Communication Structures of Supplemental Voluntary Kin Relationships

• Author: Dawn O. Braithwaite,Jenna Stephenson Abetz,Julia Moore,Katie Brockhage
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12215
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Date: 01 October 2016

D O. B University of Nebraska–Lincoln

J S A College of Charleston

J M University of Utah

K B University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Communication Structures of Supplemental

Voluntary Kin Relationships

Although scholars have constructed typologies

of voluntary (ctive) kin, few have considered

challenges and opportunities of interaction and

relationships between biolegal and voluntary

kin. This study focused on one type of voluntary

kin, supplemental voluntary kin, relationships

that often arise because of differing values,

underperformed roles, or physical distance from

the biolegal family, and wherein relationships

are maintained with biolegal and voluntary kin.

We examined how these family systems are con-

structed via interactions in relational triads of

“linchpin” persons between biolegal family and

voluntary kin. From in-depth interviews with

36 supplemental voluntary kin, we examined

themes in the linchpins’ discourse surrounding

the interaction, rituals, and ideal relationship

between biolegal family and voluntary kin. We

constructed a typology of four relational triads

representing these relationships: intertwined,

limited, separate, and hostile. We describe the

structure and communication within each type,

and implications for helping families with these

triangulated voluntary kin relationships.

Department of Communication Studies, 430 Oldfather Hall,

University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588–0329

(dbraithwaite@unl.edu).

KeyWords: Familycommunication, ctive kin, triangulation,

voluntary kin.

Kinship is the root from which human societies

grow, most commonly from biological connec-

tion or established via law. Many contemporary

family scholars view “family” as socially con-

structed (McConvell, Keen, & Hendery, 2013;

Parkin & Stone, 2004), and postmodern under-

standings of family recognize the uid, complex,

and varied understandings of family (Gamson,

2015). But family forms that deviate from the

so-called traditional (i.e., nuclear) family struc-

ture are often viewed as inferior (Floyd, Mikkel-

son, & Judd, 2006).

Family communication scholars focus on

family as constituted in the social relations

and actions of family members, “constructed

and sustained through communicative prac-

tices” (Baxter, 2014a, p. 13). Adopting this

perspective moves one beyond viewing com-

munication as the transmission of ideas, as it

asserts that individual and family identity are

co-created and emerge out of interaction (Bax-

ter, 2014a). Galvin (2006) coined the phrase

“discourse-dependent families” to emphasize

challenges faced by postmodern family struc-

tures such as adoptive, single parent, step,

and same-sex or non-gender-conforming les-

bian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer

families that are discursively constructed.

Discourse-dependent families face the ongoing

task of legitimation and are reliant on interac-

tion to negotiate and navigate their relationships

616 Family Relations 65 (October 2016): 616–630

DOI:10.1111/fare.12215