wound up, furnished with his pig
strings, and covered over with some more mats, is all ready. His
grave is then filled up, and his dying groans are drowned amid the
weeping and the wailing of the living.
“This revolting custom of burying alive is, as I have noted, not
confined to infants and the aged. If a person in sickness shows signs
of delirium, his grave is dug, and he is buried forthwith, to prevent
the disease spreading to other members of the family. A young man
in the prime of life was thus buried lately. He burst up the grave and
escaped. He was caught and forced into the grave again. A second
time he struggled to the surface, and they led him to the bush,
lashed him fast to a tree, and left him there to die.
“Whenever the eye is fixed in death the house becomes a scene
of indescribable lamentation and wailing. ‘Oh! my father, why did you
not let me die, and you live here still?’ ‘Oh! my brother, why have you
run away and left your only brother to be trampled upon?’ ‘Oh! my
child, had I known you were going to die! Of what use is it for me to
survive you?’ These and other doleful cries may be heard two
hundred yards from the house; and as you go near you find that they
are accompanied by the most frantic expressions of grief, such as
rending garments, tearing the hair, thumping the face and eyes,
burning the body with small piercing firebrands, beating the head
with stones till the blood runs; and this they called an ”offering of
blood for the dead.” Every one acquainted with the historical parts of
the Bible will here observe remarkable coincidences. After an hour or
so, the more boisterous wailing subsides, and, as in that climate the
corpse must be buried in a few hours, preparations are made without
delay. The body is laid out on a mat oiled with scented oil, and, to
modify the cadaverous look, they tinge the oil for the face with a little
turmeric. The body is then wound up with several folds of native
cloth, the chin propped up with a little bundle of the same material,
and the face and head left uncovered, while for some hours longer
the body is surrounded by weeping relatives. If the person has died
of a complaint which has carried off some other members of the
family, they will probably open the body to search for the disease.
Any inflamed substance they happen to find they take away and
burn, thinking that this will prevent any other members of the family
being affected with the same disease. This is done when the body is
laid in the grave.
“While a dead body is in the house no food is taken under the
same roof. The family have their meals outside, or in another house.
Those who attended the deceased were formerly most careful not to
handle food, and for days were fed by others as if they were helpless
infants. Baldness and the loss of teeth were supposed to be the
punishment inflicted by the household, if they violated the rule.
Fasting was common at such times, and they who did so, ate
nothing during the day, but had a meal at night, reminding us of what
David said when mourning the death of Abner: ‘So do God to me
and more also, if I taste bread or aught else till the sun be down.’
The fifth day was a day of purification. They bathed the face and
hands with hot water, and then they were clean, and resumed the
usual time and mode of eating.
“The death of a chief of high rank was attended with great
excitement and display: all work was suspended in the settlement;
no stranger dared to pass through the place. For days they kept the
body unburied, until all the different parties connected with that
particular clan assembled from various parts of the island, and until
each party had in turn paraded the body, shoulder high, through the
village, singing at the same time some mournful dirge. The body, too,
was wrapped up in the best robe, viz., the most valuable fine mat
clothing which the deceased possessed. Great respect is still shown
to chiefs on these occasions, and there was a recent instance of
something like a thirty days’ mourning; but the body is seldom
paraded about the settlements now-a-days.
“The burial generally takes place the day after death. As many
friends as can be present in time attend. Every one brings a present;
and the day after the funeral, these presents are all so distributed
again as that every one goes away with something in return for what
he brought. Formerly, the body was buried without a coffin, except in
the cases of chiefs; but now it is quite common to cut off the ends of
some canoe belonging to the family, and make a coffin of it. The
body being put into this rude encasement, all is done up again in
some other folds of native cloth, and carried on the shoulders of four
or five men to the grave. The friends follow, but in no particular order;
and at the grave again there was often further wailing, and
exclamations such as, “Alas! I looked to you for protection, but you
have gone away! why did you die! would that I had died for you!”
Since the introduction of Christianity, all is generally quiet at the
grave. The missionary, or some native teacher appointed by him,
attends, reads a portion of Scripture, delivers an address, and
engages in prayer, that the living may consider and prepare for the
time to die. The grave is called the last resting place; and in the case
of chiefs the house is thatched with the leaves of sandal wood,
alluding to the custom of planting some tree with pretty foliage near
the grave. Attempts have been made to get a place set apart as the
village burying-ground, but it is difficult to carry it out. All prefer laying
their dead among the ashes of their ancestors, on their own
particular ground. As the bones of Joseph were carried from Egypt to
Canaan, so did the Samoans carry the skulls of their dead from a
land where they had been residing during war, back to the graves of
their fathers as soon as possible after peace was proclaimed. The
grave is often dug close by the house. They make it about four feet
deep; and, after spreading it with mats like a comfortable bed, there
they place the body, with the head to the rising of the sun and the
feet to the west. With the body they deposit several things which
may have been used to answer the purpose of a pickaxe in digging
the grave; not that they think these things of any use to the dead, but
it is supposed that if they are left and handled by others, further
disease and death will be the consequence. Other mats are spread
over the body, on these a layer of white sand from the beach, and
then they fill up the grave.
A Samoan Sepulchre.
“The spot is marked by a little heap of stones a foot or two high.
The grave of a chief is nearly built up in an oblong slanting form,
about three feet high at the foot and four at the head. White stones
or shells are intermixed with the top layer; and if he has been a
noted warrior, his grave may be surrounded with spears, or his gun
laid loosely on the top.”
Embalming, the same authority informs us, is known and
practised with surprising skill in one particular family of Samoan
chiefs. Unlike the Egyptian method, as described by Herodotus, it is
performed in Samoa exclusively by women. The viscera being
removed and buried, they day after day anoint the body with a
mixture of oil and aromatic juices, and they continue to puncture the
body all over with fine needles. In about two months the process of
desiccation is completed. The hair, which had been cut off and laid
aside at the commencement of the operation, is now glued carefully
on to the scalp by a resin from the bush. The abdomen is filled up
with folds of native cloth, the body is wrapped up with the same
material, and laid out on a mat, leaving the hands, face, and head
exposed.
A house is built for the purpose, and there the body is placed with
a sheet of native cloth loosely thrown over it. Now and then the face
is oiled with a mixture of scented oil and turmeric, and passing
strangers are freely admitted to see the remains of the departed. At
present there are four bodies laid out in this way in a house
belonging to the family to which we refer—viz., a chief, his wife, and
two sons. They are laid on a platform, raised on a double canoe. It
must be upwards of thirty years since some of them were embalmed,
and although thus exposed they are in a remarkable state of
preservation. They assign no particular reason for this embalming,
further than that it is the expression of their affection to keep the
bodies of the departed still with them as if they were alive.
On the evening of the burial of any important chief, his friends
kindled a number of fires at a distance of some twenty feet from
each other, near the grave, and there they sat and kept them burning
till morning light. This was continued sometimes for ten days after
the funeral; it was also done before the burial. In the house where
the body lay, or out in front of it, fires were kept burning all night by
the immediate relatives of the departed. The common people had a
similar custom. After burial they kept a fire blazing in the house all
night, and had the space between the house and the grave so
cleared as that a stream of light went forth all night from the fire to
the grave. Whether this had its origin in any custom of burning the
dead body, like the ancient Greeks, it is impossible now to ascertain.
The probability, however, is that it had not. The account the
Samoans give of it, is, that it was merely a light-burning in honour of
the departed, and a mark of tender regard: just as we may suppose
the Jews did after the death of Asa, when it is said they made a very
great burning for him. Those commentators who hold that this and
one or two other passages refer to a Jewish mark of respect, and not

Instant Download Ebook PDF Exploring Family Theories 4th Edition PDF Scribd

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download Ebook PDF Exploring Family Theories 4th Edition PDF Scribd

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(eBook PDF) Exploring Family Theories

00-Smith-Hamon-FM.indd 7 9/12/16 10:54 AM

• Michael Merten, Oklahoma State University

00-Smith-Hamon-FM.indd 8 9/12/16 10:54 AM

Suzanne R. Smith is an associate professor of human development at Washington State

00-Smith-Hamon-FM.indd 9 9/12/16 10:54 AM

00-Smith-Hamon-FM.indd 10 9/12/16 10:54 AM

00-Smith-Hamon-FM.indd 11 9/12/16 10:54 AM

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 1 9/12/16 4:50 PM

Where Do Theories Come From?

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 2 9/12/16 4:50 PM

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 3 9/12/16 4:50 PM

What Are the Functions of Theory?

How Do We Evaluate Theories?

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 4 9/12/16 4:50 PM

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 5 9/12/16 4:50 PM

The Need for Theorizing

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 6 9/12/16 4:50 PM

T EXT ORGA NIZ ATION

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 7 9/12/16 4:50 PM

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 8 9/12/16 4:50 PM

Bengtson, V., A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, and D. M. Klein. 2005. Theory

01-Smith-Hamon-Introduction.indd 9 9/12/16 4:50 PM

Symbolic Interactionism Theory

02-Smith-Hamon-Chap01.indd 10 9/12/16 10:57 AM

02-Smith-Hamon-Chap01.indd 11 9/12/16 10:57 AM

02-Smith-Hamon-Chap01.indd 12 9/12/16 10:57 AM

“Other exhibitions of a similar kind I witnessed at Mani. After the

A Samoan inquest—Carrying a body about—Embalming in Samoa—

You might also like