Family as Figure and Ground: A Metaphor to Understand Family in Twenty-First-Century Culture

Marriage today is a topic that can raise sharp disagreements. An explanation as to how and why such divergent views exist can be understood through one of the great discoveries from psychological science: figure-ground perception. Most people recognize this concept by two popular images—one is an image of either a white vase or two facial cameos; the other is either an 1890s Victorian woman or a withered, wrinkled older woman. When you see one, you don’t see the other. Much can be said about the similarity between figure-ground and the state of the family in the twenty-first century. We tend to see family in a way that does not permit us to see it any other way. Consider the following issues (listed alphabetically):

• Abortion rights

• Cohabiting relationships

• Corporal punishment

• Divorce

• Family violence

• Gay marriage

• Infidelity

• Pornography

• Poverty

• Single-parent family structures

• Traditional family roles

• Transgender recognition

When considering the issues on this list, are you seeing social change, advancement toward justice, and positive resolution emerging? Or are you seeing decline, disarray, and social degradation? How you see the social/ political issues related to family will influence your perception about the unfolding of events. If we see the family in a state of decline, we will not likely perceive good emerging from any change. If we see the recent changes as good, we are likely vulnerable to a lack of discernment to some of the factors that affect spouses, parents, and children. Consider the basic supposition of notable authors.

Köstenberger states as his opening argument in his book God, Marriage and Family that “marriage and the family are institutions under siege in our world today, and that with marriage and family, our very civilization is in crisis. The current cultural crisis, however, is merely symptomatic of a deep-seated spiritual crisis that continues to gnaw at the foundations of our once-shared societal values” (2010, p. 15). To Köstenberger, marriage and family are under siege and civilization is in crisis—powerful words that we don’t seek to dispute. Rather, we seek to utilize a systemic mentality addressed throughout this book, which is, “If I see it this way, how will I not see it in other ways, even when those other ways might be accurate?”

Girgis, Anderson, and George wrote in the opening chapter of What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, “In just a few years, the battle over marriage has engaged every branch and level of American government and the whole of our civil society . . . . It is hard to think of a more salient cultural conflict” (2012, pp. 4-5). Again, this is portrayed as a “cultural conflict” depicting warring parties in which the most powerful wins.

Sociologist Andrew Cherlin wrote in The Marriage-Go-Round,

Cherlin emphasizes a “bewildering set of alternatives,” with Western civilization itself as literally dazed, befuddled, or confused. The wording is powerful.

Balswick and Balswick carry a different tone in assessing the landscape of family. They wrote in A Model for Marriage: “Though many family social scientists are concerned about these modern trends, some hold to a postmodern optimism that embraces alternative forms of marriage.” According to them, the outdated, traditional, lifelong monogamous marriage needs to be revised. They advocate for alternative forms to better accommodate the diverse needs of a postmodern society, such as “same-sex marriage, cohabitation, remaining childless, serial marriage” (2006, p. 18). The nature of the cultural war emerges more clearly here; it becomes the battle between the “outdated” and the “updated.”

Stephanie Coontz wrote in Marriage, a History:

This gives us reason to pause, to study—to think and then to act.

Finally, as Waite and Gallagher wrote in The Case for Marriage, the most basic becomes the most controversial: