Representation of family and familial taboos in Lionel Shriver's We Need to Talk about Kevin

(1)

Representation of Family and Familial Taboos in Lionel Shriver’s We Need to Talk about Kevin

Minna Tuomaala 233144 2130505 Pro Gradu Thesis English Language and Culture

School of Humanities Philosophical Faculty University of Eastern Finland

April 2017

(2)

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty

Philosophical Faculty School

School of Humanities Author

Minna Tuomaala Title

Representation of Family and Familial Taboos in Lionel Shriver’s We Need to Talk about Kevin Main subject Level Date Number of pages English Language and

Culture

Pro gradu thesis X 28.04.2017 67+10 Sivuainetutkielma

Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Abstract

The thesis examines the representation of family and taboos concerning family in We Need to Talk about Kevin by Lionel Shriver (2003). Family taboos are considered a key element in discovering the boundaries of culturally acceptable representations of family in the United States. Family is considered a revered entity and one of the core values in the United States. In addition, it is often attributed to the well-being of the nation in public discourse. Thus, representations of family become sites of mediating and enforcing acceptable family forms. Conventional representations commonly entail qualities of positivity and obligation, as well as strict requirements for the maternal role.

Representation theory is used to study the depiction of various aspects of family, and feminist criticism is applied in studying the significance and implications of gender in representations of family relations and familial taboos. The themes of motherhood, body, sexuality, mental health, and violence are also studied using representation analysis and feminist criticism. The novel’s representation of maternity counters American norms of motherhood as selfless and innately positive. The imperfect bodies and mental health of the children violate American ideas of children as the innocent, romanticized successors of the nation. Violence is represented as an inherent part of American culture.

The thesis concludes that family is represented in a norm-defying way in the novel.

Different taboo topics in the realm of family are discussed and representations are formed in a defiant, and even hostile way. In We Need to Talk about Kevin, family is treated as an undesirable goal with adverse consequences, in contrast with the common positive representations in the United States.

Keywords

family, representation, taboo, Lionel Shriver, We Need to Talk about Kevin

(3)

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Tiedekunta

Filosofinen tiedekunta Osasto

Humanistinen osasto Tekijä

Minna Tuomaala Työn nimi

Perheen representaatio ja perheeseen liittyvät tabut Lionel Shriverin romaanissa We need to talk about Kevin

Pääaine Työn laji Päivämäärä Sivumäärä

Englannin kieli ja kulttuuri Pro gradu - tutkielma

X 28.04.2017 67+10 Sivuainetutkielma

Kandidaatin tutkielma Aineopintojen tutkielma Tiivistelmä

Tutkielma käsittelee perheen esittämistä, eli representaatiota, sekä perheeseen liittyviä tabuja Lionel Shriverin romaanissa We need to talk about Kevin (2003). Yksi tutkielman ydinajatuksista on, että perhetabut paljastavat mitkä ovat kulttuurisesti hyväksyttyjä perheen representaatioita Yhdysvalloissa. Perhe on yksi tärkeimmistä amerikkalaisista perusarvoista ja se liitetään usein valtion hyvinvointiin julkisessa keskustelussa. Tämän vuoksi perheen representaatiot muodostavat ja vahvistavat kulttuurisesti hyväksyttyjä perheen muotoja. Perinteiset representaatiot ovat tavanomaisesti positiivisia ja korostavat perheen perustamista velvollisuutena. Myös äidin roolille asetettuja tiukkoja vaatimuksia painotetaan perinteisissä representaatioissa.

Perheen esittämistä tutkitaan representaatioteoriaa hyväksikäyttäen. Sukupuolen merkitystä ja vaikutuksia perheen ja tabujen representaatioissa tarkastellaan myös feministisen kritiikin kautta. Representaation piirissä käsiteltäviä aihealueita ovat äitiys, keho, seksuaalisuus, mielenterveys ja väkivalta, joita tutkitaan myös representaatioteorian ja feministisen kritiikin avulla. Äitiys kuvataan romaanissa vastoin amerikkalaista käsitystä, joka korostaa epäitsekkyyttä ja positiivisuutta. Lasten kehot ja mielenterveys esitetään tavalla, joka ei sovi amerikkalaiseen ajatukseen lapsista viattomina ja valtion jatkajina. Väkivallan representaatio romaanissa korostaa sen asemaa amerikkalaisessa kulttuurissa.

Tutkielman loppupäätelmä on, että perhe esitetään romaanissa normeja rikkovalla tavalla.

Perheeseen liittyviä tabuaiheita nostetaan esille ja representaatiot ovat uhmakkaita ja jopa vihamielisiä. Perhettä pidetään ei-toivottavana asiana, jolla on ikäviä ja haitallisia seuraamuksia, toisin kuin yleisimmissä positiivisissa representaatioissa Yhdysvalloissa.

Avainsanat

perhe, representaatio, esittäminen, tabu, Lionel Shriver, We need to talk about Kevin

(4)

This pro gradu thesis focuses on Lionel Shriver’s thought-provoking novel We Need to Talk about Kevin (2003). The main aim of the study is to examine how family and mothers are represented in the novel and how these representations respond to the common representations of American families and mothers. This is performed by way of inspecting familial taboos and representations of family in the United States. The thesis argues that the representations of family and motherhood in We Need to Talk about Kevin resist society’s norms: the narrative discusses taboos of the family and pursues to challenge the views on American family and motherhood, ultimately discarding the American Dream altogether.

We Need to Talk about Kevin delves into some of the darker fibers of human nature, as it explores the life of a dysfunctional American family that experiences extreme violence. It tells the story of Eva Khatchadourian, a wealthy professional mother whose son, Kevin, commits mass murder at his high school and kills his sister and father. The text takes an epistolary form: Eva acts as a narrator who writes a series of letters to her absent husband Franklin after the massacre. She retrospectively analyzes their family life starting from meeting her husband and ending with the second anniversary of her son’s high school massacre, and on the whole, Eva’s narration covers several decades, as she recounts stories from her own childhood as well. In the end, the novel’s family has dispersed and lost its fortunes. Problematics of motherhood and family are central to the story. Eva narrates their family life candidly and simultaneously brings about topics that, arguably, have been traditionally kept quiet in public speech in American society. In itself, the dysfunctional family story presents nothing new to

(6)

the field of fiction; what is interesting in this particular novel is that the mother narrator is very direct about family and motherhood. The notions of openness and free speech are important to Shriver as a novelist:

I’m afraid that freedom of speech is under such ceaseless assault these days that that is a battle that we’re going to have to keep fighting. It’s getting to the point where if you’re not among your closest circle, you just don’t open your mouth about anything along these lines [of race or gender]. There is a long list of subjects that you feel like you can’t talk about anymore, and that depresses me.

(Shriver in Mangu-Ward n. pag.; square brackets original)

The novel seems to follow the same line of thought in fighting against silence in discourse and presenting a more rebellious representation of family.

The thesis is divided into four chapters. The second chapter provides the theoretical framework and introduces American family as a social institution and part of an important discourse in the United States. Representations of family in media and arts will be dissected in an effort to find an adequate framework to the analysis in chapter three. Taboo theory and familial taboos in the United States will also be introduced and examined to evaluate their significance and the role they play in constructing images of American families. As the novel takes place in the United States and explores what could be called ‘Americanness’, the viewpoint of the research is predominantly American when it comes to the core concepts:

family and taboo. For clarity, the terms ‘America’ and ‘American’ are used here to describe the United States of America and its citizens. The analysis in chapter three studies the different controversial aspects of the family depicted in We Need to Talk about Kevin and interrogates the representations allowed in American discourse about family by locating and dissecting the familial taboo topics in the novel. Furthermore, this study examines the relationship between

(7)

discourse and society: in this case, the ‘discourse’ is the novel We Need to Talk about Kevin and ‘society’ refers to the United States of America. The two constructs shape each other:

society affects discourse and vice versa. As the novel is written from the point of view of a mother, her perspective is naturally emphasized throughout the narrative. Therefore, while other themes, such as violence, body, and mental health, will also be examined, the focus of the study is on taboos related to familial relations and motherhood. The thesis analyzes the representation of women in relation to motherhood and the cultural expectations implemented on them. While the narrator is a creation of the author, she can be treated as a voice for opinions that in some way mirror or respond to actual society; she is a representation of an American woman. Eva can be considered an unreliable narrator, which challenges the reader to analyze her statements more carefully. We, as readers, must decide whether she is worthy of our trust or not. Eva herself puts it as follows: “the truth is always larger than what we make of it” (Shriver 467). Finally, the thesis will close with a concluding chapter.

1.2 About the Author and the Novel

The novelist, Lionel Shriver, is an American writer and a self-proclaimed libertarian, who is known for her controversial statements on gender and cultural appropriation, among other topics (Mangu-Ward n. pag.). Her views as a libertarian become explicit in the following quote from an interview with Reason magazine: “the truth is that the libertarian rubric of ‘You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone’ is the core concept of the United States of America, and something that we should be proud of” (Mangu-Ward n.

pag.). Shriver’s seventh novel We Need to Talk about Kevin follows a similar path of openness with its exploration on motherhood and violence. Shriver claims that while the school shooting theme might appear to be the main topic of the novel, her anxieties about motherhood as a

(8)

childless woman inspired the novel in an equal measure, and that both themes are as significant (in Lawless n. pag.). The novel’s themes have been examined “vigorous[ly]” by academics in the fields of medicine, pediatrics and psychiatry, but also by feminist critics (Messer n. pag.). The novel’s representations of motherhood, gender, masculinity, pregnancy, globalization, and culture and maternity have been studied for example by Messer, Jeremiah, Murphy, and Cusk (Messer n. pag.). Messer argues that Eva’s story reinforces the idea of maternity as a construct (n. pag.); a conclusion that resonates with Jeremiah, who suggests the novel questions what is conventionally expected of “gender, sex, and parenting” (181).

Moreover, Cusk states that the novel brings out a conversation about the distinction between what can be said out loud about family and what not (in Jeremiah 181). We Need to Talk about Kevin has also been studied by Murphy in terms of ethics of authors and whether violence and other triggers should be censored or toned down to prevent mimicry and triggering. Murphy concludes that while (self) censoring would lead to tedious art, the matter needs to be taken seriously (9).

In addition to the large interest in the novel by academics, the novel is a commercial success, reaching the London Times bestseller list and being made into a film in 2011 (Shriver 479). Reactions to its content among the public have varied from praise to shock and disgust.

Some have seen the novel as an attack against family: Smith described the book in The Guardian in 2003 as a “resolutely anti-parenthood and anti-children book”, though adding that

“[b]ooks seldom feel as contemporary as this one” (n. pag.). Furthermore, Smith calls Kevin

“a monster, a gross caricature of childhood” (n. pag.), a sentiment shared by some of the readers as well (see, e.g., Dangle’s girl). The mother character, Eva, has been described as

“unlikable and alien and [...] despicable” (A customer n. pag.). Alternatively, others have commented that the novel “changed [their] way of looking at motherhood” (Amazon customer

(9)

n. pag.). Evidently, the themes of the novel stir a variety of emotions among its readers.

Shriver states that one of her motives for the novel was her observation that there is a

“disparity between your own experience and what experience is supposed to be” (in Brady n.

pag.); it seems that her agenda has indeed been to write a novel that challenges the presupposed representations of motherhood and family, and this thesis sets out to test this theory.

1.3 Methods

This thesis follows Watanabe’s study of American families by arguing that ‘Americanness’ is fluid and “processual” (2). As suggested by Kessler-Harris, the idea of the processual rejects

‘America’ as a unified cultural monolith and sees it as a work in progress, both socially and historically speaking (qtd. in Watanabe 2). Likewise, anthropologist Mary Douglas reiterates this idea by noting that culture is not “a long established pattern of values”, but something that all counterparts can affect (5). Correspondingly, this study treats taboos and social norms as capable of changing and shifting in a scale of significance, along with the changing fabric of families and family lives in the United States. The concepts of family and taboo will be further explored in the following chapter.

Methodologically, the thesis operates within representation analysis. According to Stuart Hall, “[r]epresentation is the production of meaning through language”, which is constructed of signs (“Representation, Meaning, and Language” 28). The constructionist method on representation proposes that signs made into languages can signify both actual and fantastical items, events and entities, which is why languages cannot straight-forwardly reflect the real world (Hall, “Representation, Meaning, and Language” 28). Representations could be thus seen as “standing in” for the real object or event (Hall, “Representation and the Media” n.

(10)

pag.). The idea resonates with both fictional and factual texts, which can never fully escape the thought process of the author. In factual texts the possible subject or interviewee first recites their own point of view to be written, followed by the author writing a text, causing the “representation” of events. In fiction, there can also be two ‘filters’: the author and the narrator.

Booth describes the situation of the narrator as follows: “In fiction, as soon as we encounter an

‘I’, we are conscious of an experiencing mind whose views of the experience will come between us and the event” (139). Notions formed in the mind help us categorize the world in a meaningful way, and language subsequently allows us to communicate those meanings (Hall,

“Representation, Meaning, and Language” 28). This makes language a representational system that is able to express emotions, thought processes, and cultural values (Hall, Introduction 1).

Cultural affiliations, therefore, have a profound effect on representation. Paraphrasing Hall, a culture is formed in relation and in contrast to the cultural ‘others’ it is surrounded by (“The West and the Rest” 224). This means that the distinctive characteristics of a given culture often become visible when different cultures are compared. Hall suggests that culture is most of all about “shared meanings”, and subsequently shared cultural values; however, he adds that this definition might lead to misconceptions of culture as a unified entity, which it is not (Introduction 1–2). For instance, the people of a nation cannot be automatically seen as sharing the same values and “meanings”, but as a group of individuals that mediate each other’s values and meanings. Hall, in fact, proposes that “[o]ur ‘circuit of culture’ suggests that [...] meanings are produced at several different sites and circulated through several different processes or practices” (3). On the other hand, the people of a nation often encounter the same public representations through media and arts, which arguably leads to several similar notions among those people. Language is essential in transporting shared meanings

(11)

and values (Hall, Introduction 1–2). To accurately translate the intended meanings formed in the mind into language, translations that fit into the social conventions of the target culture are needed (Hall, “Representation, Meaning, and Language” 29). Language, then, reveals these shared meanings of culture in a text and lets us explore some of the acceptables and unacceptables of a culture; however, keeping in mind the fluctuating nature of culture. In the American context, family is an important structure that mediates values. The narrator of Shriver’s novel adds to the analysis of representation, as the novel must be seen as a representation through the language of the character, instead of a mirroring description of reality. Furthermore, the language of the novel could be seen depicting the shared meanings of the author’s reality.

The thesis will also employ feminist criticism in examining the significance and influence of gender in representations of family, including the themes of motherhood, body, mental health and violence. Especially the politics of both womanhood and motherhood in relation to the family institution are considered in light of theorization on the desired roles for women and mothers offered by feminist critics, such as Villani and Ryan. Furthermore, Hays suggests that “[i]mages of children, child rearing, and motherhood […] are socially constructed” (19); as such, the analysis of representations and feminist criticism are interwoven: womanhood and motherhood are constructs made not only biologically, but also through language and culture. Simone de Beauvoir has stated that the body is a historical thought and that the image of a woman is historical: “[o]ne is not born, but, rather, becomes a woman” (qtd. in Butler 519; emphasis original). It could be translated to meaning that a girl becomes a woman by viewing other women before her and modeling herself after them.

Culture and attitudes influence this process. For instance, feminism greatly affected the

“representations of gender and familial relations” in the 1980s (Tincknell 35).

(12)

Common representations of womanhood reveal the desired or acceptable roles for women. Villani and Ryan sketch the usual images of womanhood constructed by western society as “Loyal Wife”, “Good Mother”, “Sex Kitten” and “Old Maid” (8). Ahponen, too, lists similar traditional roles for women, with the addition of the Caregiver (105). The image of a mother can be treated as historical, as well. For example, Chodorow has theorized upon this idea: she argues that women have a similar way of mothering as their own mothers because their mothers enculturate them to do so (209). The cyclical mothering is then reproduced at each generation. Villani and Ryan describe a set of attributes that a mother is welcomed and expected to have:

Anything less than a full-time mother will somehow damage the children; all feelings about motherhood must be good; motherhood is instinctive; […] a mother who has needs outside the mother role is selfish and therefore does not fit into the “Good Mother” persona. (117–8)

These characteristics of motherhood are culturally defined; an attribute accepted in one culture may be forbidden in another. Villani and Ryan’s list is written from a western perspective, but mothers are without doubt a group that has firm expectations implemented on it by any society. Paraphrasing Goffman’s theory on stigmatization, if a mother wishes to avoid stigmatization, her attributes have to fit into a set of attributes designated for mothers (2–3).

Villani and Ryan’s studies in this field reveal some of these preferred traits, for example, having the willingness to stay at home, and being caring and selfless about motherhood (117–

8). The career-oriented mother is away from the home or the domestic/private sphere, which, according to Tincknell, is traditionally seen as feminine (2). Hays proposes that “the public ideology of appropriate child rearing has urged mothers to stay at home with their children,

(13)

thereby ostensibly maintaining consistency in women’s nurturing and selfless behavior” (3), adding to the image of home as the feminine sphere.

Motherhood is still largely governed by others than mothers, or mothers that have internalized cultural stereotypes about motherhood. Some aspects of motherhood are silenced and made into taboo-like topics by society to uphold the constructed images of mothers as part of the private, apolitical sphere of society (versus public man – political). According to Siltanen and Stanworth, this dichotomy ignores the awareness of the private as political and

“implies that women are defined exclusively by the private sphere and men not at all” (208).

Hegemonic masculinity, a term by Connell, in American tradition assures that femininity is often defined in political speech, as will be made evident in the following chapters.

Motherhood and femininity are tied together and it seems that “[t]o disrupt one […] is to disrupt the other” (Jeremiah 170). The thesis pursues to prove that We Need to Talk about Kevin contests this view.

(14)

2. Family and Its Representation in the United States

This chapter presents an outline of American families on two levels: one based on statistics and the other on Hall’s “shared meanings” of culture: in other words, representations. Both can be regarded as accurate as the other, because representations are vital in how individuals conceptualize their world and make up their reality. The third part of this chapter inspects American families from a yet another point view: taboos. Taboos are studied here because they reveal crucial elements about not only families in the United States, but also the American way of life. Familial taboos give additional clues to what an “American family”

really means: what is allowed in a family setting, and what is not; what represents an American family.

2.1 American Family, on Average

Families in the United States are widely varied in size and relations. Cultural, economic, religious and political factors affect family types and living arrangements in different areas to an extent that it is difficult to pinpoint one type of American family (Vespa et al. 1). The conventional in the American context is the nuclear family (Tyler May 7–8). However, Howard, like others before him, suggested in the 1980s that American families are changing in

“size, relations and functions” (1). Similarly, both Tincknell (1) and Wiseman (5) see the concept of family as an unfinished construction in flux. Wiseman argues that there are a lot of complexities and influences to consider when analyzing contemporary American families:

“the relationship of marriage to the family; socioeconomic influences; culture; the economy;

domestic issues and pressures; divorce; remarriage; single-parent; gay and lesbian families;

extended families; and governmental policy” (5). Family, then, is a sum of multiple variables.

(15)

All of the above influence family relations in reality, as well as the perceptions of what family in the United States is supposed to be. Modern American families are shrinking in size and in numbers, and the significance of marriage in a family setting including children has changed. A 2013 report based on research conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau notes that family households¹ on the whole decreased from 81 percent in 1970 and made up only 66 percent of all households in 2012, while the percentage of one-person households increased to 27 percent from 1970’s 17 percent (Vespa et al. 1). Households with a white, non-Hispanic householder were less likely to be multigenerational than those with an Asian, black or Hispanic householder (Vespa et al. 7), suggesting a sociocultural difference in the importance of housing one’s elders and including them in the immediate family disposition. The percentage of households that comprised of married couples with children under 18 years old dropped 20 percent from 1970 (Vespa et al. 1).

Despite of the number of both family households with married couples, and married family groups² decreasing, the married family group is still “the most common type of family group regardless of race or Hispanic origin” (Vespa et al. 13). To summarize, between 1970 and 2012 households became smaller, the number of family and married-couple households decreased, and more people were living alone. Due to the recession of 2007-2009, the economy of all family types averagely deteriorated (Vespa et al. 28-9). In 2012, children most likely lived in a household with two married parents, although this arrangement was more common in the beginning of the millennium (Vespa et al. 21). This seems to counter Busch’s

1 “A household contains one or more people. Everyone living in a housing unit makes up a household.

One of the people who owns or rents the residence is designated as the householder. [...] A family household has at least two members related by birth, marriage, or adoption, one of whom is the householder” (Vespa et al. 2).

2 “Family groups include family households plus all family groups that do not include the householder (subfamilies). These subfamilies may consist of either married couples or parent-child units” (Vespa et al. 2).

(16)

view that the arrangement of “one man and one woman, two children” is not typical in the United States (Busch 2-3), if chiefly the number of parents present is considered. The second most likely arrangement was for children to live with their mother only (24 percent in 2012;

Vespa et al. 23). When it comes to adoption, laws in the United States are permeated by an

“‘all-or-nothing’ approach”: biological mothers contemplating adoption either waive all attachments and their rights as a parent altogether or take full responsibility of the child (Park 119). This leaves little or no room for more familial ties, such as “genetic parents, birth parents, foster parents, adoptive parents [and] stepparents” (Park 119). The statement also illustrates some of the variety of family forms and family attachments in the United States in terms of parents; to achieve a complete picture of these family patterns, they must be considered also through the different sets of children.

Busch describes the modern American tradition of relationships as “serial monogamy”

(309): having more than one partner simultaneously, especially in marriage, is generally frowned upon, but at the same time people are likely to have more than one partner during their lifetime. Affections play a key role in choosing a partner, but in some micro-cultural pockets, facets such as religious compatibility or parental approval might take on a much bigger role. Cohabitation has become a valid custom among couples in addition to marriage in the 21^st century, granted that marriage is still held in high regard. The most recent marriage statistics are from 2014, when a total of 2,140,272 marriages were performed in the United States, excluding data from Georgia and including Washington D.C (CDC/National Center for Health Statistics n. pag.). A significant social change was seen in 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage at state level is unconstitutional, effectively allowing gay couples to marry in all 50 states and gaining LGBTQ families more social visibility and legitimacy. Demographically, married opposite-sex couples are more

(17)

likely to be of the same race than same-sex couples or un-married opposite-sex couples (Vespa et al. 2). The educational level among married couples is generally higher than among cohabiting couples (Vespa et al. 18), and the trend is that households with married couples are in a better place economically than other kinds of family households (Vespa et al. 28–9). In 2014, the divorce and annulment rate was reportedly 3.2 per 1,000 population³, making the number of divorces and annulments 813,862 in total (CDC/National Center for Health Statistics n. pag.). The divorce rate has in fact fallen by 0.8 from the year 2000 (CDC/National Center for Health Statistics n. pag.). In divorce, arrangements have to be made in terms of the couple’s possible children: a U.S. Census Bureau report issued in 2011 estimates that 13.7 million parents had custody of children in 2010 and of those parents 17.8 percent were fathers (Grall 1). In total, slightly over 26 percent of the under-21-year-old children, who lived in a family arrangement, did so with only one parent (Grall 1). Overall, family groups with only one parent became more frequent between 2007 and 2012 (Vespa et al. 13). In sum, while the marriage institution lives on, the last few decades have seen a rise in visibility and acceptance for diverse types of relationships.

Traditional gender roles regarding working outside the home have loosened in the last fifty to sixty years. A working mother is no longer an atrocity in American society, as research shows that in almost half of American two-parent families (46 percent) both parents work full time, while another 17 percent of mothers hold a part time job (Pew Research n. pag.).

Complications can still arise for working mothers. Bianchi et al. argue that because of the increasingly elevated expectations for mothers it is more difficult for them to scale down or delegate their child care duties, and this adds to the difficulties of combining the work at home

3 The number includes data for Washington D.C. and excludes data for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, and Minnesota.

(18)

and outside of it (175). Furthermore, taking paid maternity leave is a rarity in the United States, making the start with a newborn baby more problematic (see Gault et al.), and thus far discussing paternity leave seems to be far off in the future.

The issue of equality in the division of the household workload is a complex one, and the conversation around it is often emotional and politicized. Although there is a fair amount of literature implying that mothers, on average, handle the largest amount of the workload at home (see, e.g., Flagg et al., Blair and Lichter), other results have emerged as well. Depending on the task, working parents might share the responsibility: for example, both disciplining and playing with the children are tasks that over 60 percent of working parents share equally (Pew Research n. pag.). It has also been suggested by Bianchi et al. that there is actually “gender equality” within this area: this is true if the work outside the home that usually fathers do more is counted towards the household workload (169–170). Married fathers, married mothers, and single mothers spend as much or more time caring for their children than a decade ago, and the time spent chiefly playing with the children or teaching them has also increased over the past few decades (Bianchi et al. 171). The socialization (or ‘enculturation’, or ‘education’) of American children is conducted by the family, kin and other carers, and by the influence of television even before attending school, which is sometimes considered the socializer with the greatest influence (Busch 225). Especially television’s influence has been the topic of heated debates since its inception. Tincknell notes that the concerns for effects of popular culture are not modern, but rose as early as the 1860s with new styles of literature and music (92–3).

These anxieties speak of the concern for the corruption of family, which is held in such a high regard in the United States.

To conclude, an American family can be a diverse entity, with differing numbers of people in it, taking distinct roles, in different capacities. Marriage in a family with children

(19)

continues to be common, while multiple other family forms exist beside it. Traditional gender roles among parents can be seen somewhat waning, as more women work outside the home and both parents take responsibility for the household. The flexibility of family patterns does not diminish the value given to the family institution in the United States, a view that is additionally attested in the next section on representations of family in public discourse.

2.2 Representations of American Family

Representations of family are formed in the minds of individuals and communities and in their use of language. Pierre Bourdieu notes that descriptions of family that attempt to portray reality, for example, in official forms often end up creating it instead (19), a view that reminds us of Hall’s theory of representation. Giving an unambiguous definition for “family” is indeed challenging. Saeed points out three particular challenges in providing a satisfactory definition:

“circularity; the question of whether linguistic knowledge is different from general knowledge; and the problem of the contribution of context to meaning” (7). In this case, the problem arises most visibly in relation to the last challenge, the effects of context to meaning.

Family has always meant different things to different people based on, for example, their location, values, and social and cultural affiliations. Every individual and every family have their own perspective on the term, and it can be argued that even family members within the same unit have their own individual opinions that differ from each other. Family representations are therefore always controlled by a cognitive individual. Howard notes that individuals often regard their specific idea of family as timeless and universal (3), which might lead to overlooking the various family types around them (5). Busch, too, states that

“[m]any of the earlier historians commented upon the strange family practices of their neighbors, but their own families were taken for granted” (29). On the other hand, it must be

(20)

acknowledged that some individuals never experience anything they would call “family”

(Busch 2). The definition of the concept depends on the person defining it, their perceptions, and their agenda. Busch defines family as “a kin group that shares a cooking pot” (1). In her definition of family, Busch draws attention to the implication that an essentiality of family is preparing and sharing food. Similarly, Howard ruminates that “[a] sense of connectedness is the essence of family” (in foreword Ⅹ); sharing food is without a doubt a human experience that amplifies a sense of connectedness (see, e.g., Miller et al.).

Families may also be “of choice”, which means that forming one bases purely on choice and does not require a kin connection. Tincknell argues that the globally successful representations of families of choice on television, such as Friends (NBC, 1994–2004), are nowadays not only acknowledged as legitimate versions of family life, but also “celebration[s]

of friendship and sexual pluralities” (134–5). Moreover, fictional families of choice are often seen as liberal in representation. In addition to readily including a variety of races, nationalities, sexualities and genders, some topics, such as sexuality and relationships, are often discussed in a liberal way in representations of families of choice. Examples of this discussion are the television series Sex and the City (HBO, 1998–2004), Will and Grace (NBC, 1998–2006), New Girl (Fox, 2011–), and Girls (HBO, 2012–2017). In any case, family is largely seen as the basic unit of society with several social functions and purposes. The exploration of family representations in this chapter will focus on families of kin instead of choice, since the family in the novel under scrutiny in this thesis is a family formed through kin connections. Arguably, there is a difference in family attachments between the two differently formed family types; the “negotiated” relationships of choice might be even stronger than the readily offered kin relations (Giddens in Tincknell 134).

(21)

Regardless of the extremely varied nature of family, what can be said is that the family holds an aura of sanctity in the American culture. The tradition and folklore that govern the ideal of family life in the United States are “powerful” (Tincknell 2, Holmgren Troy et al. 28–

29). Busch argues that for many Americans the ideal family consists of “one man and one woman, two children, a house, a picket fence and a dog”, and notes at the same time that this is not typical, but an ideal (2–3). American families have conventionally been monogamous and nuclear; however, different family forms have always existed together with what was considered the ‘traditional’ form at each point. The idea of the nuclear family as the ‘best’

type of family is so powerful that it has historically caused oppression, for instance, among Native families: Native children were forcibly adopted in the 1950s and 1960s because they were not raised in a nuclear family setting (Holmgren Troy et al 30). O’Reilly Herrera has even proposed that the purpose for searching for or calling anything a ‘traditional’ or ‘ideal’

family has become “obsolete” (2). The terminology seems indeed to be true only to one group at a time and with a particular definition: attempts to weaken what some have considered the traditional family stir controversy, hate, and even violence on a regular basis (see Hughes, Bloomberg). For instance, families including sexual minorities are often attacked.

The social organization of a given community influences the perceptions and representations of family. Despite a popular American belief in nuclear family’s ‘eternality’, family forms have always been in varied. Before the First World War, it was in fact the extended family that was largely the norm in the West (Tincknell 10). Tincknell proposes that 1950s family ideals have affected to great extent the still prevailing traditional western idea of family structure (5). An example of this could be I Love Lucy (CBS, 1951–1957) a popular 1950s television show starring Lucille Ball. Davies and Smith discuss that by giving birth to a son in a middle class nuclear family setting, Ball’s stay-at-home-mother character Lucy

(22)

“fulfilled the American Dream of the 1950s” (37). The family was seen as an essential building block of society after the World Wars and this predictably had much to do with reproduction (Tincknell 6). On the other hand, it has been suggested that the nuclear family ideal bases on a misconception because it is not a long-lasting tradition (Holmgren Troy et al.

28). Tincknell suggests that the nuclear family served as a symbol for the middle class, and to be part of the middle class after the World Wars was to be a step closer to the American Dream (10). Warner et al. describe the American dream as the promise of equal opportunity for all, the promise that success will come along with hard work and if one has the character for it (Preface). The realities of the American social organization might, on the other hand, be revealed only later:

We all are trained in school to understand democratic ideals and principles and to believe in their fullest expression in American life, but we only learn by hard experience, often damaging to us, that some of the things we learned in early life exist only in our political ideals and are rarely found in the real world. (Warner et al., Preface)

Warner et al. seem disillusioned with the American Dream, and they suggest that the dream might not be equally available to all; the family one is born into has an immense effect on their opportunities from the start (Warner et al. 3), and class values might guide our choices in consumption and socialization (Warner et al., Preface). According to Goldschmidt, already de Tocqueville and Bryce suggested that there is no marked social class system in the United States, despite the apparent and pronounced differences in wealth and status (483).

Goldschmidt adds, however, that there is a “trend toward social differentiation and class orientation since Bryce” (494). It is also proposed that class positions may be fluid and that there is a “cultural denial of class” altogether (Goldschmidt 495). Goldschmidt’s theorization

(23)

is from the 1950s and more contemporary opinions vary on the significance of class in social theory altogether (Wright 717).

Considering the 2016 presidential campaigns, at least one of Goldschmidt’s suggestions seems to ring true today: social differentiation appears to be growing. According to Watanabe, anthropological research of the United States has somewhat overlooked “white, middle-class Americans” as a focus point (5), and he suggests that this group is worth studying since they are often used as a reference point when foreigners discuss ‘Americans’ and also when

“cultural ‘others’” are produced (5). The family of We Need to Talk about Kevin fits into this class category. As an affluent, middle class nuclear family living the ‘suburban dream’, they represent the ideal and falsely create the norm of an American family. In a similar manner, Tincknell argues that Sam Mendes’ film American Beauty (1999) is a depiction of “the surface brightness of American suburban life, and the rottenness at its core” (139). Both representations of family seem to discard the idea of suburban family life as a desirable goal.

Contemporary American television commonly relies on traditional nuclear family modes. Especially day-time sitcoms regularly reproduce the heteronormative pattern in shows such as Mike and Molly (CBS, 2010–2016) and The King of Queens (CBS, 1998–2007). The primetime sitcom Modern Family (ABC, 2009–), on the other hand, depicts a more diverse family system. It represents a family group including three family households: a nuclear family, a family with a stepparent and a family with same-sex parents. As well as American, the show represents Colombian and Vietnamese heritage blended in one family group. In a venture outside the nuclear family mode, orphans are often employed as a literary trope to explore American identity, as well as American families. Holmgren Troy et al. suggest that orphans are uniquely positioned in the realm of family, in that while missing one of their own, family is what intrinsically defines them (1–2). They are therefore frequently used to mediate

(24)

“normative definitions of family and nation” (Holmgren Troy et al. 1–2), as well as to represent American individualism and independence (Holmgren Troy et al. 14–15).

The personal is political, as family patterns and reproduction are arguably closely observed in the United States. Holmgren Troy et al. suggest that most “modern nations” form ideological attachments between nation and family (22), as is the case in the United States.

Edelman argues that children are put in a position of “humanized” and “political” “capital”

that is to be cultivated in an effort to secure “our collective future”; to treat children otherwise is to oppose the future (112–3). Likewise, Tyler May argues that in the late 20^th century United States national politics became a stage for debates over “family values” (1). Several issues have been argued one way or another under the guise of family values, including abortion, civil rights for gays and lesbians, gun control, and the war on drugs (Tyler May 4).

Isensee blames it on the conflict between “the prevailing myth of the nuclear family and the shifting contexts of family life” (7). It is also suggested that the debate is often directed at certain groups based on class or race:

For example, poor black single mothers, and educated white professional women, are both likely to be blamed for society’s ills as a result of their alleged defiance of “family values”. Presumably, a mother on welfare who goes out and gets a job demonstrates good family values; one who stays home with her kids does not. Yet an educated middle-class woman who goes out and gets a job demonstrates bad family values; one who stays home with her kids does not.

(Tyler May 5; emphasis original)

The citation shows that mothering and child-rearing altogether are made into public property, in the sense that mothers’ supposedly personal choices as mothers are seen as part of national ideologies. Tyler May suggests that the decline of the supposed family values is habitually

(25)

attributed to any groups that are seen as threats to traditional family form, for example,

“communists” (in quotation marks as Tyler May puts it), immigrants, or racial or sexual minorities (8), in which all genders are affected. Furthermore, Tyler May’s statement above illustrates the discourse on ‘bad mothers’ in the United States: there is a dichotomy of good mothers and bad mothers in American public speech and as Tyler May’s quotation shows, arbitrary things might determine a mother’s status. Goc argues that mothers are represented as either “Madonnas or Medeas”, which amplifies “a patriarchal ideology where women as mothers continue to be categorised, idealised and demonised, and where deviant mothers are understood as ‘monstrous’” (149). Goc argues further that “[a]nything in between these extremes holds little or no news value” and thus “regular” mothers gain little media representation (160–1).

The debate is often more about politics than anything else. Davies and Smith have examined and compared representations of American motherhood on American television in the 1950s and the 1990s. They argue that the representations of white women’s maternity on television

[o]n the one hand […] have been produced and read in relation to real women, as models of identity which have been copied or rejected, celebrated or contested, and whose history is intertwined with the history of the women and men who watched them. On the other hand, such representations have also operated in relation to notions of collective rather than individual identity, such that maternity is configured not simply in terms of personal fulfillment but also in terms of national responsibility. (Davies and Smith 34)

Motherhood made public seems to be often organized in parallel with national needs and societal norms. Representations on television correspond to the representations in political

(26)

speech (Davies and Smith 34). Davies and Smith recount how in 1992, the American television series Murphy Brown (CBS, 1988–1998) introduced a storyline in which its main character Murphy Brown decided to have and raise her baby outside the traditional family structure: without a husband. Vice President Dan Quayle stated at the time (May 19, 1992) that “[i]t doesn’t help matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown – a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman – mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice’”

(qtd. in Davies and Smith 34). Davies and Smith propose that by uttering those lines, Quayle maintained that “womanhood be put at the service of the nation” (34). This serves as another sign that the personal is political, womanhood and mothering included. As suggested by Davies and Smith, family and the ones who make it are under scrutiny, as representations are made based on them, and then either lauded or criticized. Threats to the conventional family form are to be constrained by means of public outcry about their deviances. Despite the persistence on a typical mother figure, different, even anarchist western versions can be found.

For example, novelist Fay Weldon’s work deviates from the Good Mother myth in a satirical way as it explores different mothers that are either feeble, aloof, selfish, or downright malevolent (Cane 183–194), i.e. quintessentially ‘bad mothers’. The ABC series Desperate Housewives (2004–2012) offered a peak into some of the unpleasantries and obstacles of motherhood, by showing one of its characters, Lynette, in various predicaments concerning her children. Nonetheless, the problems were often represented in a comedic manner, arguably to soften the effect.

Fathers have traditionally been portrayed in the United States as the providers for their families and also as the ones who discipline (Tincknell 55). Variation to these representations have been brought by comedic portrayals about incompetent fathers (Tincknell 68–69), in

(27)

such as Married with Children (Fox, 1987–1997). Moreover, Tincknell argues that there has been a “pathologization of ‘bad’ mothers and the valorization of ‘good’ fathers in all kinds of cultural and political texts” (55–56), which suggests that fathers might not be under such extreme scrutiny as mothers are. On the other hand, fathers sometimes have to endure unfair prejudices as they are presented as “deadbeat dads” (see, e.g., Nielsen). Furthermore, fathers are sometimes more strictly observed. A case in point is the controversy around a photograph taken by Arizonian Heather Whitten of her husband and son (see, e.g., Wells). Both are naked in the shower, and the father is taking care of his sick son. Public nudity is against the American norms, but it could be argued that the inappropriateness of the photo was amplified because of the father’s presence.

Dysfunctional families are not uncommon as literary frameworks. They effectively bring out a multitude of underlying features of family that might reveal crucial aspects of American life. For example, Phillip Roth’s American Pastoral (1997) presents a ‘disillusioned’ portrayal of an American family, in some ways quite similarly to Shriver’s We Need to Talk about Kevin. A regular family, one that even borders on normative perfection on the outside, falters and perishes. Michiko Kakutani argues that “Mr. Roth has chronicled the rise and fall of one man’s fortunes and in doing so created a resonant parable of American innocence and disillusion” (n. pag.). The novels share a view on the representation of family: both are disappointed with the folklore of family as a refuge and an ultimate consummation in life. The difference lies in the characters’ initial sentiments about family: while We Need to Talk about Kevin is wary from the start, characters in American Pastoral begin with a belief in family.

Similarly to Shriver’s, Roth’s novel fights against the urge to wholly elucidate the motivations and rationales of its characters, just as they are often unrevealed about the characters in our own real lives (Kakutani n. pag.). Family and kin relations are complex, and sometimes

(28)

meanings are left undisclosed in the absence of language. Additionally, American Pastoral touches on the subject of children committing violence. Violent children differ from the romantic ideal of innocence, and this causes moral panic (Tincknell 78–79). For instance, William March’s The Bad Seed (1954) was controversial when it came out in the 1950s. The novel discusses the origins of adolescent violence; it seems to argue that nature, instead of nurture, is the cause of deviant children (Power 79). Overall, the representation of American children is often that of innocence and vulnerability, but also an opponent to establishment (Levander and Singley in Holmgren Troy et al. 26).

Representations of violence have become more common, as dysfunctional families in television sitcoms became popular in the 1990s (Tincknell 150). Seth McFarlane’s comedy series Family Guy (Fox, 1999–), is often political and fiercely controversial, as it does not shy away from current and risqué topics. The characters are, true to cartoon tradition, comically extreme: a power-hungry, genius baby, hedonistic and aloof parents, ditzy, sex-driven teenagers, and an anthropomorphic, intellectual dog, all of whom seem to have a violent streak. The scenes of violence in Family Guy are often extremely graphic. Violence, including domestic, in comics and cartoons has a long history, and it could be argued that the same level of violence would not be accepted in live action television. One of the most memorable domestic violence depictions on American television must be Homer Simpson regularly strangling son Bart in the long-running The Simpsons (Fox, 1989–). Its characters may act violently, selfishly and illegally but in the end even Homer, the initially deadbeat dad, redeems himself as he remembers the importance of his family and the initial bad act is papered over.

In fact, Tincknell argues that the series is “all about the family’s functionality – however unconventionally this is achieved” (151; emphasis original). Both of these comical interpretations of American family seem to, therefore, reaffirm the importance of a normative

(29)

family structure and the value of family in general. Moreover, domestic violence is ostensibly tolerated when it is in animated form.

In sum, representations of American families often resort to traditional forms in terms of family type, even if other types of families have gained visibility at times and especially recently. Often dysfunctionality is exercised within the scope of family, sometimes with a comedic result and other times for dramatic effect. This includes violence in the family by both adults and children, and it seems that cartoon domestic violence is more tolerated than live action violence. Representations of womanhood are commonly tied together with motherhood, and differing portrayals are routinely scrutinized as going against family values.

As Agonito suggests, American society represents motherhood as a “dream” for women (9), and the importance of family as a social institution is emphasized.

2.3 Taboos in the United States

Taboo is an act or an entity that is considered impure, dangerous, or otherwise unacceptable to the point that it is prohibited or concealed (Encyclopædia Britannica n. pag.). It could also be described as “a set of attitudes towards dangerous situations” (Steiner, Douglas in Freitas 1).

The prohibitions can relate to a variety of things, such as dirtiness, diet, language, bodily functions, sex, marriage, disease, death, or giving birth (Freitas 23, Encyclopædia Britannica n. pag.). Taboo prohibitions have possibly stimulated the earliest human penal systems, as transgressors were habitually punished from the beginning (Freud 83). While it was Captain James Cook who first reported of the taboo tradition in the Pacific in 1771 (Encyclopædia Britannica n. pag.), perhaps one of the most famous theorists to discuss it is Sigmund Freud, who studied the taboo traditions of tribes in Polynesia and Australia. In Totem and Taboo (1913), Freud describes some of their taboos; for example, a specific totem system, or

(30)

totemism, was in place to prevent incest by forbidding people with the same totem from breeding together (4–5). According to Freud, the Polynesian word ‘taboo’ has two contrasting meanings:

To us it means, on the one hand, ‘sacred’, ‘consecrated’, and on the other

‘uncanny’, ‘dangerous’, ‘forbidden’, ‘unclean’. The converse of ‘taboo’ in Polynesian is ‘noa’, which means ‘common’ or ‘generally accessible’. Thus

‘taboo’ has about it a sense of something unapproachable, and it is principally expressed in prohibitions and restrictions. (18)

In Freud’s description of the word’s etymology, taboo is given two opposite aspects: one of holiness and one of the forbidden and the unclean. Douglas concurs that “[h]oliness and impurity are at opposite poles” (7), but the cleanliness of something might be a relative phenomenon: what is clean in one situation can be unclean in another (9). Furthermore, Douglas rejects the “confused blending of the Sacred and the Unclean” and suggests that there are clear rules to which situations the rules can be broken in and by whom (159).

The origin of taboos is unclear. Freud argues that taboo regulations are separate from

“religious or moral codes”, since they cannot be traced back to any religious tenets and “are of unknown origin” (18). Douglas agrees that the original stimulus for taboos does not seem to be merely religious fear, and instead it has more to do with organization:

dirt is essentially disorder. There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder. [...] Dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organise the environment. [...] in chasing dirt, in papering, decorating, tidying we are not governed by anxiety to escape disease, but are positively re-ordering our environment, making it

(31)

conform to an idea. [...] rituals of purity and impurity create unity in experience.

(Douglas 2)

Dirt can refer to actual filth or be a symbol for undesirable behavior. Organizing one’s environment makes it follow preferred ideologies and recreates social order. Douglas proposes that the intrinsic incentive for “pollution ideas”, i.e., taboos, is to contrive and maintain order, but also to impose demands on the behavior of others: “the ideal order of society is guarded by dangers which threaten transgressors” (3). For instance, Polynesian chiefs were protected with various prohibitions under the pretext of the chiefs’ mana, a sacred power, that was to be protected for the general safety of the community (Freud 19). Douglas notes that “beliefs which attribute spiritual power to individuals are never neutral or free of the dominant patterns of social structure” (112), which can be seen in the way the mana of the chiefs is valued. All things considered, taboos seem to be set to assert and reassert the desired social ideologies, organization and hierarchies by placing prohibitions on actions based on what each community deems ‘dangerous’ (to itself).

Although Freud regarded the Polynesian taboo practices as “prohibitions to which these primitive races are subjected” (21) and clearly saw the tribes he studied as ‘other’, he allowed that the primitive taboos might have universal relevance and discovering the reasoning behind taboos might explain “our own ‘categorical imperative’” (22). Frazer concurs that taboos and comparable arrangements affect “all races of men” and are key in constructing a community’s social complexities (Preface). It is evidently agreed that taboos are a universal phenomenon and not a ‘savage’ custom, while it could be argued that it does address some primitive side of people. Today, the word taboo has undoubtedly lost some of its original exotic echo described by Freud (Freitas 25). A somewhat more common term today could be the social norm.

Bicchieri and Muldoon state that social norms are “the customary rules that govern behavior in

(32)

groups and societies” (n. pag.). Douglas suggests that people have a constant awareness of social structure wherever they go (100). They act in accordance with the “symmetries and hierarchies” they encounter, and pursue to imprint others with their views (Douglas 100). The norms they encounter define, usually in a restricting way, what is considered acceptable behavior. As in the case of taboos, sanctions are imposed on those who disobey the norm (Bicchieri and Muldoon n. pag.). Bicchieri and Muldoon continue that while social norms participate vitally to the construction of social order and they fulfill essential social functions, they cannot be explicated only by the functions they perform (n. pag.). Unpopular norms may hold their status even without a social benefit that other norms may fulfill (Bicchieri and Muldoon n. pag.).

This suggests that some social norms are almost paradoxical in nature: they are upheld but undesired. This is to do with power relations of discourse. Gramsci, Althusser, and Foucault all theorized the role of discourse in maintaining power: certain ideals or traditions are so internalized that there is no longer any need to force them externally (see, e.g., Gutting, Felluga). Hall argues that

[a] discourse is a way of talking about or representing something. It produces knowledge that shapes perceptions and practice. It is part of the way in which power operates. Therefore, it has consequences for both those who employ it and those who are “subjected” to it. (“The West and the Rest” 225)

Social norms are consequently a form of discourse through which power is used, and this use of power becomes especially visible when someone transgresses. Goffman states that in every society there are sets of attributes a person is expected to have. The nature of these sets of attributes varies according to the social situation in question; i.e., we anticipate meeting certain kinds of people in certain situations (2). Goffman further explains that “[w]e lean on these

(33)

anticipations that we have, transforming them into normative expectations, into righteously presented demands” (2). It is only when someone who does not possess the anticipated qualities (“a stranger”) enters a social situation that we realize that we have been making assumptions and even unconscious demands (Goffman 2). Deviating from expectations can cause stigmatization:

While the stranger is present before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others in the category of persons available for him to be, and of a less desirable kind – in the extreme, a person who is quite thoroughly bad, or dangerous, or weak. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and a usual person to a tainted, discounted one. Such an attribute is a stigma […]. (Goffman 2–3)

A person unfitting to our expectations and demands, i.e., a person breaking a taboo, consequently receives a stigma, and they are to be avoided. Power is certainly used through the conventions of stigma, as individuals generally wish to avoid behavior that could imprint them with undesired characteristics.

Contemporary American taboos are far removed from the ‘original’ magical realm of taboos relating to totemism and mana; however, modern taboos are governed by beliefs and the need for organization in a similar manner. Taboos are socially constructed and fluid; what might have been taboo a hundred years ago, could be generally accepted today. There seem to be two levels of taboos in the United States. The first level is conversational taboos, such as religion and atheism, wage, politics, sex, and menstruation (see, e.g., Bloom for religion, Laws for menstruation). These are topics that habitually generate heated debates and should be avoided in polite conversation, although they are all commonly practiced and accepted as part of the human experience. Nonetheless, there are micro-cultural differences in application: for

(34)

example, limiting sex only to marriage. Secondly, there are topics that are taboo on a more profound level, such as incest or abortion. These themes induce silence in conversation in a similar manner to the conversational level taboos. However, they carry a deeper stigma which includes that opinions might vary drastically on whether these issues should even exist or be acted out. It could be argued that the largely individualistic culture in America often steers issues to be handled strictly within the close-kin family, instead of a larger group of kin or others, possibly because of the stigma carried by some topics.

Some topics that are considered taboos in the United States seem to be personal matters and not so much attached to any national alignments. A quick internet search with the phrase

“the last taboo” reveals its unexpectedly frequent use in American culture. The topics vary from interracial marriage to body hair, which shows the wide range of ideas proposed as the final unmentionable (that nevertheless needs to be addressed). For example, black male sexuality in popular culture was discussed as the last taboo in The New York Times in late 2016. Suggested literary taboo topics include fictional young men who are not allowed to grief in American classics (Boker), and spirituality in young adult literature (Campbell). The overuse of the phrase “the last taboo” might suggest that, overall, it is felt that the cultural climate in the USA has become more vocal or tolerant about various issues. Conversely, it could imply the intensification of cultural and political polarization, which was particularly visible in 2016 with the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (see Wang, Shifflett). Moreover, politically correct language is undeniably in the range of taboo theory, as it defines the tones of tolerable public discourse. It could be argued that the practice and significance of political correctness has transformed tremendously during and after the campaigns, towards a looser convention on what is acceptable speech. On the other hand, the discourse on safe spaces and triggering illustrates that opinions vary drastically on what

Representation of family and familial taboos in Lionel Shriver's We Need to Talk about Kevin

Contents