Today?s ?Modern? Family: A Textual Analysis of Gender in the Domestic Sitcom by Nicole Catherine Staricek A thesis submited to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Communication and Journalism Auburn, Alabama August 6, 2011 Keywords: ideology, cultural studies, television sitcom, family, gender roles Approved by Susan L. Brinson, Commite Chair, Profesor of Communication and Journalism Emmet J. Winn, Profesor of Communication and Journalism Hollie Lavenstein, Asociate Profesor of Communication and Journalism ii Abstract This thesis utilizes a textual analysis with an emphasis on gender to analyze the Emy award-winning sitcom, Modern Family. The program?s overwhelming popularity among television audiences and media critics alike gives reason for scholarly atention. This study answers the question, in what ways does the sitcom, Modern Family, communicate our culture?s dominant ideology about family. The textual analysis revealed that regardles of the ilusion of modernity, each of the families within the domestic sitcom supported the traditional, nuclear family. iii Acknowledgments A very special thanks to my chair, Dr. Brinson, for the countles hours of discussion, editing, and guidance. You made me a beter writer, student, and woman and for that I am forever grateful. iv Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................ iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Literature Review ..........................................................................................................5 Method .........................................................................................................................36 Analysis .......................................................................................................................52 Discussion & Conclusion ............................................................................................90 References ..................................................................................................................103 Appendix-List of Episodes ......................................................................................111 1 Introduction A family portrait takes place in suburban California. A perfectly groomed backyard is the backdrop and al of the family members are dresed in white. The unity of color mimics the many American family portraits that came before this one. The mothers adjust their children?s clothes, fixing stray hairs, and situating family members into the perfect positions. The fathers are in the background waiting for direction from the mothers; after al, this portrait was their idea. To the naked eye this appears to be a typical day in the life of an American family, but if we use a cultural lens to zoom in on this scenario a litle closer we begin to se this is no ordinary family photo. In fact, the parents of the Vietnamese toddler are a Caucasian gay couple, and the older man next to them is married to much younger, scantily-clad Colombian trophy wife. It doesn?t end there?we?ve only scratched the surface. This is a scene from the Emy award winning sitcom, Modern Family (2009). Modern Family fals within the genre of American domestic sitcoms. Blending the domestic sitcom with a humorous mockumentary style has gained this show much succes among critics and television audiences. As the title suggests, the show atempts to portray modern families, but what exactly does that mean? The word ?modern? suggests a stray from the normative, something new, something innovative. Some believe the word modern has a positive connotation, a positive progresion away from the normative. If we apply this definition to family we arrive at a new family, a family that has progresed from the traditional, nuclear family. At the surface, this is exactly the type of interrelated families that Modern Family creates on screen. There is a blended 2 family made up of an older white male, a much younger Colombian trophy wife and her son from her first marriage. There is also a nuclear family consisting of a bumbling dad, an over-controlling mom, and their three children. Lastly, there is family of gay co-parents and their adopted Vietnamese child. These three families make up a larger and semingly modern family. It is certainly not the traditional family structure that we once saw in nearly al-domestic sitcoms. Although the family structures appear to be modern, the gender roles within the structures communicate something diferent. In the example above, we se traditional family roles played out. The mothers are concerned with family, their children, and capturing a memory that they wil cherish forever. Overal they are nurturing, feminine, and devoted to raising their children. The fathers are unwiling participants forced into the portrait without a care as to how it turns out. They are emotionaly controlled, masculine, and devoted to their profesional lives outside of the family. These behaviors reflect the dominant beliefs our culture shares about the role of the mother and the father. The succes that Modern Family created raises interesting questions regarding the mesages communicated by the program and ultimately what those mesages mean for audiences members in present day America. In what does the sitcom Modern Family communicate our culture?s dominant ideology about family? To answer this research question I first review the evolution of the family unit and define the present-day American family. I then give a summary of the dominant beliefs regarding gender and gender roles within family. Research by scholars Wood (2008), Bem (1993), and Hochschild (1997) are outlined in this section. Next, I situate 3 Modern Family within the television situational comedy, specificaly, the domestic situational comedy. To do this I provide a review of the situational comedy and describe the evolution of the domestic sitcom genre. I include discussion of popular domestic sitcoms over the last six decades as wel as related research done by communication scholars. Following the literature review, you wil find a methodology chapter in which I describe the tools I use to ases my artifact, Modern Family. The beginning of this chapter situates culture as a product of our communication. Carey?s (1989) work offers a greater understanding of the ritual proces of communication. This leads into my decision to use cultural studies as my method of analysis. Next, I provide a general overview of American Cultural Studies as wel as key terms such as ideology, hegemony, and power. These terms give breadth and depth to my study. Lastly, I include a section devoted to the sitcom itself. I describe the background of Modern Family, information about its writers and producers, and end with a summary of the show?s media atention and critical reviews. The analysis section begins with a description of the three families involved in the sitcom, Modern Family. Next, I disect the mother and father figures looking specificaly at their gender roles. Following that, I describe and explain the families at large and as a product of these gender roles. The analysis section serves to answer the research question, in what ways does Modern Family communicate our culture?s dominant ideology about family? This question is answered by an explanation of which familial ideologies are supported or rejected as wel as critique of the mesage 4 communicated to American audiences. My analysis reveals that Modern Family supports our Culture?s belief in the traditional family structure. 5 Literature Review Family Who is your family? Is it your imediate blood relatives, such as your mother, father, and brothers or sisters? Suppose you and your spouse have no offspring?are you stil a family? What about your new stepmother and her children? Are they your family? And if so, who decides? Defining the American family is more dificult than ever before, considering the recent changes in marriage legislation and the increase of adoption and divorce. The changes that we se within the family unit should neither be viewed as an indication that the value of family has plummeted in America, nor that one?s stepfamily is any les real or loving than one?s biological family. Rather, we need to reconsider the archaic definition of family and embrace the changes that make each and every modern day family unique. The legal definition of family is deeply based on blood ties or state- sanctioned relationships (Holtzman, 2008). Policymakers on the state and federal level generaly clasify individuals as families if they are related to each other by virtue of blood, marriage, or adoption (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Chrisler (2003) claims this is a traditional definition of family and one that is held by the majority of people within the United States. Consequently, the cultural conception of a family has long since followed the above definition that included two married parents and biological children (Coontz, 1992; Gilis, 1996; O?Kefe, 1991). Smith (1993) argues that the dominant family structure in the United States is the Standard North American Family (SNAF) which is similar to the traditional or nuclear family (Hareven, 1991; Skolnick, 1991; Stacey, 1991). 6 SNAF is comprised of a married male-female couple oriented toward bearing and raising children. Smith (1993) argues that this is the most pervasive type of family sen in popular culture. Meyerowitz furthers that SNAF places sexuality and gender ?at the heart of family ideology, being both heternormative and dependent on a gendered division of labor oriented around production? (1994). Smith (1993) proposes that SNAF has two dimensions, nurturing and traditional. In the nurturing family ideal, both men and women have similar roles in the family. On the other hand, the traditional ideal holds a belief that men and women are fundamentaly diferent in nature and their roles in the family (child-bearing and financial provisions) communicate that ideal. Research reveals that the structure of family evolved significantly over the past few decades. Al over the world, family life changed shape as we altered the way we live and work (Neil, 2003). Within the 1990s and into the early twenty-first century, the definition of family was no longer confined to the traditional family, but also included the normative family. Normative is a sociological concept that, acording to Abu-Laban and Abu-Laban, "are agreed upon societal rules and expectations specifying appropriate and inappropriate ways to behave in a particular society" (1999, p. 53). Families with at least one parent and one child are viewed as a normative definition of the family in most if not al societies (Angus Reid Group, 1996; Bibby, 1995; Levin and Trost, 1992; Reis, 1965; Rothberg and Weinstein, 1966). However, multiple definitions of family were formulated from particular theoretical perspectives (Doherty, Boss, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993). 7 Those defining the family from a feminist perspective asume that there are broad diferences among marriages and families, meaning that no family across the board shares the same sexual orientation, gender role asignment, or inclusion of offspring. The feminist perspective proposes not only that there are diferences across the board, but that these diferences are greater than the similarities. Feminists reject the traditional definition of the family and, instead, focus on change and diversity (Thompson & Walker, 1995). However, following the traditional perspective, family members occupy socialy defined roles such as mother, father, daughter, and son (Klein & White, 1996). Additionaly, the cultural conception of family changed along with the changes in society. Social changes such as divorce and remarriage, cohabitation, and gay and lesbian marriage and parenting created more diverse definitions of family over the years (Marsiglio, 1998). Nearly a half-century ago, divorce was uncommon and considered socialy unaceptable. Individuals who separated or divorced from their spouses were shunned and lived as social outcasts. However, nearly al studies suggest that the likelihood of divorce in the United States is betwen 40-50% (Raley & Bumpas, 2003; Schoen & Standish, 2001; Stevenson & Wolfers, 2007; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005). The rise in divorce and its afterefects on the individuals involved often impact our traditional definition of family (Holtzman, 2008). Remarriage and additional offspring are added to the mix thus creating a change in the way we view a traditional family. Step-parents, step-siblings, and the possibility of half-siblings can be sen as additions to family that many would not have considered a few decades ago. Al of these individuals may reside under one roof and 8 may be related through either blood or marriage, constituting them as a family. Furthermore, the controversial introduction of same-sex marriage is one that is slowly changing the way many view a traditional family. Recent studies show that just 38% of people acept same-sex couples and adopted or surrogate offspring to be included in the definition of a family (Chrisler, 2003). Acording to Altman, homosexuality represents the most clear-cut rejection of the nuclear family, and is persecuted because of the need for our culture to maintain the hegemony of the nuclear family concept (1979). Although research shows change in the cultural conception of family, it confirms that the dominant definition of family is rooted deeply in the legal and traditional influences. The expansive and broadened definition of family encompases much more diversity, but it is not without protest. In recent years, a plethora of political anti-same sex marriage initiatives surfaced. Presidents Bil Clinton and George W. Bush, as wel as the governments over which they presided, supported antigay marriage legislation and constitutional amendments during their time in office (Eskridge, 2008). Studies show that definitions of family unrelated to blood or marriage relations are sen as les meaningful and les supportive (Marsiglio, 1998). More specificaly, step-relationships consistently are viewed to be les permanent and more stigmatized than biological relations. This concept also applies to same-sex couples, research about which consistently proves to be viewed as socialy unaceptable and to foster more social hardship than traditional family experiences (Marsiglio, 1998). Overal, the stigmas asociated with non-biological 9 and step-family relationships further prove that biological and marriage ties are fundamental shared meanings of what it means to be a family. That is not to say that al research agrees that a loose definition of family exists throughout cultures. Contrary to the above research, Lorber and Farrel (1991) suggest that there is no such entity as ?the family.? ?As an institution, family has common features throughout the world, but in particular times and places, families are diverse? (p. 77). That is, throughout varying cultures, a common belief about families is that they are a nexus of production and procreation. However, no single definition acomodates al the possible beliefs about what truly is a family. Gender Within a family, each individual has a certain socialy and culturaly prescribed role. Just like the definition of family, al of these roles are influenced by the shared meanings that a culture holds. Gender is one construct that influences family roles. Gender, just like family, has sen many adaptations and changes in its definition. The words gender and sex are often used simultaneously, but the two are diferent distinctly. Sex is a designation based on biology, while gender is socialy and psychologicaly constructed (Wood, 2005). One cannot choose her or his sex as it is determined during the early stages of conception. Gender, however, is acquired through social interaction and is viewed to be les stable than one?s sex. One?s gender may change over time as he or is exposed and influenced by interaction in the social world. Conversely, it is argued that while sex is biologicaly determined, 10 cultures outside of western thought believe gender is formulated in the psyche and is predestined at birth (Spade & Valentine, 2007). From the moment we are born, we are socialized into our gender, meaning it is taught to us. This proces is considered Gender Schema Theory and it suggests that gender is learned by a child through communication. The theory further claims that very early on, individuals learn to place themselves and others into clear-cut gender categories that make understanding those around us sem much simpler. At a young age, girls are taught to be feminine and to behave in ways that correspond with society?s agreed upon definition of femininity?atractive, deferential, unaggresive, emotional, nurturing, dependent, and other-oriented (Wood, 2005). Likewise, boys are encouraged and socialized to be masculine?strong, ambitious, rational, emotionaly controlled, dependent, and self-oriented (Wood, 2005). Fagot, Leinbach, and O?Boyle (1992) tel us that the year betwen a child?s second and third birthday is the time during which gendered stereotypes for toys, clothing, household objects, games, and work are acquired. It is during this time that children begin to place themselves as wel as others into gendered categories. Although there have been changes made to our culture?s definition of femininity and masculinity, the basic blueprint remains relatively constant (Cancian, 1989; Riesman, 1990; Wood, 1993a). Gendered identity begins during childhood. Throughout the rest of our lives, gendered communication plays a primary role in shaping gender identity (Stewart, Cooper, Stewart & Friedley, 1998). The interactions we have with others shape how we understand masculinity and femininity, what is aceptable, and how our own identity supports or chalenges those beliefs. Wood (1994) states that although it may 11 sem that gender is influenced by intense social presure, it must be sustained with one?s own consent. Our gendered identity is constructed throughout a lifetime of interaction. We acept or reject some of the shared meanings about gender in order to make sense of ourselves and our place in society. We actively participate in reinforcing or altering cultural norms to an extent. However, the majority of our gendered identity is rooted in our culture?s own ideologies about how men and women should behave. The social presures of members in our culture, communicated as shared meanings through interpersonal, group, and mas media channels, explain why we act acording to these preset gender roles. A cultural studies analysis wil be helpful in examining this idea more fully. Bem (1993) argues that three lenses of gender, or hidden asumptions about sex and gender are embedded in cultural discourse, social institutions, and individual psyches. These ?lenses of gender?? biological esentialism, androcentrism, and gender polarization?systematicaly reproduce male power generation after generation. Acording to Bem (1993) Western culture atributes the diferences betwen men and women on biology. Biological theorizing dates back to the mid to late 1800s in response to some of the first historical acounts of the women?s rights movement. Biological esentialism is the widely-held belief that men and women are diferent as a result of biological diferences. Biological esentialism argues that men and women are inevitably diferent in their biological and emotional makeup, and this influences how men and women fel and act. For example, biological esentialism argues that women?s hormones and physiology result in women being naturaly more nurturing and gentle because they are built to breed and care for children. Conversely, 12 men are naturaly more competitive, aggresive, smart and powerful because of testosterone. Thus, from this perspective, gendered behaviors are the ?natural? and ?normal? result of biology. Esentialism normalizes the dominant ideologies regarding gender and reduces everything to binary oppositions with minimal room for change or improvement. As a result, men and women are placed in two distinct categories creating negative social implications for individuals who deviate from those categories. Biological theories regarding gender are so deeply rooted in our culture that many of the beliefs remain today. Fortunately, many were rendered unscientific and Bem asks us to reconsider our initial response to atribute diferences in gender to biology. Androcentrism is the second lens that asumes the belief that males are at the center of our culture. Bem (1993) describes it as ?males looking out at reality from behind their own eyes and describing what they se from an egocentric point of view? (p. 36). Androcentrism regards male values and practices as norm, and in doing so, regards female values and practices as deviations from the norm. As a result, the androcentric lens acomplishes two things?first, Western culture defines everything as disimilar or similar from males. Second, Western culture defines al things in terms of meaning or significance to males. Androcentrism is omnipresent in Western culture everyday life and often goes unchalenged and unnoticed. One example, restroom symbols, make a clear distinction betwen male and female. However, ?neutral? signs such as pedestrian, elevator, and exit signs are represented by the male symbol. In addition to nonverbal communication, verbal communication is inundated 13 with androcentric speech. The words policeman, chairman, fireman al favor the male perspective yet refer to positions held by both men and women. Conclusions drawn from medical research on men are asumed to represent women?s health too. By bringing to light several androcentric examples, it is clear that females? experiences in Western culture are lacking and often unacounted for. The third and final lens is gender polarization, which is the ubiquitous organization of social life around the distinction betwen male and female. Gender polarization, however, is an efect of patriarchy. Patriarchy is an ideology, too, that is manifested and communicated through gender. Gender is displayed in reaction to the structural demands of patriarchy, which relies on a marking system that distinguishes males from females (Rodino, 1997). Gender performances are part of this marking system. Bem (1993) atributes this lens as the sole reason that people in Western culture only se two sexes, and work to exclude any varying definitions of gender such as transgendered or nongendered individuals. The gender polarization lens has two negative impacts on Western culture. The first impact is that this lens defines mutualy exclusive scripts for being male and female. The second negative impact is that gender polarization causes a culture to be quick to judge any gender deviant behavior as ?problematic.? Homosexuality, although gaining social aceptance, fals within the category of gender deviant behavior. Dominant ideologies regard heterosexual relationships as the acepted and preferred behavior. Western culture views homosexuality as taboo and unnatural, thus creating negative implications for those who engage in same-sex relationships. The gay and lesbian communities chalenge traditional gender roles 14 constructed by society because their sexualities fail to fit neatly into the prescribed heteronormative categories. Their existence threatens the world view of the culture and its members. Gendered Family As biological esentialism, androcentrism, and gender polarization developed, one way in which their growing significance found expresion was through definitions of ?family?. Because role diferentiation was functional, meaning that it was implemented and acepted, it was institutionalized over time (Renzeti and Curran, 1999). Hence, this type of role asignment is known as the functionalist perspective. Role diferentiation is embedded deeply in our culture, thus creating and shaping our idea of the gendered family. Over the years, many studies found that women do not have important roles in divisions of responsibility within the family (Erkal, 1993; Sivacioglu, 1991; Wiliams, 1990). In the traditional view of family, a women?s role is limited to fulfiling her responsibilities as a wife and mother, and ultimately the caretaker. Aulete (1994) supports this claim and argues that in the nuclear family, the wife/mother typicaly asumes the expresive family role which means she does the housework, cares for the children, and ensures that the relational and emotional needs of those within the family are met. She is fragile and dependent on her husband and expects and alows him to make the majority of the household decisions. The father?s role includes having a profesional career and ensuring that the financial and safety needs of the family are met. He is emotionaly controlled and puts his needs and career above his family?s. The traditional roles of the mother and father are gendered 15 constructs, resulting from dominant ideologies and belief systems of a culture. Research shows that division of labor based on gender roles results negatively in financial dependence on the full-time male caregiver (Sullivan, 1996). In the instances of divorce, the ?displaced housewife? in the traditional roles is at a disadvantage because she acquired few occupational skils to place her competitively in the labor market. As a result, these women find themselves struggling to support their family financialy (Weitzman, 1985). Interestingly, the number of traditional, nuclear families decreased over the last 50 years. In fact, the nuclear family represents a minority of households in the United States. Acording to Sullivan (1996), the increased availability of alternative insemination services for lesbians and the alowance of second parent adoptions resulted in an increase of lesbian co-parent families. Research shows that within same-sex parent families, the division of labor is split equaly among partners (Sullivan, 1996). A qualitative analysis of 34 lesbian co-parents found the majority of them to take equal share in al family duties from household care to financial provider. The division of labor was not reliant upon traditional gender roles sen within the nuclear family, rather spilt up acording to what worked best for each parent?s schedule seing as how both women worked full-time to support the family. However, even though women are employed in the workforce more than in the past, this does not necesarily equate a change in the gender roles regarding family and home life in the traditional nuclear family. There is a definite increase in the shared responsibility at home, however, even in common two-earner couples, ?the commonly held belief is that housework is stil women?s work no mater what other 16 demands wives have on their time? (Shelton, 1992, p. 77). Hochschild (1997) reports that as greater numbers of women moved into the economy, families experience short-handednes in work and family life. This short-handednes refers to the decrease in time that women spend at home and the increase in housework and child caring that stil needs to be done. To make sense of how men and women come to play out gender roles, Hochschild (1997) introduces gender strategy, which is a plan of action for solving a problem based on what we know about our cultures notion of gender and its corresponding normative behaviors. Men and women can each take a gender strategy based on what they have been taught, how they understand their gender to be, and how they ultimately they act in response to society. Through acting on gender strategies, Hochschild (1997) studies suggest that there are three possible gender ideologies pertaining to marriage?traditional, transitional, and egalitarian. Hochschild follows multiple families as they struggle with the dilema of managing work and family, each taking a diferent gender ideology. The woman who partakes in the traditional gender ideology works, but chooses to identify most with work at home, such as mother or wife. The traditional man wants the same and finds his focus to most align with that of profesional work and power over the marriage. The choices that men and women make are undoubtedly influenced by the dominant gender ideologies of their culture. Women fel most comfortable identifying with work at home and men at work because the traditional gender roles practiced by their culture encourage that identity. A woman who considers herself part of the transitional gender ideology wants her focus to be on both home life and profesional 17 life, yet stil holds some traditional values about her husband?s role in the family (Hochschild, 1997). Lastly, the egalitarian gender ideology is one where both wife and husband work outside the home and earn money to support their family as wel as share home life duties (Hochschild, 1997). Within the egalitarian gender ideology, the wife and husband take equal part, or at least strive to, in the cleaning, cooking, and raising children. The traditional gender roles for males and females do not apply here?for instance, the husband may cook al of the meals and do the laundry and the wife may bathe the children and mow the lawn. In esence, the home life duties know no gender in the egalitarian gender ideology. A household task such as dusting would be performed by either male or female as each take equal responsibility in caring for their house and children after their profesional work day ends (Hochschild, 1997). Hochschild (1997) makes note that the gender ideologies are not as simplistic as they sem. Often, an individual?s desired gender ideology wil not match with their actual gender ideology in the family. For example, a female may believe her gender ideology to be egalitarian but in reality, she is in a relationship where her husband acts acording to the traditional gender ideology leaving al home duties left undone for her to complete. When this happens, Hochschild (1997) found men and women wil try to change the marital roles at play, especialy when women found themselves struggling to keep up with the second shift?the shift that includes house and family duties long after their public nine to five shift has ended. Women ?supermom? their way through the day, taking on more than humanly possible, leaving them disatisfied with life, work, and their marriage. Women would also consider cutting back at work, 18 such as taking a time off to while their children were young. This decision often led to felings of defeat by women as they lost a sense of profesional identity, something regarded highly by most modern day women (Renzeti and Curran, 1999). Other options to cope with unsatisfactory marital roles included women cutting back on housework, self, and children. This meant that if their finances could not aford hiring a maid or caretaker, than the cleaning and to some extent, the childcare, went undone for long periods of time. Through Hochschild?s (1997) research, it is apparent that women were often the ones finding alternate strategies to cope with the changing times that reflect both spouses participating in the workforce fulltime. It is ultimately the women who end up working the second shift, as they are both wage earners during the day as wel as unpaid workers at home for the remainder of the day. Walzer (1996) adds that not only do women do more of the primary childcare and cleaning, but they also do more of the mental work, such as worrying, advice seking regarding their children and family. Some scholars (Walzer, 1996; Stacey, 1990) argue that the second shift, or the kinkeeper role, is the most important and most valuable role for an individual as they are able to build close bonds with their children as wel as shape generations to come. Although much of the above research has pointed to the notion that women were and stil are the primary caregivers and take on the traditional gender roles, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that in households where both husbands and wives work full-time, 25 percent of fathers of children under the age of five tend to raising the children. This percentage, however, only applies to families of the blue-collar 19 profesion. Those families considered to be of the white-collar profesion stil abide by most of the traditional gender roles set in place by Western culture. Overal, gender roles in families have made many transitions towards les traditional and more egalitarian ideologies. Yet, the structure of the workforce in Western culture does not easily facilitate these changes. In regards to child raising, most employers in the U.S. offer maternity leave for the mother only, whereas some European countries have implemented paternal leave that permits the father to take a larger role in the raising of family, something believed to be intrinsicaly a woman?s role. Our culture?s beliefs about gender roles are not only communicated to us throughout our everyday interactions, but also our everyday entertainment. Television Sitcoms Within our culture, there are many factors that influence our ideas of the world around us. Specificaly, the media are a factor that contribute to our perception of reality as they produce, maintain, repair, and transform it (Carey, 1979). Cultural studies analyzes artifacts specific to a culture to reveal which ideologies hold power and stay in power over time. Since media mesages are a hegemonic proces that maintain dominant ideologies in power, television is one artifact that may be studied to learn more about a culture and its shared meanings of family. The television situational comedy boomed in popularity since its transition from radio in the 1950s. Acording to Marc (2005) the TV Guide was the first general publication to coin the term situational comedy in a 1953 article. Later, the phrase ?sitcom? was adopted and used by nearly every person and publication in 20 America. The American sitcom has long since been analyzed for its influence on culture and society. Hirst argues that ?American sitcoms provide its culture with a set of rules? rules on how to engage in relationships, rules on to tel the truth or engage in deception, rules on how to raise your children, rules for conducting a dinner party, and so on? (1979, p. 35). These rules are important to a viewer because a thorough understanding of them wil determine whether or not a person is acepted into a society (Piercen, 2005). The American sitcom offers codes of behavior for everyday situations that members of that culture may experience. For this reason, the sitcom may be viewed as a cultural artifact through which dominant ideologies at any particular time period may be viewed, especialy those relating to gender, social clas, and relationships (Dalton and Linder, 2005). Domestic Sitcoms Over the past 60 years American television sitcoms grew to embody a wide variety of sub-genres, such as the workplace sitcom, animated sitcom, and sitcoms directed at children and tenagers (Dalton and Linder, 2005). However, one sub- genre in particular remained popular? the domestic sitcom. The domestic sitcom is one that focuses on home and family life, and the plot centers around members of the family. A brief history of domestic sitcoms in the United States is useful to situate this genre of television within the context of American culture. First airing on May 5, 1951, I Love Lucy was the pioneer of domestic sitcom as its plot was structured around the life of a married couple. As with most early domestic sitcoms, the general 21 theme of I Love Lucy was centered on the diferences betwen gender roles and the batle betwen the sexes on household isues. Leibman (1995) suggests that the notion of domesticity in the 1950s is made familiar to us most clearly through the sitcoms made and placed within the realm of clasic television today. They are the shows stil widely shown in syndication and on cable channels like Father Knows Best, Ozie and Harriet, and Leave it to Beaver. One domestic sitcom, The Andy Grifith Show endured in popularity over the years. The themes of friendship and family, coupled with that of innocent plot material contribute to the long term succes of this show in American culture. Ideological paterns of race and gender can be found in The Andy Grifith Show most notably in the development of characters and plot. However, in the idealized seting of Mayberry, the negative ramifications of such dominant ideologies about race and gender are often overlooked. Vaughn (2004) argues that any hint of racial slur or sexist comment is overlooked in the utopian seting without realistic repercussion. Instead, the episodes direct the focus on happier, more pleasant themes. Vaughn concludes by aluding to the notion that domestic sitcoms are not just a reproduction of our current culture, but often a production of an ideal culture to which we can escape during times of hardship. The lack of minorities ensures no disruption to the status quo. The lack of atention to minorities communicates their role in society? nonexistent. Leibman (1995) categorizes these shows made from 1958-1963 as domestic melodramas. During the mid to late 1960s, domestic sitcoms expanded to include more than the traditional, nuclear family. Sitcoms such as My Thre Sons and The 22 Brady Bunch showed blended families uniting after a death in the family or divorce. In the 1970s, Al in the Family took a new route in domestic sitcoms as it addresed social isues that currently afected individuals in the United States. In the 1980s, The Cosby Show introduced itself as a domestic sitcom focusing specificaly on an African-American, upper-middle clas family, while Roseanne focused on the life of a working clas family. In 1983, Family Ties introduced America to former hippie parents, Steven and Elyse Keaton. Steven was the patriarch of the family and worked as a manager at a public TV station, while his wife Elyse worked as an architect. The sitcom focused on the political diferences emerging in America during the Reagan- era. Full House first aired in 1987 and formed a new view of domestic sitcoms situating around Danny Tanner, a single-father left to raise three daughters after the death of his wife. The century came to a close with the 1990s sitcom, Everybody Loves Raymond. Similar to The Cosby Show, Everybody Loves Raymond cast a stand- up comedian as the main character. The plot centered around family life and domestic isues such as dealing with in-laws and raising children. More recent domestic sitcoms focus on a working clas families that stil follow traditional gender roles. Family Matters first aired in 1991 and centered around a middle-clas Chicago family. Amusing family problems were the focus for father Carl Winslow, a policeman, and mother Harriete Winslow, a sharp-tongued housewife. Home Improvement, first airing in 1992, was a domestic sitcom where father and handy- man, Tim Taylor was the butt of family jokes as he broke more appliances than he actualy repaired. His wife, Jil, was a quick-wited school teacher that kept Tim in line al the while raising their three boys. 23 This portrayal of the father figure is nothing new to television. In nearly every working-class or blue-collar sitcom, the father is cast as dumb, imature, irresponsible, or lacking common sense (Butsch, 1995). The most famous examples are in The Flintstones, Al in the Family, and The Simpsons. In most middle-class sitcoms, the buffoon character is absent. Instead, the mother and father work together to raise their children. The most famous examples are Father Knows Best, The Brady Bunch, and the Bil Cosby Show (Butsch, 1995). Gender Roles in Sitcoms Domestic sitcoms portray members of the family in culturaly specific gender roles. Scharrer (2001) analyzed the changing definition of family gender roles from the early 1950s to 2000. Al domestic sitcoms involving a mother, father, and child that aired from 1950-2000 were considered in the research sample. Scharrer found that from the 1950s to the present, the roles of the sitcom father and mother changed. Domestic sitcoms such as The Honeymooners, Al in the Family, and Roseanne portrayed middle-clas families with fathers working to support the household. Scharrer argued that in these sitcoms, audiences se the role of the father transition from that of authority and wisdom to one in which their sensibility is mocked and often the butt of many jokes. One factor that influenced the portrayal of gender roles was that of socio- economic status. Scharrer (2001) found that in domestic sitcoms that portrayed families with upper-clas standing, such as Leave it to Beaver, the father figure remained the strong head of the family and were not subject to ridicule. One explanation for this change in gender roles on television is that the gender roles in 24 American culture during this era also were changing (Smith, 2000). The cultural roles of men and women altered by the influence of social factors like the feminist movement in the late 1960s were represented in American domestic sitcoms (Dow, 1990). The Mary Tyler Moore Show, which first aired in 1970, is one example of the shift sitcoms underwent in portraying women as stronger, more independent females who could lead a happy life without atachment to a spouse or children (Dow, 1990). Dow (1990) analyzed The Mary Tyler Moore Show for its portrayal of a non- traditional woman during a time of social change. Mary Tyler Moore was viewed to be a non-traditional female character because the majority of the leading female characters that preceded her were cast as wives or mothers with no identity beyond the scope of the home. A textual analysis of the character of Mary Richards was performed to beter understand society?s reaction to the changing roles of women. Dow (1990) found that specific hegemonic paterns of feminism and patriarchy existed within The Mary Tyler Moore Show narrative, specificaly that although Mary was an unmarried, independent woman, she nonetheles fulfiled gendered expectations within the workplace ?family? by functioning as a daughter and mother. Murphy Brown (1988) was one of the first 1980s sitcoms to be marketed as a sitcom with feminist implications. Dow (1992) analyzed the television sitcom Murphy Brown for its portrayal of womanhood, motherhood, and femininity. Dow considered the sitcom, which followed the life and times of a female journalist on her pursuit of succes in the workforce and lacked femininity and maternal nurturing, to be postfeminist. The analysis contests that Murphy was emasculated by her 25 dominance in the career field and her lack of motherly instincts. Dow argues that Murphy Brown portrayed only the extreme feminist perspective that demanded an equal place in the workforce, yet lacked any other critique of gender roles. On the contrary, the television sitcom Designing Women (1986) was analyzed and critiqued for its innovative portrayal of gender roles. Dow (1992) argues that the ?private women talk? demonstrated by the four female characters in Designing Women chalenged patriarchal ideals and empowered women who participated in it. Additionaly, the sitcom had empowered women through its modes of communication and its radical analysis of women?s isues. However, Dow argued that although the sitcom placed a crack in the glas ceiling, that crack is tempered by the hegemonic elements embedded within the program. Arguably, those hegemonic elements work against the progresive elements and result in a sitcom that appeases a wider range of audiences. Dow believes this negotiation to stil benefit the empowerment of women as its ideals and values reach a larger audience, spreading the empowerment to both male and female viewers. Shortly after, the television sitcom Wil & Grace (1998) made headlines for its portrayals of the gay community. Batles and Hilton-Morrow (2002) argue that the mainstream succes of Wil & Grace suggests society?s growing aceptance of the gay community. Batles and Hilton-Morrow take a critical approach to examining portrayals of gay characters on television and reject the asumption that television succes equates huge changes in societal atitudes toward the gay community. Instead, they find that Wil & Grace makes the topic of homosexuality more palatable by situating it within safe and familiar popular culture conventions. Batles and 26 Hilton-Morrow find several strategies that make this sitcom?s treatment of a sensitive topic a nonchalant manner. The authors argue that the program continualy positions gaynes in opposition to masculinity, pairs its characters in familiar opposite-sex dyads, dismises character threats by atributing them to heteronormativity, and lastly, emphasizes relationships at the expense of gay politics. Each of these strategies situates an ideology, which strays from the dominant way of thinking, in a normal and aceptable manner. This study atempts to disprove the notion that mainstream succes of Wil & Grace alude to overwhelming social aceptance of the gay community. Although, by making homosexuality fel aceptable to many diferent audiences, the writer of Wil & Grace is able to appease the viewer?s concerns regarding a potentialy threatening ideology. The above research ilustrates the dificulty in defining family as wel as understanding an individual?s role within the family unit. The current trends in divorce, adoption, and same-sex marriages further complicate an already complex isue. Based on the research, we are moving further away from the traditional definition family towards a new modern family?one that makes it dificult to apply the archaic and prescribed roles. The belief in biologicaly defined gender roles is outdated. Bem?s research introduces a new way to understand and make sense of an individual?s place in the world without subjecting them to preset categories complete with ways to interact in society. The progreses we are seing in family and gender roles are not only apparent in our everyday interaction but are also reafirmed in various media outlets, specificaly television sitcoms. The domestic sitcom has evolved over time in the same way as our cultural perception of a traditional family. 27 The current family unit, once characterized by a strong male as the head of the household, is now flexible and inclusive of variations in gender roles. Domestic sitcoms, such as Roseanne, Everybody Loves Raymond, and Home Improvement, reafirm the changes in a once traditional family structure. Just as scholars in the past have analyzed domestic sitcoms for their cultural implications, I too wish to understand what current domestic sitcoms communicate to our culture about gender roles, specificaly ABC?s Modern Family (2009). Modern Family Modern Family first aired on September 23, 2009 on the ABC network. The sitcom?s tagline sums up the premise nicely??One big (straight, gay, multicultural, traditional) happy family.? Producers and writers, Christopher Lloyd and Steven Levitan, are the masterminds behind this program. In addition to Modern Family, Lloyd produced popular sitcoms as Fraiser (1994-2004) and Wings (1991-1993). Lloyd worked as writer for the aforementioned shows in addition to Golden Girls (1986-1989). Prior to joining forces with Lloyd in Lloyd-Levitan Productions, Steven Levitan is most known as the creator of the 1997 sitcom Just Shoot Me, staring David Spade that aired until 2003. Acording to media website Al Busines: A D&B Company, Lloyd-Levitan Productions became official in 2006 when 20 th Century Fox Television signed them on for a three-year contract to write and produce projects both separately and individualy (Andreva, 2006). Lloyd and Levitan?s experience in the television industry served them wel. Over the years, they learned the recipe for succes and in 2009, the sitcom Modern Family became their first joint enterprise. 28 Modern Family follows three interconnected families?Jay Pritchet, his daughter Claire Dunphy, and son Mitchel Pritchet. Jay and his younger, Colombian wife Gloria raise her tenage son (Manny) from a previous marriage. Claire and Phil Dunphy have three children of their own, Haley, Alex, and Luke. The final family includes Mitchel, his partner Cameron Tucker and their adopted Vietnamese daughter, Lily. The plotline follows the formulaic structure of domestic sitcoms as it follows each of the families throughout the trials and tribulations of raising and being a family. The day-to-day interactions revolve around the struggles that gay co- parents, Mitchel and Cameron face in their community and their family, Claire keeping reign on both her children and her dim-wited husband, Phil, and finaly, Jay?s new marriage to his much younger wife and her 13-going-on-30 tenage son, Manny. As is the case with many sitcoms, the current plotline was not the initial one. Levitan admits that the show?s early pitch involved a documentarian, and German exchange student who once lived with the Pritchet family. The student had a crush on Claire while, ironicaly, Mitchel had a crush on the student (Sepinwal, 2010). The plotline was replaced by the current one, which, based on reviews, was a wise decision. Modern Family received positive fedback from its premiere. Broadcasting and Cable reports that Modern Family collected 11 milion viewers in its Wednesday 9 p.m. slot along with a 4.6/12 Nielsen rating among adults 18-49 (Blundel, 2010). The Nielsen ratings are an audience measurement system that reports findings in terms of ratings points per share. This means that 4.6% of the U.S. population 29 watched Modern Family that night, and 12% of everyone actualy watching TV were watching Modern Family. These represent a healthy viewing audience for the 2009- 2010 television season. The season two premiere drew in 12.6 milion viewers and was the night?s highest-rated show among adults 18-49, acording to overnight Neilsen ratings published by ABC (2011). The New York Time?s named the show ?Funniest new family comedy of the year? for its comedic portrayal of parenthood and family dysfunction (Poniewozick, 2009). A television critic for The Los Angeles Times made the step claim that Modern Family ?single-handedly brought the family sitcom back from the dead? through its ability to be ?sharp, timely, and fresh, complicated enough to be interesting, but with a soft, swet center? (McNamara, 2011). The Australian claims Modern Family is the best comedy since the US version of The Ofice atracting 1.5 milion viewers for its debut in its country (Blundel, 2010). Variety Magazine informed audiences that Modern Family was easily the best sitcom of today, describing the program as ?smart, nimble and best of al funny, while actualy making a point about the evolving nature of what constitutes ?family?.?(Lowry, 2009) Reviews such as these prove that critics are se the show for more than just its impecable humor, but also for its acknowledgment and treatment of trends in the current family structure. The New York Times describes the show to fit one specific trend in today?s culture, ?the tendency of parents to friend their children rather than discipline them? (Belafante, 2009). Belafante is referring to the characters of Claire and Phil who most often look for their child?s aceptance rather than respect. A TV critic for Slant Magazine praises Lloyd and Levitan for giving each family fair and 30 equal treatment throughout the sitcom, stating ?a leser show would have focused on the nuclear family with wacky interludes brought on by the secondary characters? (Swanson, 2009). But not Modern Family, instead, they make sure that each character is alowed equal time to shine in his or her own right. Slant Magazine comments on the sitcom?s semi-formulaic way of resolving family problems within the 30-minute time frame. While other sitcoms design endings that have the ?aw? moment intended to pull your heartstrings, the writers of the show make the traditional ?cutesy, one big happy family? ending part of their punch line (King, 2010). The sarcasm and humor remains consistent throughout the entire episode and the resolution is no exception. Perhaps the lack of happy endings actualy works to make the show appear more ?realistic?. Currently in its second season, Modern Family continues to gain aceptance, awards, and viewership. People Weekly, Chicago Sun-Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Chicago Tribune al gave the show a critic score of 100, some caling it ?a fast-paced mockumentary that perfectly captures the experience of parenthood? (Dietz, 2011). Variety Magazine gave the show an 80 out of 100, Slant Magazine an 88, and TV Guide a 90. The Montreal Gazete reported that ?Modern Family has proven to be the season?s most pleasant surprise: a family sitcom that?s funny? (Strachan, 2011). Additionaly, Modern Family was nominated for 14 Emy?s during the 2009-2010 season and won three of those nominations?Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series, Outstanding Writing in a Comedy Series, and Outstanding Comedy Series (Morales, 2010). Outstanding Supporting Actor was awarded to Eric Stonestreet for his role as the flamboyant and gay Cameron Tucker. 31 Most recently, Modern Family won awards for best comedy and best direction at the first-ever American Comedy Awards in March 2011 acording to ABC (2011). Modern Family also received positive reviews for its mockumentary film style and its ability to promote a sense of ?realnes.? In a 2009 isue of The Toronto Star, writers Steven Levitan and Christopher Lloyd found themselves asking, ?What?s the real? What are the conversations that we?re having with our kids, with our wives? What are the funny situations that we are witnesing in our schools?? (Salem, 2009). The answers to these questions can be found throughout each and every episode of the sitcom as they al portray familiar family scenarios. From the dysfunctional family vacations to disastrous family portraits, Modern Family atempts to bring ?real? family situations to the television set. In addition to the atempts at ?real,? the show also incorporates the modern?a gay couple, an older man with a much younger Colombian wife, and a dysfunctional nuclear family. In response to that, writer Levitan was quoted ?I welcome criticism from the far-right groups. We just wanted to show three diferent types of American families. The idea was to have one traditional family and two nontraditional families because I think the family in America is changing? (Strachan, 2010). In another article, Levitan goes on to say that when he and Christopher Lloyd sat down to describe the prototypical American family, they decided there wasn?t one so instead they included three typical families who together created a kind of norm (Blundel, 2010). He goes on to describe the gay couple as the most traditional couple of al noting that Cam is a stay-at-home parent and Mitchel goes to work and that they are fairly conservative. 32 The show?s treatment of current debates in America is raised in magazine and newspaper articles both in and out of the United States. Reviews from The London Times claim that within the sitcom everyone is mocked equaly. Modern Family shows how normal the gay couple can be or as normaly weird as the other units in the family at least (Teman, 2010). In Slant Magazine?s review of the show?s second season, King describes that the writers play with audience expectations by taking common sitcom archetypes, such as the ?efete homosexual, the dumb kid, and the loony foreigner? and turning them on their head (King, 2010). King gives the specific example that Cam and Mitch play to gay stereotypes yet break them at the same time. In esence, audiences recognize familiar stereotypes within the program, but the show?s treatment of those stereotypes is the modern, refreshing twist. Not al reviews on this mater are positive ones. Unreality Magazine argues that Modern Family?s treatment of homosexuals does nothing but worsen the stereotype claiming that Cam?s character, in particular, is more flamboyant, and efeminate than many women. As a result, homosexuals in our culture are inacurately and negatively portrayed (Tassi, 2010). Critics from the right-winged perspective viewed season two?s much-anticipated onscreen kis betwen the homosexual couple as crossing boundaries (Vitrel 2010). Acording to Access Hollywood Online, the gay kis was a result of public presure and even a fan-based Facebook page with a hefty amount of viewers campaigning for a kis (2010). Interestingly enough, Yalahom of New York Magazine interviewed Eric Stonestreet, who plays Cam on Modern Family. Stonestreet reported that the Facebook page was a ?waste of energy? because Mitch and Cam were already way 33 ahead of prime-time television in adopting a baby. Despite the star?s claims, the show aired the onscreen kis early on in season two. Ed O?Neil, who plays the head patriarch, Jay Pritchet weighed in on the mater shortly after the controversial episode aired. In response to the kis, O?Neil says ?Who cares? In many ways, Cam and Mitch are the most conservative couple. Mitch is a lawyer, and Cam plays the stay-at-home-dad.? (Vitrel, 2010). O?Neil adds that we se the couple live together, we can asume they have sex, at the end of the day, who realy cares? Some critics later criticized the actual kis itself, caling it lackluster and dull (McKinley, 2010). In addition to television publicity, actors from the sitcom are showing up on newstands and card stores around the country. Julie Bowen (Claire Dunphy) made appearances in US Weekly (2010) and Women?s Health (2011). Sophia Vegara (Gloria Pritchet) is the new face of the ?Got Milk? advertisements. Most recently, Hallmark isued a line of greeting cards featuring Modern Family characters. The atention from critics, audiences, and advertisers suggests that Modern Family is worth discussion. Although numerous critical reviews from magazines and newspapers exist, this sitcom receives no scholarly atention to date. The raving reviews and controversial plotlines motivate for academic atention, just as ground- breaking shows such as Murphy Brown and Roseanne have in the past. Thus, this thesis wil conduct a textual analysis of Modern Family. The analysis seks reveal the ways in which Modern Family communicates our culture?s dominant ideology of family. I am interested in the family dynamic and portrayal of gender roles as they play integral roles in the construction of our culture. In the following chapter, the sitcom wil be criticaly examined in order to beter understand how ideologies are 34 both chalenged and supported and a critique of the resulting implications wil be offered. It is necesary to understand and familiarize ourselves with the past research on family and gender roles and how they were portrayed in domestic sitcoms over time before a new study can be conducted. We must learn the past trends before we begin to understand and analyze current ones. The way in which scholars conducted previous media research provides insight for this specific study. Their framework and method of analysis guide the way in which I wil analyze Modern Family. Previous studies applied a cultural studies analysis to various media to yield dominant shared meanings that were a direct reflection of the culture in which they were produced. Before we can apply the same analysis to this study, an overview of culture, cultural studies is necesary. 35 Method Communication and Culture The present chapter situates my analysis of the television sitcom, Modern Family, within the realm of Communication and Cultural Studies. By applying a Cultural Studies analysis, I hope to answer the following question: In what ways does Modern Family communicate our culture?s dominant ideology about family? First, we consider the term culture. Definitions of culture are ubiquitous, contradictory, and elusive. Definitions of culture range from the degree of artistic influence on an embodiment of people to the descriptive characteristics of a society. Some scholars believe culture to be social heritage pased on to future generations (Kushnick, 2004). In a behavioral sense, culture can be sen as a shared human behavior, or a way of life (Storey, 1996). In a symbolic sense, culture can be understood as arbitrarily asigned meanings that are shared by a society (Kushnick, 2004). Since culture and communication are closely tied, understanding that relationship helps researchers to use the concept of culture more efectively. Culture lays the foundation in which communication takes place, how it takes place, and for how long it wil remain in place. Likewise, communication is a cultural proces. Meanings are produced and reproduced in the proces of communication?such as language, discourse, and media. Research shows that we can understand the world around us through the actions and behaviors we se produced in the news, sitcoms and films. Everything from gender roles, language choice, and wardrobe are produced and reproduced in the media. 36 Carey (1989) explains that reality is produced through the symbolic proces of communication, but how does this happen and what does it look like in our society? Carey (1989) argued that communication is ?a symbolic proces through which reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed? (p. 23). Rather than acepting the traditional transmision view of communication, Carey introduced the ritual view of communication that focuses on the representation of shared beliefs. Unlike the traditional view in which a sender and a receiver carry mesages from one to another, Carey proposes that human communication functions as ritualized behavior through which culturaly shared meanings are created and recreated for members. Carey provides one way to se the construction of views of reality through descriptions of the world, such as maps, that orient human behavior. Carey (1989) also tels us that reality is maintained in the symbolic proces of communication. As we look to media culture for examples of reality maintenance, we se it take shape in the form of practicing the cultural productions we se in the media. For example, we se a character play out the role of a wife on television or in movies, and we use that version of wife as the bench marker for how wives in our culture are supposed to act. The reality that Carey discusses can best be understood as a social construct, meaning that reality is created by the people involved. In order for the social construct of reality to remain in place, it needs to be maintained and practiced by those within the culture. For example, the practice of celebrating weddings with ceremony and reception that follows has been around for centuries. As each individual, family, culture, and society continues to celebrate weddings in that way, a certain reality is created?one that deems the celebration of a union betwen a 37 man and a woman as an important shared meaning within their culture. Over many years and after much maintenance of this practice, the shared meanings become embedded and thus a part of one?s culture. The third part of Carey?s definition states that communication is a symbolic proces in which reality is repaired. Reparation often is necesary as reality is a dynamic proces that at times invites change. Change, as one could imagine, can come in both positive and negative forms. If a negative change occurs in a culture?s perception of reality, that culture may work toward repairing the status quo. At its most basic definition, the word repair hints to fix a problem or mishap, and something as dynamic as reality is constantly broken as beliefs and ideas shift over time. Carey describes reparation as an alternative way to explain a culture?s shared meaning without having to revise a shared meaning, or worse, rebuild a new shared meaning. One example of repairing can be sen if a long-held belief is chalenged such as the belief that marriage is a union betwen a man and a woman. A culture, striving to ward off change, imediately begins to repair the belief or idea about marriage. As a result, many people voted for laws and legislation that made marriage betwen same- sex couples ilegal, thus repairing the original definition and keeping the status quo. The last and final part of Carey?s definition of communication states that reality is transformed over time. If we continue with the example that marriage was acepted initialy as a union betwen a man and a woman, we can se the ways in which this social construct of reality transformed over time. Unlike the repairing proces, where the current world view is explained but not revised, transforming takes place when an alternate explanation does not suffice and must be revised. As a result, 38 there were several states in the United States that made is possible for same-sex couples to marry and share in the same financial benefits as the heterosexual couples. In the end, a world view that once existed was transformed and revised to reflect the shifting ideas and beliefs of those people living within that culture. If we apply Cary?s definition of communication to the above definition of culture, then culture can be viewed as the arena in which this symbolic proces of communication takes place. It is within culture that producing, maintaining, repairing, and transforming meaning is shared amongst a group of people. Culture is not just a group of people who share ideas and beliefs, rather, it is the set of practices that alows these shared ideas and beliefs to perpetuate and ultimately to exist (Barker, 2000). Members of a society must acknowledge the shared meanings and act in acordance through their behaviors and interactions for culture to form. The goal of this thesis is to examine a collection of episodes from the television situation comedy, Modern Family, looking specificaly at the shared practices and beliefs communicated about family among the characters. Shared practices or shared meanings are what individuals view to be the normal, most aceptable way of life. Shared meanings function as the common, ?natural? and ?normal? communicative actions that people within a culture acept and act upon. Shared meanings fel natural, as though they existed in nature and were around long before the people in the culture ever came into existence. The shared meanings and beliefs are acepted as the right way, and sometimes the only way, because of their extensive embeddednes within culture. As Carey (1989) argues, the shared meanings are produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed by a culture in 39 hopes of maintaining a sense of familiarity and status quo of the way things ought to be. The set of beliefs become such an integral part of a culture that many times they often go unnoticed and unchalenged. This concept is known as ideology and it is one of the driving forces behind cultural studies. In using the sitcom Modern Family as the cultural artifact, I wil describe and analyze how the program uses familiar themes and ideas to produce, maintain, repair, and transform the communication practices of its respective culture. Cultural Studies Cultural studies is a scholarly framework that informs analyses of cultural as wel as important aspects of culture such as power and control. It is a perspective used to reveal and understand the shared meanings and beliefs a culture uses to understand the world. Cultural studies evolved over time with the help of many scholars who contributed along the way. The initial step in the intelectual development of cultural studies came from The Frankfurt School. Founded in Germany in 1923, the Frankfurt School fostered a group of intelectuals who created a critical studies approach to mas culture and communication. Much of their research cultivated from their experiences in Nazi Germany and exposure to the rise of media culture involving film, popular radio, and television (Kelner, 1989). Their research first focused on Karl Marx?s theories of capitalism and the divides of social clas within culture. Frankfurt School theorists were among the first to examine the effects of mass culture and the rise of the consumer society on the working classes (Kelner, 1989). The Frankfurt scholars coined the term ?culture industry? to signify the proces of the industrialization of mas produced culture. Analysis of the commodification of 40 cultural artifacts led these scholars to believe that culture industry has a specific function, which is to legitimize dominant beliefs and to incorporate individuals into that belief system. Several of the Frankfurt studies involved critical analyses of cultural artifacts, such as radio soap operas, popular magazines, and fascist speeches. In their view, mas culture and communication are important agents of socialization and mediators of political reality (Kelner, 1989). For these reasons, the Frankfurt scholars viewed mas communication to have economic, political, cultural, and social efects on a society. Cultural artifacts were no longer viewed as mindles leisure activities, but rather influential molders of ideology. The research conducted during this era led to the many developments in what we know as cultural studies. Arguably the most influential development in cultural studies came from the Birmingham School in the 1960s. Originating in Britain in 1964, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, later known as the Birmingham School, was a research center founded to study the new field of cultural studies. The Birmingham School viewed cultural studies as representations and ideologies of clas, gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality in cultural texts, including media culture (Kelner, 2003). Theorists and scholars involved in the Birmingham School, most notably Stuart Hal, incorporated several methods to study culture, such as Marxism, feminism, and critical race theory. Hal and other cultural studies scholars were influenced by several areas of study such as history, sociology, and media studies. Understanding the key elements within cultural studies asists in analyzing how the media represent the world in which we live. As mentioned briefly previously, an ideology is a set of beliefs that a group of people come to share which 41 serves as a framework for understanding the world around them. In esence, the world that we come to know only exists in that way because our ideologies construct it to be so. Reality, or what we perceive to be reality, does not exist on its own, but is an existence created to fit dominant shared meanings. Early Marxist theories referred to ideologies as just that? the ilusionary representations of the relation of people to real conditions (Barker, 2000). What we perceive to be real is a product of our relationship to the world around us and our ideological beliefs of how it should function. For example, in our culture we perceive a family to be a mother, father, and a child or several children. We do not consider a family to be a just a wife and husband. This is an example of dominant ideology that our culture holds to be true? to be a reality. More recently, Hal described ideology to be ?those images, concepts, and premises through which we represent, interpret, understand, and make sense of some aspect of social existence? (2003, p. 8). Ideologies come to existence because a group of people acept or view a belief to be just and alow that belief to persist and strengthen through everyday language and discourse. An ideology describes the way a culture thinks about the world around it, and then offers an ideal way of living in that world. Ideologies are also a way in which a culture can justify and explain events. In the United States, we have many ideologies that reflect our culture?s view of the world in which we live. One ideology that exists is in regard to gender. It is our dominant ideology that men should be masculine and emotionles, while women should be feminine, nurturing, and emotional. The communication surrounding this ideology reflects that male gender is the ideal gender in the United States. If we look 42 to our culture for evidence that support this ideology we wil find that most media perpetuate this dominant ideology. Although alternative ideas about gender are present, they are overshadowed by the overwhelming presence of an ideology that constructs and reconstructs the polarization betwen men and women. In looking at the program, I hope to reveal the ways in which Modern Family communicates our culture?s dominant ideology about family. I am interested particularly in how a dominant gendered ideology is communicated through mother figures, father figures, and the family structure. Another key concept of cultural studies is dominant ideologies. Dominant ideologies are those of the dominant group or the majority. Furthermore, not only do the majority of people in a culture believe the dominant ideology to be true, they also believe it to be natural and common sense. As an ideology becomes deeply rooted and understood to be innate, both the dominant and subordinate groups consent to its existence. For example, in the United States the dominant ideology in regard to gender is that men and masculinity are the ideal. If we look to our culture for examples of ways in which this ideology is perpetuated, we find that those in power are typicaly men, the highest pay is given to men, and that even many women acept this belief, regardles of the consequence, which is an expresion of the dominant ideology of masculinity. Ideologies and dominant ideologies find power in their pervasivenes. They sem ?natural? and ?normal? and offer an explanation as to why the world works the way it does. Although ideologies are social constructs, they are viewed as innate and naturaly occurring which is why so many groups consent to an outlook on life that ultimately oppreses them and empowers others (Hal, 1977). 43 The concept of dominant ideology should be understood fully within its relationship to power. Power resides in a dominant ideology that gains consent from al parties involved, both those it helps and those it oppreses. Oppresion takes place when power is used in an unjust or cruel manner. In the United States, homosexuals are a group that faces oppresion as they lack the same rights as heterosexual couples. Within a culture, power creates a hierarchy amongst social groups and individuals, who wil be categorized as either an oppresor or the oppresed. Factors such as hierarchy and organization guide the use of power and reinforce the idea that ilegitimate power wil undermine a culture?s collective goals and interests (Hamilton & Sharma, 1997.) As the diference in power dominates thoughts, social norms, and ideologies, a cap betwen social groups widens. A cultural studies analysis looks within a culture and atempts to make sense of how power is acquired, distributed, and maintained within cultural groups. Power, as sen in cultural studies, can be understood as a force that keeps dominant ideologies in existence, but not a force that works by means of brute coercion. Italian scholar, Gramsci (1971) took Marx?s claims regarding ideology a step further by including an explanation for how and why ideologies exist through consent, rather than force. Hegemonic power is that which a ruling group uses to exercise authority over subordinate clases. Gramsci (1971) defined hegemony as the dialectic struggle betwen the ruling, social, and cultural forces against the resistance of the subordinate clases under domination. The hegemonic model describes the power diferences within a culture and shows the ways and means in which power persists and endures over time (Haugaard & Lentner, 2006. 44 Acording to Gramsci (1971), the hegemonic proces is not rooted in the use of brute force. Instead, the transfer of power takes place through the unconscious consent of individuals to their own oppresion. The voluntary consent to one?s own oppresion is referred to as false consciousnes, and is the driving force behind hegemony. The hegemonic proces enables groups to place themselves within social clases because the dominant ideology normalizes the concept of ?clas?. In esence, hegemony explains the way in which the dominant clas exerts control over the subaltern clas by persuading it to acept the dominant as ?natural,? although that benefits the belief system of the dominant clas and disadvantages the subaltern clases. The proces of hegemony is not static, rather it is constantly changing and adapting. The ever changing nature of hegemony is the determining factor behind which ideologies are in play, which dominant ideologies persist, who maintains power and control, and which social clases become oppresed as a result. This idea is closely related to cultural hegemony, a concept that describes the way in which hegemony is maintained through cultural practices (Gramsci, 1971). Media mesages are one cultural practice through which the dominant ideology is maintained. If we look to history for an example, popular media constructions during Hitler?s reign in the 1930s and 1940s lends itself as an exemplar of the concept of cultural hegemony. The Nazi party shared its ideology about the world around them and acquired dominance over other social groups in part through the hegemonic proces in which the remaining social groups wilfully contribute to their own oppresion (hegemonic proces). The desire to fel a sense of belonging to Germany during a time of economic and political turmoil was reason enough for some social 45 groups to internalize the shared beliefs of the Nazi regime with litle understanding that it resulted in their own oppresion. As we look to a culture in hopes of understanding how its members come to know the world, we may look to its cultural artifacts. Cultural artifacts are products of a culture that represent the shared meanings of the world in which a culture lives. Radio, television, and film are al examples of cultural artifacts that may be examined to understand a society. The media are one way in which representations of ideologies are created and perpetuated within a culture. The media play a critical role in producing and reproducing shared meanings, thus further embedding them within the culture. Acording to Hal (1977) the media are socialy, economicaly, and technicaly organized apparatuses for the production of mesages and signs. Within the realm of television, mesages and signs come in various forms such as sitcom scripts, character development, and plot selection. Consumer culture?s production of these mesages and signs do not create ideology, they reproduce, proces, package, and focus ideology for a society (Gitlin, 1979). Looking specificaly at television, Gitlin (1979) argues that ideological hegemony is reproduced and focused in the format and formula, genre, seting and character type, topical slant, and solution. The constant changing, modifying, and reinventing of these categories is necesary for a media text to remain both financialy profitably and to hegemonicaly ward off oppositional forms. It is important to note the diference betwen a constructed reality and reality. Scholars have since disputed the diference betwen the two. Carey (1979) views our reality as a socialy constructed entity that exists as a product of our communication. 46 However, there are many other ways of looking at the world around us and our ideology of family. SNAF is just one of the many ways to view family. Statistics and census data are also world views for many members of our culture. I combine the two views, the constructed reality and the statistics to create a fuller understanding of our ideology of family. To further the relationship betwen ideologies and the production of cultural artifacts, Gitlin (1979) describes the function of seting and character type. Most often, the most wel received setings and character types are those that resonate with the familiar beliefs of the mases. For example, during the 1950s domestic sitcoms focused its atention on happy people with happy problems which was representative of America?s Baby Boom era. The 1970s was a time of turmoil and desired change in which sitcoms portrayed by scripting unhappy people finding happy ways of coping with unhappy isues (Gitlin, 1979). The slant of a television sitcom can be understood as a certain position on a certain public isue. Slant is mistaken for the tilt or bias of a show, but it is the wek- after-wek angle in which the slant emerges. Slants sometimes manifest in the characters created in sitcoms. Because stereotyped characters are most noticeable and tend to register best with audiences of a culture, a sitcom?s slant is most efective when it coincides with and reinforces a culture?s dominant ideologies. For example, Gitlin (1979) argues that the fifties domestic sitcom usualy ignored the existence of social problems in the world outside of the set whereas the sitcoms of the 1970s more often than not domesticated them. A sitcom?s hegemonic style decision to either ignore or domesticate social isues wil depend on both internal factors of media 47 organization such as the writers? and actors? social values, as wel as the level of public approval. The last and final aspect of a television sitcom that Gitlin (1979) deems necesary for textual analysis is the solution. As discussed earlier, the format of a sitcom includes a problem and a solution to that problem. Television sitcom is self- enclosed, meaning that the problem is resolved nicely within a very short period of time. By the end of the thirty-minute episode, the main characters are alive and wel and ready to take on the obstacle that lies ahead in next wek?s program. Gitlin (1979) proposes that cultural hegemony operates through the solutions proposed to dificult problems as audiences look to television for ways in which they can understand and make sense of the world around them. A cultural studies approach to television analyzes the mesages in these texts to beter understand how ideologies are created and maintained, as wel as understand the implications of those ideologies on a culture. Through my analysis, I hope to discover the ways in which the problems of each episode are resolved. An understanding of the problem solving methods wil provide insight into our culture?s shared belief system and values. Much research has been done in terms of cultural studies and television sitcoms. Media mesages produce shared meanings for the respective cultures and those shared meanings offer insight into how and why a culture makes sense of the world in a specific way. A qualitative analysis is an appropriate methodology for the study of culture. The present research is qualitative, too, because the television episodes contain information in a narrative form and can be considered cultural artifacts. In this study, 48 episodes from season one and season two wil be treated as cultural artifacts for analysis. The episodes wil be broken down and analyzed in regard to their specific treatment of family. I wil perform a textual analysis of the characters, general plot, and language used throughout the episodes as this wil be helpful in determining the mesages communicated in the program and whether they communicate the dominant ideology. The first step required narrowing episodes from season one and two use for analysis. An initial viewing of season one in its entirety and the available episodes of season two were completed to gain insight on material available. In al, 34 episodes were reviewed for this analysis?24 from season one and 10 from season two. A manageable 16 episodes (12 from season one and four from season two) were chosen from the pool of 34. Although al of the episodes offer family-related themes, the chosen 16 episodes depicted the most recognizable familial themes. These episodes specificaly addresed themes such as what it means to be a good dad, resolving family feuds, tenage children going on dates, and disciplinary strategies. Some episodes are referenced in great detail, while other episodes may only be mentioned through brief examples. Nonetheles, al 16 episodes contributed to the analysis whether it be through character development, plot themes, or defining Modern Family?s family values. The next step involved several viewings of the selected episodes, which included detailed notes of themes, characters, conversation, and overal plot developments. After several viewings and after applying the concepts given to us by Carey, Hal, and Gitlin, themes and ideologies emerged for further analysis. 49 This study uses a textual analysis with special emphasis on gender within the family. Products of media culture, such as Modern Family, require close textual readings to analyze their various elements (Kelner, 2003). This study wil analyze the discourse, characters, and gender roles within each family structure. It is important to note that there are many ways to read a text and this study wil provide one reading. 50 Analysis Recaling earlier research, Hal (2005) identified media as channels through which ideologies are communicated to a culture. Acording to Carey?s (1989) cultural view of communication, our reality is then maintained in the symbolic proces of communication. Scholars, both past and present, analyzed domestic sitcoms for their ideological mesages and this study performs a similar analysis. This chapter reveals the ways in which the popular sitcom, Modern Family communicates familial ideologies to our culture. More specificaly, it is guided by the following research question: In what ways does the sitcom Modern Family communicate our culture?s dominant ideology about family? As previously described, Modern Family is comprised of three interrelated families. The Pritchets consist of Jay, his much younger wife, Gloria, and her son, Manny. Jay holds a managerial position at a construction company and serves as the financial provider for the family. He is the only parent to work outside the home and holds very traditional family values. Gloria, a Colombian native, recently married Jay. She is a stay-at-home parent to her son, Manny, from her previous marriage. This marriage is the second for both Jay and Gloria. Jay?s daughter, Claire, along with her husband, Phil and their three children make up the Dunphy family. Phil works as a housing realtor and Claire stays home and takes care of the children. Their oldest daughter Haley is a tenager in the rebelious stage. Their middle-child, Alex, enjoys school and is the self-proclaimed brains of the family. Lastly, Luke is their youngest child and often the focus of many jokes as he takes after his father?s dopey ways. 51 Finaly, Jay?s son Mitchel is part of the Pritchet-Tucker family. This family includes Mitchel?s husband, Cameron, and their adopted daughter, Lily. Mitchel works as an environmental lawyer while Cameron stays home to take care of Lily who was adopted from Vietnam at the start of season one. The program communicates many mesages about family, but I wil begin with the most obvious? the family structure. Modern Family works to embed the longstanding dominant ideology of traditional family roles rather than communicate a competing reality. At first glance, the three families convey ilusions of modernity. The Pritchet-Tuckers give of the most obvious ilusion of modernity because they are a gay married couple with an adopted Vietnamese baby. Gay marriage is not fully acepted by our culture and adding child adoption to the mix further distances this family from our traditional belief of family. Additionaly, their hyphenated last name adds to the ilusion of modernity. In the majority of American families, the wife follows tradition and takes her husband?s last name. However, this couple follows a new trend by merging their last names with a hyphen. Couples that do so hold the reputation of being progresive and liberal. They project the idea that they are rejecting the dominant ideology and thus this is what we expect from the Pritchet- Tuckers. The Pritchets are a blended family made up of a re-married couple with a foreign wife many years her husband?s senior. Gloria is Colombian and she references her cultural experience throughout much of the program. Gloria?s presence on the show reflects the recent increase in Hispanic populations in our culture. In 1970, the Hispanic population made up 4.7% percent of the United States, now they 52 make up nearly 16% of our current population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Her son from a previous marriage is also included and reflects the spike in blended families and increase in stepchildren and stepsiblings. The Dunphys appear to be the most traditional family, and convey no sense of modernity to the average audience member. At the surface they represent the normal, nuclear family sen in domestic sitcoms in years past. This includes a father who provides financialy for his family, a stay-at-home mother figure, and multiple children. Regardles of their claims of modernity, my analysis shows that al three of the families promote our culture?s dominant ideology of the family structure also referred in the literature as Standard North American Family (SNAF) (Smith, 1993). SNAF is similar to the nuclear family and is categorized by a provider who works outside the home, a caregiver who tends to the children and household duties, and finaly by one or more offspring. Within this family structure, it is widely acepted that the man, or more masculine partner, takes the role of the provider, while the woman, or more feminine partner, takes the role at home as the caregiver. Gender role asignment in the family originated from our culture?s embedded belief in biological esentialism?the belief that men and women are inevitably diferent in their biological makeup (Bem, 1993). As a result, it is believed that men are naturaly more competitive, aggresive, and inteligent and best fit for work outside the home in the public sphere. Conversely, it is believed that women are naturaly more nurturing, gentle, and best suited for household responsibilities and raising children. Thus, we arrive at the ideological asumption that in a ?normal? family, the man 53 works to provide for the family, and the woman takes on the role of the stay-at-home parent. In this family structure, the man reigns power over his wife and children. His job provides the only income, which was, and sometimes stil is, believed to be spent at his discretion. As a result, he makes family decisions, especialy those decisions that involve money. With no financial contribution to add, the woman remains powerles. This type of power structure is sen in traditional family units today. Often times, it goes unquestioned and unchalenged for fear of disturbing the status quo. After a while, it is normalized and becomes comfortable. Likewise, the gendered family construct fels comfortable to audiences, and rightfully so?primetime television first portrayed the nuclear family in sitcoms as early as I Love Lucy, and continues to do so in present-day sitcoms (Leibman, 1995). Yet, in the last year alone, the United States saw an increase in families where both partners worked outside the home, commonly caled two-earner households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The increase in both partners working outside the home resulted in a historical feat?for the first time in U.S. history, women now make up 51% of the workforce (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Furthermore, out of al two-earner households, one quarter of families reported that the father, not the mother, was responsible for raising the children. This is today?s reality, yet that is not what Modern Family communicates. In the present analysis, I reveal the traditional gender roles found within Modern Family. They communicate mesages that support our culture?s dominant belief and serve to further embed these ideologies within our society. The mothers, 54 fathers, and family unit as a whole reinforce the dominant ideology of the traditional family. The Mother Figure The Pritchets, Dunphys, and Pritchet-Tuckers al communicate a family structure in which one spouse takes the role of the mother figure. Inconsistent with the program?s title of a ?modern? family, the family structure communicates an outdated ideology of the traditional family?one with a masculine breadwinner who holds a profesional career, and a feminine spouse who stays at home and cares for the family. I wil begin at the top of the family tree with Gloria Pritchet. Gloria Pritchet Gloria Pritchet is married to Jay Pritchet, the patriarch, and mother to Manny, her son from a previous marriage. The Colombian native plays the role of a stereotypical trophy wife, with much emphasis placed on her youth, beauty, ethnicity, and ever-plunging neckline. Gloria does not work outside the home, and there is no mention of a previous career as Jay is the sole financial provider for the Pritchet household. At first glance, Gloria?s character appears modern. She is divorced and recently remarried to a man many years her senior. This concept is a novel one to many in our culture and usualy comes with negative connotations. The term ?gold- digger? refers to young, atractive women who marry men with wealth. The validity of their love is questioned and we se this captured in Gloria?s character. She faces criticism from family members and her love for Jay is continualy questioned. Gloria?s ethnicity is also a focal point. She and Jay?s marriage is categorized as inter- cultural which goes against the majority of marriages in the United States. Even in 55 2011, more than 85% of people in the United States marry a spouse of the same race or ethnic background (Pasel, Wang, & Taylor, 2010). The emphasis placed on her youth and atractivenes promotes the current trend of trophy wives. No mater the time or place, Gloria is dresed to the nines with a full face of makeup and perfectly groomed brunete locks. Al of these characteristics encourage the belief that Gloria is modern. Yet, further analysis reveals that Gloria promotes the dominant ideology of a feminine and submisive mother figure. Throughout the program Gloria furthers the traditional belief that women should be feminine. One way she communicates the importance of femininity is through appearance. In atempting to persuade her step-granddaughter to wear a dres, Gloria tels Alex, ?One day, you wil want a boy to notice you. You wil want to fel beautiful and this is when you wil wear a dres.? (S.1, Ep. 3, 2009). From this, we learn that Gloria correlates beauty with femininity, and femininity with wearing dreses. In every episode, Gloria is shown with a full-face of make-up, wel-groomed brunete locks, and a wardrobe full of skin-tight, figure-acentuating ensembles. In comparison to her daughter-in-law, Claire, Gloria appears to be a supermodel. Claire wears very litle makeup and dreses in a muted color palete so as not to cal atention to herself. In this regard, Claire gives off the persona of a haggard housewife who devotes her time to her children and alowing litle time for personal grooming. This is the very opposite of Gloria?s character who is always put together no mater the time of day. Gloria continues her dialogue with Alex with a blanket statement regarding her belief in distinct diferences betwen men and women, ?Girls like to shop, gossip, 56 and drink wine. Men are in need of many hobbies, al-adventurous and masculine.? (S.1, Ep. 3, 2009). Gloria?s language promotes the traditional gender constructs that place men and women in two distinct categories, never to overlap. Research shows that children look to their parents and elder family members as models for appropriate gender behavior (Wood, 2008). As a result, Gloria?s step-grandchild and even her own son are influenced and shaped by her gender mesages. In addition to what Gloria says, we also se the traditional role of the mother figure played out in what Gloria does not say. In times of disagreement with her husband, Gloria perpetuates the notion that a feminine person is submisive. Instead of speaking up to Jay, Gloria vents to the mockumentary camera crew. For example, Gloria remains quiet when Jay lies to Manny about the death of his pet turtle. She expreses distaste to the camera crew for Jay?s actions, yet to Jay she offers nothing more than suggestions as to how he should correct this situation. She alows him to consider her suggestions and wait for Jay to tel the truth on his own terms, which takes place neatly at the end of the 30-minute segment. (S.1, Ep. 17, 2009) The mesage communicated here demonstrates a submisive wife who does not confront her husband or speak her mind. It communicates to audiences the age-old saying that women should be sen and not heard. Gloria reinforces her position as submisive to Jay and hence, continues the hegemonic proces that solidifies her powerles role in the family. Gloria?s verbal claims regarding the role of women within the family are mirrored by her actions. Gloria is the epitome of the stay-at-home mom, as she does not work outside of the home. Through confesional-style monologue we learn much 57 about Gloria?s past, yet there is no mention of a previous profesional career. Instead, we se Gloria spending most of her days going on lunch dates. Not once does Gloria appear bored or expres discontent with her role at home. Gloria also fits the role of the stay-at-home parent as she takes sole responsibility in caring for her son, Manny. In the event where Manny gets into a fight at school, Gloria is sen in the principal?s office addresing the isue (S.1, Ep.5, 2009). When Manny has his heart broken by his crush, it is his mother who nurtures him back to health and provides him with suggestions on how to win back the young girl (S.1, Ep. 1, 2009). Additionaly, Gloria fulfils the ideology that a stay-at-home parent is nurturing. When a soccer mom heckles Manny, it is Gloria who stands up for Manny and verbaly asaults the other parent (S.1, Ep. 1, 2009). This behavior sems odds with her feminine persona but aggresive behavior in women is considered aceptable if it is a mother protecting her young. The soccer dads, who later have to perform crowd control, frown upon this situation. The behaviors are chalked up to overly emotional women who cannot be trusted to act appropriately in public situation. It is ironic that Gloria can be asertive and voice her opinion to a perfect stranger, yet to her own husband, she remains submisive. Gloria?s character supports the ideological asumption that women are emotionaly unstable, submisive, and defer power to their husbands. This is characteristic of a traditional mother figure but not what we expect from a modern mother figure. Gloria?s character, packaged and presented as the stereotypical modern-day trophy wife, is consistent with traditional gender constructs that a woman?s place is at home where she can focus on being feminine, submisive, and nurturing. Women 58 who focus on these traits are considered normal and therefore have an easier time being acepted into society. Women who stray from this norm find themselves as outcasts and somehow les desirable. This portrayal communicates the dominant ideology to audiences and urges women to fal into place acordingly, even if it fels unnatural to their true identity. Female audiences se a direct correlation betwen Gloria?s extremely feminine manner and happines. Her powerles position is cast in a positive light communicating to audiences that voluntary oppresion is a good thing. This ensures the dominant ideology remains dominant. Claire Dunphy As we move along to the next family in this modern family tree, we arrive at Claire Dunphy, another stay-at-home mom. Claire is married to Phil Dunphy, who works outside of the home as a housing realtor. As a result, Claire makes most of the family decisions and projects a persona that is both outspoken and controlling. At the surface, you might even think Claire?s character rejects the dominant ideology of the mother figure. She is in control, exerts power over her children and husband, and is not afraid to voice her opinion. However, after careful analysis it is apparent that Claire?s character communicates the dominant ideology of the traditional stay-at- home mother?one whose primary duties involve raising children and household chores. Examples of Claire from seasons one and two situate Claire as a traditional mother figure. Just like her stepmother, Gloria, Claire does not have a profesional career outside of the home. She is defined by her position in the home, both literaly and figuratively. As a result, nearly al of her daily activities revolve around the lives of 59 her three children, Haley, Alex, and Luke. Claire?s parenting strategy can best be described as a ?helicopter mom,? meaning that she hovers closely over her children leaving litle room for them to make decisions on their own and grow as individuals. For example, when Claire finds out that middle-daughter Alex needs cupcakes for school the following day, it is Claire who forgoes slep to perfectly bake and ice dozens of cupcakes (S.1, Ep. 18, 2009). When Luke?s school needs parents to decorate for their upcoming dance, Claire organizes and delegates jobs to the other PTA moms to ensure its smooth succes (S.2, Ep.10, 2010). This middle school dance is Claire?s pride and joy and she expreses her excitement for it each year. She was the organizer in years prior and we sense a possesive nature over this specific child function. This specific event exemplifies Claire?s desire to be other-oriented, a trait characterized by femininity (Bem, 1994). Claire volunters her time and eforts to ensure that her children and their clasmates enjoy their middle-school dance. In general, Claire?s character is selfles as she makes many sacrifices for her family. Furthermore, Claire keeps a watchful eye on their eldest daughter, Haley?s developing relationship with boyfriend, Dylan. Claire reads Hayley?s diary, makes Alex spy on Haley, and eavesdrops on telephone conversations betwen Haley and Dylan (S.1, Ep.18, 2009). Through these actions, it is clear that Claire identifies most with being a parent. Where she does not have a job to consume her life, her family takes its place. She obseses over her children?s whereabouts and judges her abilities as a mother on their succeses and failures. This is Claire?s life and her children are both a production and reflection of her own life. 60 When Claire is not hovering over her three children, she often performs domestic household duties. On more than one occasion, the program opens with Claire preparing breakfast in the kitchen or packing the kids? lunches before sending them off to school. Additionaly, it is common for Claire?s character to tote domestic props such as a laundry basket or dishtowels. As previously mentioned, Phil Dunphy?s character forgoes many responsibilities of being a husband and father. In these instances, Claire is forced to compensate by taking on household chores that Phil neglects. For example, Claire repairs the chronicaly broken middle step to end the constant stumbles both up and down the staircase (S.1, Ep. 24, 2009) and later cals a plumber to put an end to the running toilet that Phil never sems to get around to (S. 2, Ep. 3, 2010). Claire?s responsibilities span from her own to now her husband?s asigned chores. She ?supermoms? her way through the program taking on more than humanly possible which reflects a trend in current day America (Hochschild, 1997). Phil?s lack of initiative around the house causes strain on their relationship as she is always taking on more than she can handle. Though Claire continues to do so, alowing Phil to go about his day as his pleases. Just as we saw a powerles mother figure in Gloria, it is communicated again through Claire?s character. Although Claire appears to thrive on her role as the mother figure, we se signs of regret. When Claire runs into her old colleague, Valerie, Claire questions her life as a homemaker (S. 1, Ep., 2009). Valerie is now a succesful busineswoman who worked up way up to the top of the totem pole at Claire?s old place of employment. She travels the world, manages her own acounts, and makes a hefty 61 salary. It is briefly mentioned that Valerie does not have children, though her relationship status is not discussed. In a camera confesion, Claire shares her regret over giving up her career to raise a family. She questions her abilities and even questions what she has to show for giving up her career. In an atempt to reasure herself that choosing family was the right decision, Claire invites Valerie over to her house to met the family she spent the last decade raising. As luck would have it, Valerie visits on the day that the Dunphys are wreaking havoc in full force?Phil gets stuck in the construction worker?s port-a- potty, Haley is caught in her bedroom being too friendly with a boy, and Alex and Luke are fighting in the front yard. Claire is embarrased and confeses to the camera that she wishes that just this once her family could act like normal family in front of her over-achieving ex-colleague. As the episode comes to a close, we hear Claire?s voice-over as the camera pans the house and exposes the wacky side of her family. They are shown siting around the dinner table, a typical family scenario, laughing and enjoying one another?s company. It is then that realizes that she does not need ?some fancy career? to make her fel worthwhile. Her family, no mater how mesy and weird they appear to an outsider, is her pride and joy and she would not trade the time she spent at home for a minute in a succesful career. The resolution at the end of this episode communicates the mesage that stay- at-home parents, specificaly women, should not fel inadequate because they do not have a career to take up their time. In the example of Claire, we se her discontentment eased after she imagines her life without Phil or the kids. In her eyes, having a family to love her and occupy her time overshadows a succesful career. 62 Although this appears to be a positive mesage, I argue that mesage conveys the notion that there are only two options?be like Valerie, and have a succesful career but forgo a family, or be like Claire, and have a loving family but no career. The trouble with this scenario is that it does not offer the option of having both a family and a career. Instead, the dominant ideology is reinforced by communicating to audiences that women are to identify most with work inside of the home rather than aspire to hold a career. As we se with Claire, the choice to forgo a career did not have negative implications for her or her family. In fact, it fels ?right? that the mother figure chose to stay home because it supports the dominant ideology that we as a culture created and work efortlesly to keep in place. It is 2011, surely one can have her cake and eat it too, right? If we look to the research, we se an increase of women who work outside of the home to gain pleasure from a profesional career and then come home to joys of raising and caring for a family. Unfortunately, regardles of the changes in the workforce, the decision for women to work and raise a family has consequences. Hochschild (1997) reports that it is ultimately women who end up working the ?second shift??the shift that consists of housework and childcare after they arrive home from work. Women tend to ?supermom? their way through the day, taking on more than humanly possible. Research shows this leaves women disatisfied with life, work, and their marriage. Modern Family does not show us the third option, being a working mother, because perhaps the reality of it would make for a mesy sitcom?one without a nice, neat, and happy ending. When mesages such as Claire?s are communicated to audiences, the ideological implications result in the continued belief that women must choose 63 betwen family and a career. As a result, the women who stray from the normative belief and atempt to raise a family and hold a career find themselves struggling to do so. They do not receive support from society and employers who acknowledge and acept the traditional ideology. Unfortunately for audiences, the realistic negative implications are never addresed or mentioned in the Dunphy family. Cameron Pritchet-Tucker Cameron is married to Mitchel Pritchet, making him the brother-in-law to Claire Dunphy and son-in-law to Gloria Pritchet. Cam has an interesting background, in which he grew up on a farm and played college footbal, both of which our culture deem intensely masculine. He appears to reject the dominant ideology of the mother figure, as he is male, a former college athlete, and the product of a semingly traditional upbringing. Cameron and Mitchel made an addition to their family in the pilot episode? an adopted Vietnamese baby named Lily. Mitchel works outside the home as a lawyer, while Cam remains at home to raise their daughter. Cam?s role as the primary caregiver is especialy significant in this gay co-parent relationship, a relationship that screams modernity. He is a gay male raising a child, taking on a not so common role as a stay-at-home mother. It is surprising that Mitchel and Cam are not more egalitarian in the caregiving arena seing as the research points to shared home and work responsibilities among gay co-parents (Sullivan, 1996). Rather, a clear distinction is made betwen the roles of the two male characters. We do not se a case of two fathers; rather, the dominant ideology is communicated again with Cam as the mother figure. 64 Cam?s current role in the Pritchet-Tucker family is that of the traditionaly feminine stay-at-home parent marked by emotion, feminine behaviors, and child rearing responsibilities. The examples below describe how even the most modern of the three families fal victim to the traditional dominant ideologies of our culture. Many of Cam?s interests and center around traditionaly feminine ones, such as cooking and art, especialy the stereotypical love of Broadway musicals. Numerous times throughout the seasons, Cam is approached instead of Mitchel for advice on wine pairing and recipes. When dinner guests are impresed with the meal and the table setings, Mitchel looks to Cam to give credit. Cam graciously acepts the kind words and elaborates on ?how inspiring Martha Stewart can be for the soul? (S. 1, Ep. 10, 2009). Additionaly, Cam?s love for the fine arts is a comical focal point. Not an episode goes by that Cam neglects to mention his favorite musicals and idols such as Martha Stewart. When asked to name women he dated in college, Cam recals female leads from his favorite musicals (S.2, Ep. 18, 2010). Only his partner, Mitchel, catches on after a while and cals him out for being ?so gay that he can?t even think of girls names that aren?t in Broadway productions.? (S.2, Ep. 18, 2010) Through Cam?s portrayal, Modern Family reinforces our culture?s belief in the stereotypical gay character. Cameron Pritchet-Tucker is the epitome of gay with his love for musicals, appreciation of homemaker icons like Martha Stewart, and concern for domestic chores. Cam?s character is familiar to audiences in a stereotypical way that induces humor. At its core, a gay mother figure threatens the dominant ideology but when Cam?s character is cast as flamboyantly exaggerated and 65 stereotypical, it is more easily acepted. He is the ?other;? he is diferent, and we are continualy reminded of that. Cam plays the more feminine partner in more ways than his interests; he plays the motherly role to Lily. He was the partner who decorated Lily?s nursery (and just so happened to design the colorful mural above Lily?s crib that depicts Mitchel and himself as angels floating in the clouds holding a newborn baby). He is the parent sen most often holding, feding, and transporting Lily from place to place. Most notably, Cam choreographs a Lion King inspired entrance to first introduce Lily to the family (S.1, Ep.1, 2009). Cam later organizes Lily?s highly sought-after play dates with neighborhood children (S.2, Ep.4, 2010). He even goes as far as to schedule dinner plans with Lily?s pediatrician to discuss her progres and growth as a result of having two fathers (S. 1, Ep. 16, 2009). Cam is the parent who takes care of Lily, thus supporting the dominant ideology that the mother figure (no mater sexual orientation) is responsible for child rearing. In a show titled Modern Family, produced in 2009, one would think that the gay couple would not follow traditional gender roles. However, I argue that Cam and Mitchel?s relationship follow traditional gender roles more so than the traditional nuclear Dunphy family. It appears that Cameron and Mitchel worked out a nice plan, one partner works and the other stays home to take care of the baby. However, Mitchel decides to give up his job due to disatisfaction (S.1, Ep. 20, 2009). As a result, Cam takes a part-time job at a greetings card store and Mitchel takes on the role of the mother figure. A few weks into their role reversal, each partner tels the other that they 66 absolutely love the change and couldn?t be happier with their new role in the family. But in separate confesions to the mockumentary camera crew, Mitchel and Cam expres discontent with their job. Mitchel explains he ?isn?t cut out to be a stay-at- home dad? and ?is jealous Cam is at work interacting with adults.? (S.1, Ep.20, 2009). Likewise, Cam could not be more miserable. He explains that he realy wants to stay home and that he ?always imagined himself as the stay-at-home dad/trophy wife.? (S.1, Ep.20, 2009). Yet neither partner admits their true felings to one another for fear that it would upset the other to go back to work or stay at home and raise Lily. The three mother figures discuss their children growing up and growing apart from them. This scene, though brief, exemplifies the traditional gender roles portrayed in Modern Family?Cam, Gloria, and Claire concern themselves with domestic chores and domestic conversations. As a result of the conversation, Cam bursts into tears and tels Mitchel how he realy fels. Mitchel is extremely relived that they both want the same thing and promises to be back at work in the next couple of days. And just like that, the problem that had been irking them so much was solved. The resolution to this isue communicates an interesting mesage to its audience. It shows us that Cam, the motherly and nurturing character, identifies most with his role at home and we se him struggle a great deal in the days that he spends away from Lily. While Mitchel, the more masculine character identifies most with his profesional life. Staying at home with a baby is not chalenging for a lawyer like himself and he longs for the adult interaction. The episode normalizes a stay-at-home 67 mother figure and a working dad and further embeds the traditional family ideology into our culture, even for gay couples. In each of the three families, the mother figure is played by the woman, or more feminine partner. Gloria, Claire, and Cam al expres an intense desire to raise and care for a family over a desire to have a profesional career for themselves. In the following section I analyze, the father figure characters and the ways in which gender roles and a larger family structure are communicated through their portrayals. The Father Figure Just as the female characters are placed in specific gender roles within the family, so are the male characters. From the head patriarch, Jay Pritchet, to the gay co-parent, Mitchel Pritchet-Tucker, each male asumes the traditional role of the ideological father figure. The research from the literature reminds us just what that figure looks like. At an early age, young boys are encouraged and socialized to be masculine? strong, ambitious, rational, emotionaly controlled, independent, and self-oriented (Wood, 2008). Our culture?s dominant belief is that men are naturaly more competitive, aggresive, smart, and powerful due to testosterone (Bem, 1993). This widely acepted view makes separate and distinct gender categories sem natural and normal. Androcentric views take these beliefs a step further by regarding masculine values and practices as the norm. Any idea or practice that strays from the males? perspective is deemed deviant, abnormal, and even unaceptable by those within the dominant group (Bem, 1993). Examples of the father figures in Modern Family highlight these views and unfortunately, further embed them in our culture. 68 In terms of gendered family, the ideological expectation is that a father?s role includes a profesional career outside of the home. His sole responsibility is to met the financial and safety needs of his family (Aulete, 1994). This is very much the case for the three father figures in Modern Family. In response to the aforementioned gender roles constructed for fathers, men choose to partake in one of three gender ideologies of marriage?traditional, transitional, and egalitarian (Hochschild, 1997). The traditional man identifies most with work outside of the home and wields power over the marriage and family by economic means and decision-making. He does not partake in household chores or child raising because the traditional view categorizes those tasks as feminine and therefore, the woman?s job. Although these gender constructs persist, the reality of 21 st century U.S. is both men and women are financial providers for the family and working outside of the home (Hochschild, 1997). However, they are not both working inside the home. It is the women who take on the ?second shift,? while most men?s eforts towards household responsibilities are minimal at best. This ?second shift? includes house and family duties long after their profesional workday has ended. Walzer (1996) reports that in addition to the physical responsibilities, women also take on more of the mental work such as worrying and advice seking for their family. To no surprise, the extra shift is tolling on al aspects of a woman?s life, leaving many disatisfied with work and their marriage. The men, on the other hand, enjoy a les stresful and les demanding evening upon arriving home from work. Equal eforts on both parties could prevent the ?second shift? from just being a woman?s isue and potentialy make for a more enjoyable home life for al. 69 The father figure in domestic sitcoms is presented diferently over the years. Recently the head patriarch in an upper clas, white-collar family is conveyed as the head of the household without ridicule (Scharrer, 2001). In middle-clas, blue-collar family sitcoms such as Roseanne, Home Improvement, and Everybody Loves Raymond, we se the father in a position of mockery and les authoritative than before. Perhaps too new for the sitcom world, no research addreses gay co-parents in their respective gender roles in primetime television. The present analysis of Mitchel and Cameron Pritchet-Tucker is one of the first to do so. Based on the research, we know that some gay co-parents tend to follow the egalitarian gender strategy (Sullivan, 1996). This means that both partners take an equal share in working both inside and outside of the home. After careful review of the episodes, I found that disimilar to its treatment of the mother figure, Modern Family communicates a father figure that matches our dominant ideology and our reality. Al father figures work outside the home and focus most of their atention on providing financial stability and safety. However, the characters themselves difer slightly, one more traditional than the next. In both Jay and Mitchel, we se a very traditional portrayal of the father. With Phil, the patriarch of the most ?normal? family, we se a les traditional role portrayed. Jay Pritchet Jay Pritchet is the patriarch of al three families and is married to the much younger trophy wife, Gloria. Together they parent Manny, Gloria?s son from a previous marriage. Jay portrays the prototypical traditional father figure for he is powerful, insensitive, and career oriented. 70 Jay Pritchet is powerful man who wields control over both his profesional and personal life. Firstly, Jay?s character is powerful as shown by his position as the owner and manager of a local contracting company. The company itself is a traditionaly masculine one, rich with physical labor and male employees. In one episode, Jay exercises his power over his employers by firing one of them after he alowed Manny to drive (and wreck) a forklift. The employee is dismised imediately and silently leaves the premises without any sign of protest, a clear indication that Jay?s decisions at work go unchalenged. Jay alows no further discussion of the mater?not on the ride home, not at the dinner table, never. Each time Manny broaches the subject, Jay refuses to discuss it with him. Manny insists on Jay rehiring the employee and even takes on Mitchel as an atorney, but to no avail (S.2, Ep.7, 2010). Jay makes it clear to Manny and Gloria that his decision is final and not to be questioned. The tone in Jay?s voice shows that he means busines. Manny surrenders and the ex-employee is never sen again. Jay uses his authority as a company owner and a middle-aged white male to control the employees under his reign. Jay?s position as an owner and a dictator is aceptable acording to our culture?s belief in the traditional man. He is powerful, in charge, and decisive. Jay uses this same authority in other aspects of his life, too. Jay?s powerful nature is sen at home with his family. One of Jay?s favorite hobbies is flying toy planes and he refuses to alow anyone else fly his planes (S.1, Ep.3, 2009). When Manny asks, he tels him ?planes are a complex thing, not everyone is cut out to fly them.? After Claire pleads with her father to spend quality time with his son-in-law Phil, Jay agrees. Initialy, Phil wants to fly one of Jay?s 71 planes, but Jay refuses and instead places him on the receiving end of a flying trick to show his dominance. The trick goes terribly wrong and Phil ends up on the ground with a broken nose. Claire has a hunch that her father harmed Phil intentionaly and suggests that he apologize. Jay goes as far as to blame the acident on Phil?s lack of skils. This type of insensitive behavior is often shown towards Phil but never toward his adopted son, Manny which raises an interesting question?why is Jay slightly paternal towards Manny and completely insensitive toward Phil? I believe that Manny is not a threat to Jay?s power within the family seing as that he is a young boy. Phil, a man of similar status with a respectable career, is viewed as competition to Jay. As Jay continues to embarras and degrade Phil?s masculinity, he no longer becomes a threat. In another episode, Jay aggresively confronts Manny?s basketbal coach, who later quits and is replaced by Phil (S.1, Ep.20, 2010). Stil disatisfied with the coaching, Jay steps in and takes the head coaching position from his son-in-law. Not once in any of these situations does the other party stand up to Jay, instead, they acquiesce and alow him to take control of the basketbal team. Jay?s family and other families se his demeanor as a sign of authority and alow him to take control without hesitation. They give up any power the might have and place it in Jay?s hands. It?s a vicious cycle. The more power Jay exercises, the more power he receives. As the eldest male in the family, he holds a position of power that goes unchalenged and unquestioned. This communicates an androcentric ideology, one that places the man at the center of our culture. As the eldest Patriarch, Jay is placed at the center of the three families. It is he who makes decision, he who takes control, 72 and he who offers rules to live by. In the end of each episode, a male voiceover sums up the family parable and most often it is Jay?s voice. Again, subtly supporting the dominant ideology and androcentric view of the father figure. More specificaly, Jay?s role in his own family is one of authority and power. When his Colombian wife and stepson wish to celebrate Halowen as they do in Colombia, Jay refuses. In a degrading manner, Jay tels his family, ?we are in America, and in America we don?t play practical jokes on Halowen.?(S.2, Ep.6, 2010). Both Gloria and Manny are saddened by this decision, but they abide by his rules and forgo their culture?s traditions. Before the episode comes to a close, Jay recants his earlier rule and plays a practical joke of his own on the family. Then, and only then, are the members of the Pritchet household alowed to celebrate Halowen the Colombian way. This specific episode reveals our culture?s dominant ideology that the father figure is the powerful figure within the family. It is he who makes decisions and those decisions are acepted by the other family members no mater how unpopular or unfair they may be. Even in 2011, where women are found to share in decision-making, and even in a ?modern? blended family, the traditional gender role of the father figure is communicated. Jay also fits the ideological role of the masculine father figure because his character is insensitive. In the above episode where he crashes a plane into Phil?s face and breaks his nose, Jay imediately runs over to the acident and check to make sure his plane is stil intact paying no mind to the fact that blood is pouring from Phil?s face (S.1, Ep.3, 2009). When Jay?s daughter asks him to be a litle nicer to Phil, Jay replies, ?Wel, he?s technicaly not my son.? These reactions and comments are 73 common for Jay?s character. During a mockumentary confesional moment, Jay is asked what it takes to be a good father, to which he replies, ?That?s a tough one, I?m stil thinking.? (S.1, Ep.2, 2009). His responses show no emotion and fit wel with the description of the traditional father figure as emotionaly restricted. His insensitivity expands to his spouse. Jay?s ex-wife, De, caused quite the scene at Jay and Gloria?s wedding. She kicked their cake over and shouted racial slurs as security escorted her from the reception (S.1, Ep.4, 2009). As Gloria retels the incident on camera she becomes upset at the thought of her ruined wedding. Instead of Jay comforting his wife, he chooses the insensitive route. He jokes and pokes fun at the debacle, laughing at De?s impersonation of Gloria. When a family dispute arises betwen Luke and Manny, many of Jay?s relatives suggest that spending time together and putting family first is most important. Jay tels them to swep the isue under the rug because ?footbal is important.? (S.1, Ep.5, 2009). Jay?s degrading and insensitive remarks reveal his belief (and communicates our culture?s dominant belief) that men are to be masculine. It is common for Jay to cal male family members sexist names when their behaviors don?t met his standards. For instance, Jay is sen caling his son, Mitch, a ?girl? for being ?too sensitive.? Jay cals his son- in-law, Phil, a ?woman? when Phil complains that the basketbal coach is too mean. What does this communicate to audiences? It communicates that the highest insult you can give to someone is to cal them a woman. Sexist comments detract very much from a show that promotes modernity. It comes out later that many of the other family members inability to show emotions stems from Jay?s closed off nature (S.2, Ep.2, 74 2010). This is not surprising seing as Jay?s power within the family encourages those to act in a manner like his so as not to receive ridicule. Jay?s character is traditional in every sense of the word. He works to provide financialy for his family and uses his power as the head patriarch to his advantage. He is bossy and often times insensitive to those around him. In response, his family members acept his behaviors and se them as normal for the head of the family. Phil is quoted saying, ?He?s a father-in-law, they?re supposed to be dificult but you just got to respect.? (S.1, Ep.20, 2010). Jay?s behavior sems normal because it follows our dominant ideology of the traditional father figure?one who is powerful, emotionaly constrained, and competitive. Any behavior that strays from the norm is chastised by figure in power causing it to become les frequent and eventualy, nonexistent. This results in a family with members who follow and believe the dominant ideology who wil later produce their own family that wil follow and believe the dominant ideology. Mitchel Pritchet-Tucker Mitchel is married to his partner, Cameron Tucker and together they are parents to their adopted daughter, Lily. Mitchel works as an environment lawyer, while his partner, Cam, plays the role of the stay-at-home parent. Though one might asume that Mitchel rejects our dominant ideology of the father figure, this is not the case. In many ways, Mitchel very much represents an ideological father?he?s adamant about his role at work, emotionaly reserved and hands-off at home. In many ways, he is just like his father, aside from the ?minor? fact that he is gay. 75 Mitchel identifies most with work outside of the home. Mitch is often sen working, both at the office and at home. Cam criticizes Mitch for taking work cals while at home and ultimately placing his career above his family. As a result, Mitch mises many of his daughter?s ?first moments? (S.1, Ep.17, 2010). Eventualy, Mitch decides to give up his job but only lasts at home for several days. He is bored with the ?trivial housework? and wants nothing more than to be at work. After watching Cam leave for work every day, Mitch admits to the camera, ?I secretly want to be at work. I?m jealous Cam gets to interact with adults al day.? (S.1, Ep.20, 2010) Before long, Mitch has his old job back. The dominant belief is that the father figure most identifies with his profesional career over his family. This is exactly what we se in Mitch?s character. He longs for a career and adult interaction. Even though he mises several of his daughter?s milestone moments, he loyalties lie in his career. Even during a family vacation in Hawai, Mitch has a dificult time being away from work (S.1, Ep.23, 2010). Cam has to force Mitch into relaxing and laying out by the pool, something he otherwise would not do. He is driven by his career and the ability to provide financialy for his family rather than actualy be a part of it. Compared to his partner, Cam, Mitch is les emotional which often conveys insensitivity. An on-camera interview at the beginning of one episode addreses each character?s fears. Cam say?s his biggest fear is losing Mitchel. This exemplifies Cam?s character as other-oriented, a traditionaly feminine trait. Mitchel says his biggest fear is hotel bed spreads (S.1, Ep.16, 2010). Unlike Cam, Mitchel?s fear is self-oriented, a traditionaly masculine trait. It is subtle but abundant comments like these that support the dominant ideology of gender roles within family. Through just 76 comparing these two responses, it is clear that Mitch is les open about felings towards his husband. Cam chooses to admit his fear is losing his husband and companion. This response shows vulnerability, something not asociated with masculinity. Mitch does not respond in the same fashion. Instead, his fears revolve around maters unrelated to family or loss of love. They revolve around lack of sanitation in hotel rooms. This subject mater is impersonal and rid of emotional atachment. We se no sign of vulnerability and his masculinity remains in tact. Mitch is not expresive of his felings towards his husband and his actions communicate the same. This point is made clear in one of the program?s most publicized episodes, ?The Kis? (S.2, Ep.2, 2010). During this episode, Mitchel rejects a kis from Cam while at their local shopping mal. When Cam confronts him, Mitch expreses that he has a problem with publicly displaying afection and acuses Cam of being ?needy.? After much backlash from Cam, a smal peck is offered in the background of a family event. Although Mitch is in a gay marriage, his character as a father figure is very similar to that of Jay?s. He is emotionaly restricted and chooses to criticize Cam for acting ?needy,? a label that androcentrism uses to negatively define emotional connections. The kising incident was not the first time Mitch hurt Cam?s felings. On occasion, Mitch is guilty of asking Cam to trade his flamboyant shirt for a leser one. It appears that Mitch is embarrased of Cam?s ?too gay? behaviors (S.1, Ep.16, 2010). He goes so far as to ask Cam to restrain from ?dancing like a gay guy? prior to one of Lily?s play dates. Although Mitch claims his only fears are that of the sanitation type, it sems as though his fears are of the masculinity type as wel. Any time that Cam 77 acts too feminine, Mitch works to correct his behavior in order to communicate a more masculine identity. This again promotes an androcentric view that a masculine identity is respectable and necesary for a male. One of his biggest insecurities is appearing too gay to the outward world. For if he does, negative consequences wil ensue?they?ll appear to be unfit parents, his boss wil think he?s incapable of producing solid work, or his family wil think les of him. These are the consequences that many homosexuals face in real life as they are deemed sexual deviants (Bem, 1993). The more Mitch acts like the traditional father figure, the easier life is for him and so he continues to curb both his and Cam?s behavior when they stray too far. This behavior communicates that conforming to the dominant ideology is not only more aceptable, but that it wil make life easier for you. Placing yourself into a prescribed gender role, no mater if it goes against your own beliefs or way of life is necesary for a gay couple to be acepted. If we look at Mitch?s interactions with his family away from work it becomes clear that he takes the hands-off father figure approach. He has no part in arranging play dates, picking a school, or shopping for Lily. When discussing Lily?s diapers, Mitch confeses to not knowing where Cam purchases them (S.1, Ep.3, 2009). While on vacation, Mitch goes on a lavender field tour alone, leaving Cam and Lily to spend the day without him (S.1, Ep.23, 2010). If a problem arises with Lily, Cam is the first to take care of it. For instance, when Lily?s first words are ?Mommy,? it is Cam who arranges a dinner date with her pediatrician (S.1, Ep.16, 2010). Mitch chooses to work outside the home, forgoing the ?second shift? and alowing Cam to handle the home life duties. He does not share in the egalitarian gender strategy that 78 most gay co-parents use (Sullivan, 1996). Rather, Mitch leaves Cam to raise Lily. As a result, the gay parents with the adopted child resemble a nuclear family structure with a father figure who holds a profesional and contributes very litle at home. Phil Dunphy Phil sems to fit the traditional father role. He works as a real estate agent and is the sole financial provider for the Dunphy family. However, it?s revealed over time that Phil actualy rejects a lot of our common beliefs regarding masculinity. As the patriarch of the nuclear, most ?normal? family, Phil?s character rejects our culture?s ideological father figure. He is dim-wited, sensitive, and hardly authoritative. Phil?s character is representative of the buffoon father that is cast in many working-class domestic sitcoms (Butsch, 1995). Phil is most known for his dim-wited nature and is often found as the focus of many jokes among the three families. This goes against our ideological belief that the father figure is smart or inteligent. This is not to say that Phil is not an inteligent human being, but instead his character is cast as the bumbling dad sen in other popular sitcoms. For example, Phil atempts to describe the lingo that tenagers use in text mesages, ?LOL is laugh out loud, OMG is oh my god? and without hesitation he says, ?and WTF is why the face.? (S.1, Ep.1, 2009) He is completely confident and unfortunately, completely wrong. His dim-wited nature shines through again when he describes his abilities as a real estate agent. He is so confident in his skils that he could ?sel a fur coat to an eskimo.? (S.1, Ep.1, 2009) Phil?s wife, Claire, is most afected by his lack of common sense. She acepts her husband?s flaws, but admits that Phil is ?like being married to a child.?(S.1, Ep.2, 2009) Phil?s character is very 79 similar to that of the bumbling dad found in domestic sitcoms over the years. His character lacks the power and authority that is typical of the ideological father figure. He is unwiling and unable to be the family decision maker as his childlike mentality deems him unfit for the position. Instead, his wife takes over and wields power over both he and their children. Audiences are familiar with this setup for they saw it in sitcoms such as Roseanne, Home Improvement, and Everybody Loves Raymond. It is interesting that only in the instance of a bumbling dad do we se a powerful mother figure take charge. Unlike the macho-man Jay, or the emotionaly reserved Mitchel, Phil is overly sensitive compared to our cultural perception of masculinity. One way in which this is obvious is through his relationship-oriented nature and desire for physical atention. Both of which reject the dominant ideology of a traditional father figure. When his father-in-law crashes a plane into his face and breaks his nose, Phil apologizes afterwards and extends his arms for a hug. Phil constantly seks physical atention from al members of the family and is often shut down, even by his wife. Jay When Gloria and Claire share harsh words, it is Phil who encourages them to hug and make up (S.1, Ep.3, 2009). Phil?s family overly criticizes his touchy-fely behavior as they view this behavior to be abnormal for an adult male. Phil is also sensitive because he is a hopeles romantic?even more so than his wife. On a family vacation in Hawai, Phil suggests they treat it as the honeymoon that they never had due to the early arrival of eldest daughter Haley (S.1, Ep.20, 2010). Throughout the trip, Phil plans romantic dinners and events while Claire unwilingly obliges with the occasional eye roll or two. When it comes to family, Phil?s sensitive side also comes 80 out. He learned both the words and choreography to each High School Musical and chooses to break out into song and dance in front of his kids and their friends. Additionaly, his claustrophobia gets the best of him in an episode where he and Luke explore under the front porch. Rather than taking the fatherly role and going in first, Phil tricks Luke into going because he is too scared. The above examples alude that Phil is not the prototypical father figure. He is sensitive and always seking aceptance from his family and peers. This portrayal rejects the dominant ideology of the traditional father figure, yet the mesage it communicates to audiences is not al positive. Though Phil strays from the traditional father figure, the responses he receives are negative. He is chastised for straying from the normative behaviors and is treated diferently by family members, especialy Jay. He is encouraged to act emotionaly restrained, but that he is not. To many, the father figure is authoritative and makes family decisions but this is not the case with Phil Dunphy. Just as Phil rejects the above portrayals of a father figure, his lack of authority is no diferent. He is one of those parents wants his kids to like him and think he is the ?cool dad?. (S.1.Ep.1, 2009) He defines this parenting style as ?peerenting. . . It?s where you act like a parent but talk like a friend?. (S.1, Ep.9, 2009) He uses this strategy on Haley and insists that she share what is going on in her life. ?Go ahead, talk to me like I?m a boy in your Science clas, tel me everything, who are you crushing on?? (S.1, Ep.1, 2009) This method fails terribly, but as usual, Phil carries on without hesitation. Additionaly, when it comes time to reprimand the children, Phil sits back and alows Claire to take the lead. It is she who schedules the BB gun shooting for Luke as punishment for shooting his sister (S.1, 81 Ep.5, 2009). It is Claire who decides what parties Haley can go to, enforces homework hour, and ultimately makes decisions for the Dunphy family (S.1.Ep.9, 2009;S.1, Ep.6, 2009). Again, we se that Phil?s character lacks many of the qualities that our culture deems appropriate for a father figure. In these instances, Phil?s family members intercede and atempt to correct his behaviors to beter fit their beliefs. When Phil is too sensitive, his father-in-law ridicules him and cals him a ?girl.? When Phil lacks the authoritative parenting skils, his wife Claire commands him to reprimand their children. Even though Phil?s character does not quite fit idea of the ?normal? father figure, his family members do everything they can to encourage ?normal? behaviors. It is as though they are rehabilitating Phil to fit in. As a result, the larger mesage that is being communicated is that sensitive fathers who lack authority are unaceptable in today?s society and must act in acordance to the dominant ideology if they wish to be acepted. The above analysis shows the many ways Modern Family communicates mesages about gender roles within the family. Gloria, Claire, and Cam fit nicely into the category of the traditional mother figure. Though not al of them are women, they are feminine, other-oriented, nurturing, and do not hold profesional careers outside the home. Jay, Mitchel, and Phil are placed within the category of the traditional father figure. They are masculine, self-oriented, emotionaly constrained, and identify most with their career outside of the home. Together, these gender mesages communicate a larger ideology regarding the American family. The Family 82 This section explains and describes how the above gender mesages work to communicate a larger dominant ideology about the family unit. Regardles of the supposed modern family structures, sen in the married gay couple with an adopted daughter and in the blended family with an older man married to a younger, Colombian wife, the dominant family ideology manages to prevail. Scholars find family to be the primary source of gender identity (Stewart, Cooper, Stewart & Friedley, 1998). In many ways, the family serves as a model for appropriate communication and behavior. Interestingly enough, fathers appear to be most important in shaping gender in children (Wood 2008). If we apply this same idea to Modern Family we can se how Jay Pritchet?s behaviors and beliefs about family trickle down the family tree to his offspring, and then to theirs. Children of parents with traditional gender beliefs tend to be conservative and hold rigid gender stereotypes (Wood, 2008). Jay is the eldest member of the family and holds closest to the traditional ideologies regarding family. His values serve as a guide for the rest of his family members. Arguably the most prominent male figure, Jay?s beliefs and actions are noted by family members and pased down the Pritchet family tree. His children and grandchildren value his aceptance and the more they work to please him, the closer they fel to the family and to Jay. In the same manner but on a much larger scale, our culture works to maintain the status quo and gain aceptance. As a result, the dominant ideology is sustained. Jay?s stance on the role of the mother and the father reinforce the dominant ideology and is pased onto his children. Jay believes the male is the head of the household and should work to provide for his family. This belief reflects the 83 traditional gender ideology found in marriages (Hochschild, 1997). In return, his children model this behavior because that is the way they were socialized into our culture. This gives insight as to why Mitchel chose to keep his job as a lawyer and why Claire turned down the opportunity to advance in a career in order to raise her family. Both Claire and Mitch were raised in a traditional family. Jay worked outside of the home while their mother, De, stayed home to raise them. The role of the mother and the father was and continues to be placed in two distinct categories with no overlap. Mitch and Claire were socialized into their gender roles beginning in childhood and now act them out in their own families and perpetuating the belief. As a result of their traditional upbringing, Mitchel and Claire are privy to traditional standards of what are appropriate and normal behaviors for men and women. Mitchel, although gay, does not fal into the stereotypical flamboyant role. Instead, he is reserved and atempts to curb his husband Cam?s overly dramatic personality. The discourse surrounding their daughter also communicates this belief as they dres her in bows and frily lace and treat her as delicate and fragile. Claire has the same expectations of masculinity and femininity for her spouse and children. She frowns upon Phil?s overly sensitive nature and atempts to rehabilitate him through bossing him into proper behavior. She projects the feminine and masculine ideologies on her children, encouraging them to dres and act the part. The cycle continues to embed and as a result, Claire?s children model this behavior just as she modeled Jay?s. The toys they play with, the clothes they wear, and the activities they are placed into reflect our culture?s dominant ideologies. Any behavior that strays from the norm is imediately corrected. For instance, when their 84 middle-daughter becomes too consumed with studying and making good grades, Claire becomes worried. She is worried that this traditionaly unfeminine desire to excel academicaly wil hurt Alex?s ability to date and make friends. Likewise, when Alex wants to wear pants to a wedding, she is nearly punished until she agrees to wear a dres?a solely feminine article of clothing. The beliefs promoted by the families in Modern Family transcend the television set to real life families across the country. They are reminded and guided to behave in the same fashion. More importantly, they want to behave in the same fashion. Aside from the asumed roles of each member of the family, the structure of the family itself has a prescribed formula. To them, a family consists of married couple with at least one child. Jay was married to his first wife and together they raised Claire and Mitchel. Claire and Phil married and had three children of their own. Mitchel and Cameron are married and in the very first pilot episode they adopted their daughter Lily. The mesage communicated here supports our culture?s dominant ideology that a family is married and has children. Characters on the show who do not share in this family dynamic are viewed as abnormal and diferent. Jay?s ex-wife and Mitch and Claire?s mother, De, did not remarry and is typecast as a free-spirited, irresponsible woman. She roams from place to place and plays the outcast. Her role in the family is minimal, as they go about holidays and special events without her involvement. Similarly, those characters without spouses or children are placed under scrutiny and asked to provide reason and justification for their choice. This promotes the idea that choosing to not partake in the family ritual results in criticism and ridicule. 85 Both Claire and Mitchel wilingly acept and internalize Jay?s (and the culture?s) dominant belief and thus take part in the hegemonic proces. They buy into the idea that there is a preset gender role to which they must abide and perpetuate this belief by pasing it onto their children, even if it means abdicating their own desires and placing them into a rigid stereotype. They limit themselves and their opportunities by faling into this trap. Sadly enough, the cycle does not end there. As television audiences watch these gender roles carried out in Modern Family they serve to embed the dominant ideology in their own families. Research shows that we look to others, especialy mediated others, to define how we are supposed to be (Wood, 2008). If one were to look at Modern Family for a definition, they would find reinforcement of the dominant familial ideologies. The family structures portrayed in this program look familiar to viewers. It is not hard to imagine June Cleaver playing the Cam?s character or vice versa. The interchangeable natures of the characters connect with audiences on the basis that they are comfortable. They would be reluctant to stray from the role of the traditional mother and father for fear of being diferent or worse, not being acepted. Thus, they behave acordingly and teach their children to act acording who then teach their children to act acording and so on. This continues to keep the traditional, nuclear family in power. It was widely acepted in 1950s domestic sitcoms and continues to be aceptable today. 86 Discusion & Conclusion The long-awaited family photograph is finaly captured. Their unifying white ensembles and smiling faces hide the dysfunction and drama that took place minutes prior. The mothers begin to round up their families as the fathers release sighs of relief?the family photograph was a succes. Though Claire, Gloria, and Cam were responsible for the family photo, Jay, the patriarch, has the last word. His voice-over reflects on the day and reiterates the importance of family. The credits roll and the episode comes to a close. The photograph marked another year in life of the Pritchets, Dunphys, and Pritchet-Tuckers, as wel as the end of Modern Family season one. At first glance they appear to be one big happy ?modern? family but this cultural analysis reveals otherwise. Discussion What can we make of the behaviors and beliefs carried out in this Modern Family tree? Wel, for one they are not modern at al. Not once do we se praise offered to a progresion or stray from the norm. A modern family might praise their daughter?s desire to forego a boyfriend and devote her time to her studies, but not this family. A modern family would encourage their children to be to open to males who wish to expres their emotion or open up in times of trouble, but not this family. As a result, communicating such mesages is harmful for those families who do not fit into this belief. Just as we se corrective behavior taking place on Modern Family, the same corrective behaviors take place in our culture. Parents or children who reject the dominant ideology become part of the minority. Their opinions are rarely heard and certainly never valued. In the eyes of the majority, those who reject 87 the dominant ideology threaten the current power structure. They threaten the longstanding status quo of tradition. As a culture, we value tradition and history. We cling to the familiar and find comfort in predictability. The ?others? threaten the long- standing power structure, one where people fit into nice, neat categories and voluntarily acept their oppresion. As the oppresed become aware of their subjugation and work toward change, they no longer give power to the dominant clas and ultimately lesen the control placed over them. This makes way for new ideas and beliefs to be heard and distributes power to groups other than dominant clas. Alas, transformation can take place. Unfortunately, media artifacts such as Modern Family do not invite transformation. They only work to maintain what is already in place and in the case of this present-day program, the characters and their traditional gender roles serve as benchmarkers for audiences. Each wekly airing provides audiences with proper mother and father figures that support the dominant ideology. Carey?s theory of cultural communication states that ritualized behavior creates and recreates shared meanings. The repetition of such characters throughout varying media outlets resonates with audiences and over time, the characters are acted out in their own lives and with their own families. As a result, the media continue to reflect these character- types back to us and the cycle continues to perpetuate. This explains why a sitcom in 2011 portrays ideas, beliefs, and characters that can be traced back to sitcoms that aired nearly a half-century prior. Just as Jay views the other father figures as competition, we too view opposing ideologies as competition. The choice to include a married gay couple in Modern Family is viewed as a way that our culture repairs its 88 definition of family. The portrayal of such a couple poses a threat the dominant ideology. To appease the dominant ideology, the Pritchet-Tuckers take the form of a traditional family with defined mother and father figures when in actuality, research reflects the division of labor is split equaly in majority of same-sex parent families (Sullivan, 1996). However, because the Pritchet-Tuckers act like a ?normal? family, they are viewed as such. In this way, our definition of family is repaired and prevents the shared meaning of family from changing entirely. The nuclear family structure works for our culture--it is familiar and comfortable and most importantly, it is supported by the mases. Television programing is an industry and its number one goal is to create profit. A show that rejects the dominant ideology fels weird to its audiences for the very reasons listed above. A program that strays from the norm wil not invite a large following, and lesens the likelihood that it wil gain the advertisers needed to keep it on the air. In the end, Modern Family demonstrates that it?s simply too much of a risk for screenwriters to create something truly ?modern? and edgy. It is much safer to convey dominant ideologies than depict real modern-day families?families where both parents income earners, families where single parents exist, families that are childles. What that leaves is a program that strives to maintain an ideology over the modern reality. Firstly, Modern Family maintains the dominant ideology of family through its characters. The mother figures reproduce and maintain the belief that women are naturaly more nurturing, emotional, and other-oriented. Claire, Gloria, and Cam?s characters can easily be replaced by housewives from 1950s sitcoms without causing 89 much disruption to the show. They are stay-at-home parents who place their families? needs above al else. They are the parent most involved with their children?s lives. This present-day sitcom communicates to audiences that it is ?normal? for the mother figure to stay home, care for their families, and tend to household chores. Regardles of the reality, Modern Family upholds the dominant ideology of family through its portrayal of the mother figure. Through further embedding this ideology in our culture, the nurturing and self-oriented mother figure sems natural to audiences and creates an expectation for al mothers to act acordingly. Likewise, the father figures reproduce and maintain the belief that men are naturaly more masculine, emotionaly restrained, and self-oriented. This is communicated through Jay, Mitchel, and Phil?s characters. They hold profesional careers and serve as the financial supporters of their family. Jay is firm in his belief about how a family should look and act and his pases these beliefs onto other members of his family. With the exception of Phil?s somewhat feminine traits, these characters reinforce the dominant ideology of the father figure. Al of the father figures are portrayed in the same traditional manner, reiterating to audiences that this is the proper way for a father to behave. The continual maintenance of this ideology over time solidifies its place in our culture, ensuring that it remains prominent and powerful. As a result, traditional gender roles make the larger family structure fel familiar and ?normal? regardles of the modern appeal that each family unit posseses. The Pritchets are not a typical nuclear family. Jay remarried the much younger, Colombian native, Gloria, and is now the stepfather to her son from a 90 previous marriage. Gloria became the stepmother to Mitch and Claire even though there is a very litle age diference betwen her and her stepchildren. The Pritchet- Tuckers are not a ?normal? family either. Mitch and Cam are gay co-parents to their adopted Vietnamese daughter, Lily in a time where gay marriage and gay adoption are not widely acepted. The Dunphys are most like the nuclear family portrayed in majority domestic sitcoms, though they appear modern because the mother figure is outspoken and the father figure portrays a bumbling dad. For these reasons, the three families appear modern to the audience, yet their fulfilment of the traditional mother and father figures and family structure of a mother, father, and child stifle any indication that they are somehow ?diferent.? Furthermore, Modern Family repairs our culture?s damaged reality when necesary. To do so, the show ?normalizes? characters in a manner that does not threaten the dominant ideology. In the case of the gay couple, the Pritchet-Tuckers represent a minority both on television and in our social reality. Seing a gay couple on television is something novel and scary to many audiences because they present a threat to the status quo of normality. The gay co-parents take on traditional family roles and the inclusion of Lily makes this gay couple a family acording to our cultural definition. Mitch takes after his ?normal? father and is the more masculine partner that provides for his family financialy. Cam is similar to the traditional mother figure and is nurturing and emotional. In this way, both Cam and Mitch are ?normalized? to ensure their ?othernes? does not chalenge our culture?s dominant belief. 91 However, by creating familiarity out of what is diferent, the characters are viewed as aceptable. Cam and Gloria both stand apart from the rest of the family as they are most unlike our idea of ?normal.? The characters are made to sem ?normal? because they emulate our traditional gender ideologies. They give audiences satisfaction in seing their own beliefs, however inacurate they may be, reflected back to them. At first glance, Cam is a stereotypical gay man, but the analysis reveals more. Cam is cast into the feminine gender category. He is nurturing, emotional, and family-oriented. He is the partner most likely to take care of their daughter Lily. Likewise, the analysis reveals that Gloria is not just a Latina wife, she is the emotionaly charged, atractive, and feminine trophy wife. Cam and Gloria?s characteristics are comparable to Claire?s, the most traditional mother, and therefore overshadow the fact that they are diferent. As long as they act feminine and appear ?normal?, they are acepted by their family and more likely to be acepted by the television audience. Thus, the damaged reality is repaired but not changed, ensuring the safety of the dominant ideology. It becomes clear that power over others is the main reason why the dominant ideology remains in place. Modern Family places importance on the SNAF that our culture defines as a mother, father, and at least one child. Those who partake in a SNAF or nuclear family are viewed as ?normal? giving them privileges that other family structures do not receive such as social aceptance and government benefits. With each submision, the dominant ideology acquires more power. This is most prevalent in the divide of gender roles within each family. In Modern Family, the father figure holds power over his spouse and children. He is the financial provider 92 and in charge of much of the decision-making. He determines where and when resources are alocated. The mother figure remains at home and is sen as les valuable to the family because she does not offer a tangible contribution, such as an income. The power disparity is even sen in the Pritchet-Tucker family where both partners are semingly equal. Mitch is authoritative, works as a lawyer, and makes decisions for his family whereas Cam remains at home and cares for Lily. The mother figures wiling acept their position in the family and give into the hegemonic proces. The traditional family structure remains most powerful, with a strong father figure who runs the family. In a time like the present, where our social reality is ful of changes to the definition of family, Modern Family has the opportunity to transform our conceptual understanding of families and gender roles. The show has al the necesary components to offer a modern representation of current gender roles in our society. Yet it does no such thing. Instead, it reverts any progres currently sen in gender roles and reinforces the traditional gender behaviors that claim women should be submisive, nurturing, feminine, and family-oriented while en men should be authoritative, masculine, emotionaly restrained, and self-oriented. To make maters worse, both the oppresed and the favored characters show complacency with their situation and alow the hegemonic proces to take place. The mother figures acept their position in the family and promote their role as a positive one, even though it contradicts our social reality. Though Claire?s indecisivenes about giving up her career is a theme in one episode, the episode ends neatly with Claire realizing her place is at home with her family. The ease and quicknes of this decision 93 communicates to audiences that traditional gender roles as wel as their subsequent expectations are stil very much a part of our culture today. Based on what we learn from Modern Family, opposing views are subject to ridicule and rehabilitated by even their closest friends and family members. It proves to be easier to continue to live one?s life in acordance to the dominant ideology. Hence, those in power continualy reinforce the importance and normality of traditional gender roles. The analysis revealed that Modern Family communicates our culture?s dominant ideologies regarding family and gender. The mother and father figures in the sitcom reinforce our beliefs about how a ?normal? mother and father should behave. The following chapter discusses how the perpetuation of such ideologies results in implications for American audiences at large. Conclusion This study situates Modern Family within the genre of domestic situational comedies and offers it up as a cultural artifact for analysis. This research contributes heuristicaly to the field of Communication Studies as it lends insight into the way we come to know our culture, specificaly through its understanding of family. This study set out to find what ways the sitcom Modern Family communicates our culture?s dominant ideology about family. Family is communicated in a number of ways, though each way maintains and repairs the dominant ideology. Though the episodes analyzed difer from one to the next, the general theme of family remains the same. Whether it is the gay couple, the older man and his trophy wife, or the semingly ?normal? family, traditional gender roles persist and make themselves known. 94 Collectively, the television series Modern Family embeds the dominant ideology of family and its hegemonic proces that ensues through its use of traditional gender roles within its characters and recurring traditional family structure. At the time of origination, the domestic sitcom relied heavily on the structure of traditional gender roles within family. Shows like I Love Lucy and Leave It To Beaver reflected current family values and roles back to its audiences. Both in reality and on television, a nuclear family was most the prevalent form of family structure. The father figure worked outside of the home and was emotionaly distant from his wife and children. The mother figure worked inside of the home, tending to the children and household chores. She was nurturing and submisive. At the time, a smal margin of women made up the workforce as men were the breadwinners. However, in 2011 we se an evolved family structure. Now, over a half of a century later, women make up 51% of the workforce resulting in households with two parent earners. Additionaly, more families are products of divorce and remarriage than ever before. This is the reality for present day American families and this is what Modern Family partialy portrays. It presents audiences with modern family structures, like the gay co-parents with an adopted Vietnamese daughter and an older man in his second marriage to a much younger, Colombian trophy wife and her son from a previous marriage. Yet, within these families the dominant ideology is stil there by way of traditional gender roles. Each episode communicates the dominant ideology without opposition or criticism. Although this makes for a familiar domestic sitcom, it also has negative implications for its audiences because this mesage is at odds with the reality of the present-day American family. 95 For it is the television sitcom that serves as a guide for how to act, communicate, participate in relationships, and so on (Hirst, 1979). Modern Family is watched by milions of viewers and received Emy?s for its characters and screenwriting. Modern Family proves to be prominent show in American culture and ultimately a set of rules for functioning within this culture. This situates it highly among watched shows and this highly as a guide for how to fit into American culture. Carey?s view of communication as culture tels us that communication is the proces in which beliefs are produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed. It is a ritual proces in which the communication results in culture. With this in mind, let?s take one final look at the Modern Family family, as it reveals much more than what mets the eye. The roles and responsibilities acted out by the mothers and fathers are not arbitrary, they are a result of the ritual proces of communication in which the dominant ideology is embedded over time and interaction. Claire, Gloria, and Cam embody nurturing, motherly figures that place their family above al else, which explains why they were the ones who organized the family photo. They communicate to audiences what a ?normal? mother looks like. Throughout the episodes, their lack of profesional careers and at-home daily activities communicate to audiences how a ?normal? mother should act. Likewise, Jay, Phil, and Mitch emulate the dominant ideology of the ?normal? father. They are uninvolved and show disinterest in the photograph because this is the way they were socialized to be masculine, strong father figures. The fathers are the source of power in the family, as they have control over finances, decision-making, and their voluntarily submisive wives. The families go 96 about their daily activities in a familiar and comfortable manner without fear of threat to the dominant ideology and threat to their power. Those with power hold onto it firmly and those without it have learned not to chalenge for it only results in even leser power. At the end of the day, they are semingly one big happy family. The value in this research is to understand that the above representation of family is just one constructed reality (Hal, 1977). There are in fact many other views of family and reality not portrayed in this program. Through acknowledging the existence of other constructed realities, this gives the oppresed the understanding that they can create change (Kelner, 1995). Limitations and Future Research There are several limitations to this study that should be noted in the instance of future studies or replication. This study was conducted beginning in August 2010 and at that time Modern Family season one was available on DVD. However, season two was currently in sesion making it possible for only several episodes to be included in the research. Later episodes in season two covered topics relevant to this study, notably a Mother?s Day episode that depicts Cam as Lily?s mother for the first time since the airing of the show. Episodes such as this would add to the research and strengthen the claims of traditional gender roles in modern family structures. Additionaly, because Modern Family is one of the first sitcoms to cast gay co- parents, litle research existed in the area of gay parenting portrayals in television sitcoms. This is both an exciting and scary situation to be in as a novice researcher as I was then responsible for contributing novel research to the field. 97 Future research could analyze remaining episodes in the second season and compare the mesages that were communicated over the course of two seasons. Additionaly, future research could also expand to analyze additional cultural artifacts. One option would be to compare present-day domestic sitcoms, rather than focusing solely on Modern Family. Another option is to compare one past domestic sitcom and one present-day domestic sitcom in order to make clearer the correlations, if any, over several decades. Furthermore, future research could take a closer look at the use of stereotyping within Modern Family. Media use stereotypes to make up for their lack of time and space to tel a narrative and television sitcoms are no diferent. The analysis of character stereotyping may be useful in future research. Additionaly, the mockumentary style of the program makes it an adequate artifact to explore the areas of farce, parody, and satire. Lastly, a broader definition of family, rather than the traditional family structure, would open doors for a more encompasing study of this program. Concluding Remarks Though the family photograph only captures a brief moment in time, the dominant ideology embedded wil leave lasting impresions on its audiences. The television families that American audiences invite into their living rooms satiate entertainment needs but also provide a model for how to be a social being in our culture. In the end we find that our ideologies, just like Modern Family, are not so ?modern? after al. 98 References Abu-Laban, S. M., & Abu-Laban, A. (1999). Culture, society, and change. In W.A. Meloff and W. D. Pierce (Eds.), An Introduction to Sociology (pp.) Scarborough: Nelson Canada. Altman, D. (1979). Coming out in the seventies. Sydney: Wild and Wooley. Barker, C. (2000). Cultural studies: Theories and practice. London: Sage Publications Batles, K. & Hilton-Morrow, W. (2002). Gay characters in conventional spaces: Will & Grace and the situation comedy genre. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 87-105. Belafante, G. (2009). I?m the cool dad and other debatable dispatches from the home front. The New York Times. Retrieved from ww.nyt.com Bem, S.L. (1993). The lenses of gender. New Haven: Yale University Pres. Best, D.L., & Wiliams, J.E. (1997). Sex, gender, and culture. In J.W. Berry, Y.H. Poortinga, J. Pandey, P.R. Dasen, T.S. Saraswathi, M.H. Segal, & C. Kagitcibasi (Series Eds.) & J.W. Berry, M.H. Segal, & C. Kagitcibasi (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 3: Social behavior and applications (2nd ed., pp. 163-212). Boston, MA: Alyn & Bacon. Bibby, R. W. (1995). The bibby report: Social trends Canadian style. Toronto: Stoddart. Blundel, J. (2010). TV ratings: Wednesday overnight Nielsen ratings. Broadcast & Cable Magazine. Cancian, F. (1989). Economic Behavior in Peasant Communities. In Platner, S. (Ed.), 99 Economic Anthropology (pp. ). Stanford: Stanford University Pres. Carey, J. (1989). Communication as culture. Routledge, New York. Chrisler, J. (2003). Family discussions about political attacks on our families. Retrieved from Family Equity Organization website: http:/ww.familyequality.org/pdf/politicalatacks.pdf Coontz, S. (1993). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York, NY: Basic Books. Dalton, M. M., & Linder, L. R. (Eds.). (2005). The sitcom reader: America viewed and skewed. Albany, New York: State University of New York Pres. Dietz, J. (2011). TV cancelation watch: Which shows are on the bubble? Metacritic Magazine. Retrieved from ww.metacritic.com Doherty, W.J., Boss, P.G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R., & Steinmenz, S.K. (1993). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In Doherty, W.J., Boss, P.G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R., & Steinmenz, S.K. (Eds.), Family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 89-102 ). New York: Plenum Pres. Dow, B.J. (1990). Hegemony, feminist criticism, and The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 261-274. Dow, B.J. (1992). Feminism and femininity in Murphy Brown. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 143-155. Dow, B.J. (1992). Performing feminine discourse in Designing Women. Text and Performance Quarterly, 12, 125-145. Eskridge, W. N., (2008). Dishonorable pasions: Sodomy laws in America, 1861- 2003. 100 NY:Penguin Group. Fagot, B.I., Leinbach, M.D., & O?Boyle, C. (1992). Gender labeling, gender stereotyping, and parenting behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 28, 225- 230. Gilis, J. (1992). A world of their own making: Myth, ritual, and the quest for family values. New York: Basic Books. Gitlin, T. (1979). Prime time ideology: The hegemonic proces in television entertainment. Social Problems, 26, 251-266. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers Co. Hamilton, T. & Sharma, S. (1997). The violence and oppresion of power relations. Peace Review, 9, 555-561. Hareven, T.K. (1991). The history of family and the complexity of social change. The American Historical Review, 26, 95-124. Haugaard, M. & Lentner, H. (2006). Hegemony and power. New York: Lexington Books. Hal, S. (1977). Culture, the media, and the ideological efect. In Curran, J., Gurevitch, M. & Woollacott, J. (Eds.) Mass media and society (pp. 315-348). London: Edward Arnold. Hochschild, A.R. (1997). The second shift. New York: Avon Books. Holtzman, M. (2008). Defining family: Young adults? perceptions of the parent-child bond. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 167-185. 101 Kelner, D. (1989). Critical theory, Marxism, and Modernity. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Pres. Kelner, D. (2003). Media spectacle. New York: Routledge. King, K. (2010). Modern Family: Season two. Slant Magazine. Retrieved from ww.slantmagazine.com. Leibman, C. (1995). Living room lectures: The fifties family in film and television. Austin: University of Texas Pres. Lorber, J. & Farrel, S. A. (1991). The social construction of gender. London: Sage Publications. Lowry, B. (2009). Modern Family. Variety Magazine. Retrieved from ww.variety.com Marc, D. (2005). Origins of genre. In M.M. Dalton, & L.R. Linder. Editor (Eds.), The sitcom reader: America viewed and skewed (pp. 14-19). Albany, New York: State University of New York Pres. Marsiglio, A. (1998). Godly men at home: Promise keepers? father identity. Society for the Study of Social Problems Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA. McKinley, J. (2010). Ed O?Neil dismises Modern Family gay kis. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from ww.huffingtonpost.com. McNamara, M. (2011). The water cooler: Other shows deserve an Emy chance too. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from ww.latimes.com. Meyerowitz, J. (1994). Introduction: Women and gender in post-war America, 1945- 1960. In Meyerowitz, J. (Ed.), Not June Cleaver: Women and gender in post- war American, 1945-1960 (pp. 1-9). Philadelphia: Temple University Pres. 102 Morales, N. (2010). Complete list of Emy winners. MSNBC Today. Retrieved from ww.today.msnbc.msn.com. O?Kefe, James G. (1991). The need to consider children?s rights in biological parent v. third party custody disputes. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 67, 1077-1105. Pierson, D. (2005). American situation comedies and the modern comedy of manners. In M.M. Dalton, & L.R. Linder. Editor (Eds.), The sitcom reader: America viewed and skewed (pp. 35-36). Albany, New York: State University of New York Pres. Poniewozick, J. (2009). Modern Family watch: Lips service. Time Magazine, 26-29. Raley, K. R., & Bumpas, L. (2003). The topography of the divorce plateau: Levels and trends in union stability in the United States after 1980. Demographic Research, 8, 245-259. Reis, I. (1965). The universality of the family: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27,443?453. Reisman, F. (1990). Restructuring help: A human services paradigm for the 1990s. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 221?230. Renzeti, C. & Curran, D. (2003). Women, men, and society (5th ed.) Boston, Masachusets: Alyn and Bacon. Rodino, M (1997). Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 43-67. Rothberg, B., & Weinstein, D. L. (1966). A primer on lesbian and gay families. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 4, 55?68. 103 Salam, R. (2009). Modern Family worth adopting. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from ww.thestar.com. Scharrer, E. (2001). From wise to foolish: The portrayal of the sitcom father, 1950s- 1990s. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 23-40. Schoen, R. and N. Standish. 2001. The retrenchment of marriage: Results from marital status life tables for the United States, 1995. Population and Development Review 27:553-63. Sepinwal, A. (2010). Modern Family The kis: PDAs are ok. Hitflix. Skolnick, A. (1991). Embatled paradise: The American family in an age of uncertainty. New York: Basic Books. Shelton, B. A. (1992). Women, men, and time: Gender diferences in paid work, housework, and leisure. Westport, CT: Greenwood Pres. Smith, B.G. (2000). Sexism. In A. Howard & Kavenik, F. Editor (Eds.), Handbook of American women?s history. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Smith, D.E. (1993). The standard North American family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 50-65. Spade, J.Z., & Valentine, C.G. (2007). The kaleidoscope of gender: Prisms, patterns, and possibilities. California: Pine Forge Pres. Stacey, J. (1990). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late 20th century America. New York: Basic Books. Stevenson, B. & Wolfers, J. (2007). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: Divorce laws and family distres. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 267-288 Stewart, L.P., Cooper, P.J., Stewart, A.D., & Friedley, S.A. (1996). Communication 104 and gender (3rd Ed.) Scottsdale, Arizona: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Storey, J. (1996). Cultural studies and the study of popular culture. Athens: The University of Georgia Pres. Storey, J. (2003). Cultural Studies and the study of popular culture. Athens: University of Georgia Pres. Strachan, A. (2011). Emy predictions: Gle vs. Modern Family. Montreal Gazete. Retrieved from ww.montrealgazete.com Sullivan, M. (1996). Rozzie and harriet? Gender and family paterns of lesbian coparents. Gender and Society, 10, 747-67. Swanson, P. (2009). Modern Family: Season one. Slant Magazine. Retrieved from ww.slantmagazine.com. Tasi, P. (2010). Are Modern Family and Gle realy our best shows on TV right now? Unreality Magazine. Retrieved from ww.unrealitymag.com. Teman, T. (2010). Weird is the new normal in Modern Family. The London Times. Retrieved from ww.timesplus.co/uk. Thompson, L., & Walker, A.J. (1995). The lace of feminism in family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 847-865. Trost, J. (1990). Do we mean the same thing by the concept of family? Communication Research, 17, 431. U.S. Census Bureau. Selected social characteristics in the United States: 2005-2009. Retrieved from http:/ww.census.gov Vaughn, D.R. (2004). Why the Andy Grifith show is important to popular cultural 105 studies. The Journal of Popular Culture, 38, 397-423. doi: 10.1111/j.0022- 3840.2004.00119.x. Vitrel, L. (2010). Modern Family?s family member of the wek: Manny get your gun. Movieline Newsleter. Retrieved from ww.movieline.com. Walzer, S. (1996). Thinking about baby: Gender roles and division of infant care. Social Problems, 43, 219. Weitzman, L.J. (1985). The divorce revolution: The unexpected social and economic consequences for women and children in America. New York: The Free Pres. Wood, J. (1994). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing. 106 Appendix-Episode Guide Season One Levitan, S., Lloyd, C. (Writers), & Winer, J. (Director). (2009). Pilot [1]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Wrubel, B. (Writer), & Winer, J. (Director). (2009). The Bicycle Thief [2]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. O?Shannon, D. (Writer), & Winer, J. (Director). (2009). Come Fly With Me [3]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Levitan, S. (Writer) & Winer, J. (Director). (2009). The Incident [4]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Lloyd. C. (Writer) & Winer, J. (Director). (2009). Coal Digger [5]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Lawson, J. (Writer) & Winer, J. (Director). (2009). Great Expectations [8]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. O?Shannon, D. (Writer) & Einhorn, R. (Director). (2009). Undeck the Hals [10]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. 107 Wiliams, C. (Writer) & Koch, C. (Director). (2010). Not In My House [12]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Levitan, S. (Writer) & Hudlin, R. (Director). (2010). Fears [16]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Lawson, J. (Writer) & Winer, J. (Director). (2010). Truth Be Told [17]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Zuker, D. (Writer) & Winer, J. (Director). (2010). Starry Night [18]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Wernick, I. (Writer) & Winer, J. (Director). (2010). Family Portrait [24]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Season Two Higginbotham, A. (Writer) & Elis, S. (Director). (2010). The Kis [2]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Zuker, D. (Writer) & Elis, S. (Director). (2010). Strangers on a Treadmil [4]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. 108 Richman, J. (Writer) & Spiler, M. (Director). (2010). Halowen [6]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. O?Shannon, D. (Writer) & Spiler, M. (Director). (2010). Chirp [7]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Levitan, S., Richman, J. (Writers) & Koch, C. (Director). (2011). Boys? Night [18]. In Levitan, S. & Lloyd, C. (Producer), Modern Family. Los Angeles: 20 th Century Fox Home Entertainment.