Reconstructing the stepfamily: old myths, new stories.

Jones, Anne C.

The privileged status of the biological nuclear family in American society contributes to the stigmatization of all nonnuclear families, but especially that of stepfamilies. On an institutional level, this privileging is evidenced by disparate treatment in the family court system, schools, churches, and the media. On an individual level, it is often more subtle and insidious. In social discourse, the liberal use of euphemisms for stepfamilies, for example, "blended," "reconstituted," as well as the often-used label "stepchild" to convey inferiority (Coleman & Ganong, 1987), reflect a deeply imbedded societal discomfort and depreciation of the step relationship.

In direct practice, the subordinate status of stepfamilies may affect effectiveness through practitioner bias and stereotypical thinking. Myths, or unrealistic beliefs, are problematic in families because they create self-fulfilling prophecies or standards that are difficult or impossible to meet. Practitioners may help to dispel myths but they can also reinforce them if they themselves share these myths or fail to recognize them (Coleman & Ganong, 1985). Problems in practice also may reflect a lack of knowledge about stepfamily structure and dynamics. Experts in the field (Browning, 1994; Visher & Visher, 1996) contended that generic intervention models are ineffective with stepfamilies.

Given the increase in stepfamilies, they are surprisingly underrepresented in the social work literature. Most efforts have addressed family structural differences and prescriptive clinical interventions using a family systems and psycho-educational approach. This article uses narrative theory to explore some of the current and historical contextual factors that continue to restrict stepfamily stories. It examines the influences of these factors on family policy and family practice with stepfamilies and offers recommendations on how social workers can foster more viable alternative stories.

The tendency to privilege the biological nuclear family story is particularly enigmatic, given the social changes in U.S. family life over the past three decades. One such change has been a significant rise in divorce and marital disruption. Estimates are that nearly 55 percent of first marriages are likely to fail (Bramlett & Masher, 2002). The vast majority of divorced people go on to remarry or cohabitate and to do so within several years (Wilson & Clarke, 1992). Divorce, remarriage, and births to single women (those who later marry or cohabitate) result in about one-third of all Americans being part of a stepfamily. Bumpass, Raley, and Sweet (1995) showed that about 23 percent of children lived in a stepfamily in which the parent was legally married. They estimated that if children who lived with a cohabitating parent were included,

this figure would increase to about 30 percent. Despite their commonality, the stepfamily still holds a dubious position within the dominant culture.

There are compelling reasons why stepfamilies merit more attention from both a policy and a practice perspective. First, given their sheer numbers, stepfamilies are encountered in nearly all practice settings. Second, complex and family situations, combined with stigmatization from the larger society, contribute to a high utilization of mental health services by stepfamilies (Zill & Schoenborn, 1991). Third, the divorce rate for couples when at least one partner has been previously married is even higher than for first marriages (Booth & Edwards, 1992).

Enhancing the skills of practitioners working with stepfamilies has the potential for preventing the harmful effects of serial monogamy and divorce, especially on children. Improving the responsiveness of policies affecting stepfamilies may help to better support them during marriage and, in the event of divorce, promote the maintenance of strong stepparent-stepchild attachment bonds. Greater advocacy on the part of social work professionals may pare away at stereotypes and facilitate a more accepting environment for all families.

The Power of Narrative

Narrative theory holds that it is through stories that we weave life's events together and make them into a recognizable whole. Be it written in the form of a parable, novel, or play; conveyed orally through the recounting of one's life story or a simple incident on the way to work; or presented visually through a film or a report of a disaster victim's rescue on the nightly news, narrative provides the language and structure that help us interpret our own or others' experiences. Simply put by Bruner (1986), "stories make meaning" (p. 140) and therefore cannot be viewed as real or literal. Their temporal dimension, Bruner noted, lies in the fact that narratives possess a beginning, middle, and end. We interpret the past and anticipate the future on the basis of our current experiences. Thus, stories or narratives lend a sense of continuity to our lives.

Narratives are imbedded in, and continually filtered by, the culture. In their conceptualization of their narrative model, White and Epston (1990) applied and built on the work of Foucault (1979) to explore the relationship between knowledge and power. They held that in all societies certain values are privileged, whereas other values are subjugated. This results in some stories becoming "dominant" in the form of normative cultural rules. An illustration of such a privileged value is that of biological parenthood. In U.S. society, biological parenthood is, with few exceptions, an "exclusive status" (Bartlett, 1984). The underlying premise is that parenting rights and duties should be held by biological parents only and should take place in the context of the nuclear family.

The biological nuclear family is an example of what Foucault referred to as a constructed ideal that is accorded a truth status. White and Epston (1990) argued that these "truths" have a normalizing effect in that they produce norms around which people feel obliged to conform. Although the values associated with the rights of biological parentage have by and large supported shared societal goals, they have also served to restrict people's thinking about the nature of families and parenting roles. The promotion of the nuclear family as "normal" and biological parents as "real" or "natural" marginalizes stepfamilies by perpetuating the bias that step relationships are abnormal.

In their application of the narrative perspective to therapy, White and Epston (1990) framed problems in terms of the congruence of the individual's narrative. Problems brought to therapy are assumed to result from the individual or family's lived experience that contradicts their own or society's dominant story. Within the therapeutic context, personal and cultural narratives are reviewed for authenticity and fit. A major goal of treatment is to generate new and fuller narratives. This involves reconstructing meaning and identifying new themes that can lead to richer stories and more satisfying lives.

In addition to implications for clinical practice, narratives as representations of social and political power also carry implications for policy (Bruner, 1986). Institutions, such as schools, courts, and government agencies, are intrinsic parts of a larger culture and as such are shaped by the dominant values and stories of that society. The narrative framework provides a lens by which to examine the influence of cultural myths and societal values on family policy and clinical practice with stepfamilies.

Cultural Stories and Myths of Stepfamilies Cultural stories embody exemplars of heroes and villains and morality tales that provide lessons on appropriate norms and values (Richardson, 1990). One of the most universal and enduring cultural villains has been that of the stepmother. Folklore and children's literature, particularly fairy tales, have been a major source of negative perceptions about stepmothers. Classic childhood stories, depicting stepmothers treating their stepchildren with extreme cruelty (such as Cinderella, Snow White, and Hansel and Gretel), have created lasting images of the abuse of children at the hands of depraved stepmothers. Wald (1981) reported that one of every six fairy tales contains the step-mother cruelty theme and that stepmothers have been found to be, along with wolves, giants, ogres, and witches, the most common representations of evil.

Although many of these tales date back to the Renaissance, Cinderella, Snow White, and Hansel and Gretel are in modern times still identified by parents and children as among their favorite fairy tales (Wald, 1981). Today, children's exposure to these appealing tales has actually increased because of their conversion to film and home videos. Thus, children in contemporary U.S. society grow up in a culture permeated with the depiction of stepparents as abusive and dangerous. This helps to instill the subtle theme that only biological parents love and protect their children. It is not surprising that many families conceal their stepfamily status to avoid these negative associations.

Ironically, other more positive stepfamily myths may be just as insidious and problematic. As television programming began to reflect more diverse families, the idealized nuclear family story such as Ozzie and Harriet was replaced by equally romanticized versions of the stepfamily story. Programs like the Brady Bunch and Eight is Enough helped to popularize the term "blended family" and the notions of instant family and instant love. These simplistic visions of "one big happy family" are hazardous to remarriage because they create unrealistically high expectations that are likely to result in frustration and disappointment (Visher & Visher, 1996).

Everyday Language and the Step Metaphor Narrative, or the notion of "storying our lives," is dependent on the use of spoken and written language. Several nuances of everyday discourse reflect and perpetuate ambivalence about stepfamily life. Our struggle to identify another less emotionally laden term to replace the prefix step and the common use of the word stepchild to convey deficiency are two such examples.

Like other kinds of "loaded" words that carry pejorative connotations, a number of alternative terms for stepfamilies have entered our vocabulary. In the past two decades, a host of euphemisms have become commonplace. Labels such as blended, reconstituted, and remarried are such examples. These terms are used by professionals and the general public and carry both positive and negative associations. In part, they are used to avoid the perceived negative aspect of using the word "step" to more aptly reflect and differentiate this distinct family structure (Coleman & Ganong, 1987).

Increasingly, the stepchild has become a shared metaphor symbolizing inferiority and neglect, for example, "the graphics division is the stepchild of the company." The pervasiveness of the evil stepmother theme in children's literature, according to Wald (1981), is reflected in the widely held view that "step is less." Similarly, the "Cinderella complex" is also a shorthand means of connoting inferiority and victimization. These terms are used widely in the media and everyday speech and are indicative of the pejorative meanings associated with step relationships within the dominant culture.

Biological Ties and Origins of Nuclear Family Truths

The biological nuclear family is an example of what Bruner (1990) categorized as a "canonical" narrative or story. Canonical stories are those that bolster, champion, and provide the moral weight to societal norms and conventions. In this case, the story is that of two people marrying, producing offspring, and rearing the children in a nuclear family. Some of the norms are marriage, fidelity, and authority over one's own children. Although few would argue with the value of these norms, both psychological and legal problems arise because this dominant story no longer reflects reality for many families. Given that nearly half the children in the United States do not live in a biological nuclear family, why is this dominant story so resistant to transformation?

Fifteen years ago, Bartlett (1984), a law professor at Duke University, explored what she termed the "socially defined rule" of the "exclusivity," or privileging, of biological parenthood. She contended that the origins are found in two deeply imbedded ideologies. The first of these accepted truths is that of divine or natural law. Within the framework of natural law is the belief that parental rights are at the heart of the social order. The family is the sacred building block of society, and parents must be unshackled to raise their children as they see fit. The natural law, according to Bartlett, has been interpreted very strictly to protect and preserve the rights of biological parents.

The second ideology is that of instrumentalism. This doctrine encompasses the goal of the protection of children and is based on the belief that properly raised children benefit society as a whole. A part of the instrumentalist perspective is that parents are the best to handle the care of their own children. As with natural law, the presumption is that biological parents are more likely to do what is best for their children than anyone else. This viewpoint sheds light on why the biological nuclear family is entrenched as the prototype of normative family life, and the stepfamily and other nonnuclear families are viewed as second best, if not aberrant. This perspective is exemplified in polices (for example, resistance to terminating parental rights and heavy subsidization of reproductive technology) and family laws that are incongruent with the emotional and financial needs of children.

Influences of the Dominant Story on Family Policy

Despite the increasing prevalence of stepfamilies, policies and laws affecting them have been slow to address the associated and inevitable social and legal issues. At the federal level, legislation affecting stepfamilies, notably social security and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, is often inconsistent and unfair to stepchildren (Mason & Mauldon, 1996; Ramsey, 1994). It is state law, however, that establishes policies most affecting family life, and these policies are the focus of this discussion. At the state level, laws relating to stepfamilies are noticeably absent. Mason and Mauldon described the status of stepparents as a "legal and social limbo" (p. 12) and noted that they are rarely viewed as "real" or legitimate parents, but in reality stepparents assume many, if not all, real parental obligations.

Policy reform is relevant to the financial security of children in step families, primarily because of stepfamily fragility. The vast majority of stepfamilies (77 percent) are stepfather families with custodial mothers. The income of stepfathers has been shown to be essential in preventing and ending poverty (Brooks-Gunn, 1994). The divorce rate among stepfamilies is also high. About 25 percent of remarried women separate from their spouses within five years (Norton & Miller, 1992) and between 30 percent and 40 percent of stepchildren experience a divorce of their custodial parent and stepparent (Wilson & Clarke, 1992). Thus, stepchildren are often economically as well as emotionally vulnerable.

Stepparents' Rights and Responsibilities during Marriage

One way to consider stepparents' rights and responsibilities is to compare them with those of biological parents. Although biological parents have responsibilities to "support, care for, educate, and discipline their child as well as the rights to custody and control of the child" (Ramsey, 1994, p. 218), stepparents in most states have none of these obligations or rights. Even stepparents living with the custodial parent have no legal status in relation to the child. A residential stepparent, in fact, has fewer rights than does a legal guardian or foster parent (Mason & Mauldon, 1996). They have no legal authority to discipline, authorize emergency medical treatment, or even sign a school report card.

The concern of some policymakers and practitioners is that this lack of legal recognition may undermine role expectations of the stepparent, who in turn may abdicate family responsibilities. Similar to students from whom teachers expect little and who give up trying, some stepparents also may give up, perceiving their role to be superfluous. Stepparent role functioning is critical, however, and there is strong evidence showing it to be the most important predictor of stability and satisfaction in remarriage (Bray & Kelly, 1998; Crosbie-Burnett, 1984).

Stepparents' Rights and Responsibilities after Marriage

State statutes and common law almost uniformly terminate the stepparent-stepchild relationship after divorce or death of the biological parent. Only five states have statutes requiring support during marriage (Fine & Fine, 1992), and only one, North Dakota, requires a stepparent to continue financial support of children after a divorce. In most states, stepparents have no legal rights to custody or visitation. Custody is almost always granted to the biological parent (Mason & Mauldon, 1996). In general, the courts view stepparents as third parties. Only five states authorize stepparent visitation rights under certain circumstances (Ramsey, 1994), and 10 states permit visitation of third parties that include stepparents.

The effect on vulnerable stepchildren can be great. The "silence" of the laws on step relationships puts children at risk in two major ways. The first is economic because there are few legal safeguards to ensure that children who reside with stepparents are adequately supported during the marriage or for any period of time after the marriage in the event of divorce. The second is emotional because current laws afford few means of protecting and nurturing attachment bonds that may develop between stepparents and children. In the event of death or divorce, stepchildren may be prevented from continuing a meaningful relationship with a stepparent and vice versa (Bartlett, 1984). The following example illustrates this point.

Case Study: John

John married Ellen when her children were two and four years old. The children's biological father did not contribute to their support and had only sporadic contact with the children over the next seven years. John acted in the role of father to the children, providing both emotional and financial support. Ellen died of a brain tumor when the children were ages nine and 11. John sued for custody, but custody was granted to the biological father. The state did not permit stepparent visitation, nor did the state where the father moved. Despite persistent efforts, John and the children had only minimal contact in the ensuing years.

Rethinking the Ties That Bind

Many family ties and parent-child relationships today represent a "psychological" rather than a biological family. The premise put forth here is that one family form should not threaten, demean, or replace the other. In a society that encourages multiplicity and diversity, a variety of family structures should be able to exist side by side.

Social workers can help shape more appropriate policies by fostering and advocating for new family values that are based not only on biology, but also on affection and moral and social responsibility. As consultants to political leaders, courts, and legislatures, social workers need to encourage more fluid constructions of the meaning of family, as well as the implementation of measures that facilitate fairness and greater stability within the stepfamily. This requires a paradigmatic shift away from the nuclear family benchmark of how families should look and act to a conscious will to move beyond traditional mental images and passe stereotypes.

An interesting proposal endorsed by a number of legal and family advocates (Fine & Fine, 1992; Mason & Mauldon, 1996) is based on an English law enacted in 1991, entitled the Children Act of 1989. Under this legislation, a residential stepparent married to the child's biological parent for two years may obtain a "residence order" that gives him or her authority similar to that of the parent. The rationale is simply that it makes sense for adults living with minor children to have parental responsibilities (Ramsey, 1994). These responsibilities do not negate biological parental commitments to their children. However, they do extend the number of adults who are responsible for the children in the family. This represents a new way of thinking about families. It not only legitimizes the concept of multiple parents, but also focuses more on the needs of children and less on the rights of parents (Ramsey).

Mason and Mauldon (1996) and other family advocates went even further in their reconceptualization of stepfamilies. In addition to endorsing the English system just described, they proposed that if the marriage ends a stepparent's financial commitment to the children should continue based on a formula, most likely the length of the marriage. Requiring stepparents to continue to support their stepchildren for some prorated interim period not only would help ensure that the economic needs of children are met, but also would underscore the overall moral obligations to children that are undertaken when parents remarry (Mason & Mauldon).

Implementation of such measures may help to underscore for both stepfamily members and society at large that stepfamilies (and other non-nuclear families) also bear the duty of mutual commitment and obligation.

Influences of the Dominant Story on Family Practice

The premise that practitioners work with individuals and clients in a neutral value-free therapeutic environment, guided only by theory and technique, has been challenged for some time. This more scientific ideology has given way to the realization that the practitioner's office is neither a culture nor value-free zone. Helping professionals, like all people, operate within a cultural context. Holland (1991) contended that, in addition to a theoretical orientation, practitioners are guided by their interpretations and these are grounded in values and beliefs. He argued that what the practitioner chooses to focus on is often not what is but rather what they believe it should be. The power differential between a client and a helping professional makes it likely that clients surrender their versions of their stories to the more privileged interpretation of professionals (Saleebey, 1994). Thus, practitioners operating under the dominant nuclear family story may inadvertently add to, rather than lessen, stepfamily dilemmas.

Pitfalls of the Nuclear Family Model

Attempts to follow the model of the biological nuclear family are the most frequently cited problem associated with stepfamily adjustment (Papernow, 1993; Visher & Visher, 1996). This may take the form of requesting that the stepparent be called "Mom" or "Dad," by the stepparent quickly assuming a disciplinarian role, or by attempting to de-emphasize the "old family" or nonresidential parent. In some cases, expectations for the second marriage are even higher than the first--this time they will get it right; this spouse has none of the previous one's imperfections. Another pitfall occurs when adults adhere to one or more common stepfamily myths such as that of instant love--"to love me is to love my child"--and instant family--"adjustment takes only a short time" (Visher & Visher). These beliefs and misguided behaviors underscore the lack of other appropriate family models and perhaps the wish to disassociate with a stigmatized group.

If a practitioner operates under the nuclear family paradigm when working with stepfamilies, problematic stepfamily interactions maybe viewed in pathological rather than normative terms (Visher & Visher, 1996). Established indicators of positive family functioning, such as clear boundaries, family loyalty, and cohesion, are typically absent or not as strong in stepfamilies (Chollak, 1989; Pill, 1990). Thus, an assessment of remarried families through the lens of nuclear family norms may result in faulty conclusions and inappropriate advice. This is likely to frustrate and anger more savvy clients and result in early termination. If both the practitioner and the family share the same nuclear family vision, interventions are likely to be ineffectual.

Practitioner-Held Values and Biases

Because social workers are members of society and subject to the same myths, stereotypes, and cultural norms as everyone else, it is likely that their attitudes may be susceptible to negative bias also. Although practitioner bias can and does occur with any kind of family, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is stronger with stepfamilies (Visher & Visher, 1996). The results of a vignette study of counselors' perceptions of stepparents and stepchildren showed that stepparents and adolescent stepchildren were systematically viewed as less potent and well-adjusted than their nuclear family counterparts (Bryan, Ganong, Coleman, & Bryan, 1985). Such biases may thwart a practitioner's ability to provide families with needed support and validation.

Reconstructing a New Family Story

Narrative theory has formed the basis of an intriguing treatment model that has been found to be effective with a variety of problems (Sluzki, 1992; White & Epston, 1990). Narrative therapy is especially useful for stepfamilies and members of any stigmatized group because of its focus on client narratives and their social-cultural context. The central focus is on the story and telling it, because only through stories can the meaning and significance of important life events or themes be conveyed. For stepfamily members this may include not only telling their personal stories, but also deconstructing some of the larger constraining cultural stories, for example, the wicked stepmother or Cinderella complex, that influence perceptions and behavior. The dominant story of many people seeking professional help has often become "problem saturated" or so filled with negatives that any strengths or alternatives can no longer be identified. The goal of treatment is, therefore, to destabilize the dominant story by trans forming it through a new understanding and interaction (Sluzki).

Under this social constructionist approach, the practitioner eschews the role of all-knowing expert and adopts the role of collaborator and joint investigator (Neimeyer & Mahoney, 1995; White & Epston, 1990). By maintaining a respectful curiosity, interest, and empathy, a climate of openness is created. Through focused and reflexive questioning, practitioners facilitate not only clients telling their stories, but also their identifying unique and often overlooked adaptive aspects. The practitioner also focuses on static beliefs and cultural stories that restrain change and perpetuate feelings of inferiority or powerlessness. Holding multiple views of reality and considering multiple alternatives are encouraged.

A central therapeutic task is that of "externalizing of the problem." Externalizing the problem, according to White and Epston (1990), is a way of helping clients separate themselves from it and begin to view the problem as something more tangible and amenable to change, rather than an intractable personal flaw. This may involve labeling, objectifying, or personifying it. Externalizing also incorporates tracing the degree to which the problem has encroached on the clients' lives and situations under which they have been able to combat it. Energies are then mobilized to experimenting with new, more effective "unique outcomes."

Typically, adult members of stepfamilies begin their narrative in a historical, sequential context. The story often unfolds with the ending of the former marriage followed by the events that led to the current one. This affords the practitioner the opportunity to explore predominant themes and the meaning of any divorces (or prior relationships) and expectations of the new marriage. The following vignette illustrates the narrative format and how narrative concepts were used to reconstruct a new, and more adaptive, story.

Case Study: Pam

Pam's story began six years earlier with the end of her first marriage to Ron after learning of Ron's extramarital affair. Without children, Pam focused her energies on her career and started moving up the corporate ladder, eventually meeting Dave. "I was doing well," Pam reported, "I didn't need to get married. I married Dave because I loved him and still do ... at least I think I do." Dave and Pam had many things in common when they met three years ago, including the fact that Dave's first wife also had affairs. This was one reason why he now had custody of his three children, ages nine, 13, and 15. Pam said that she knew that she was taking on a lot when she married Dave a year later, but that she was committed to making it all work. Now she was not so sure. The 15-year-old "dressed like a tramp just like her mother" and was rude and hostile. The younger boys were more accepting of Pam but treated her "like a maid." Life was also unpredictable because the children's mother frequently changed plans at the l ast minute and was generally unreliable.

Treatment began with listening for the themes in Pam's stories and exploring the meaning of her divorce, her vision for a new family, and her views of her part in the story. Through focused questioning and collaborative interpreting, several themes emerged. One was a deep well of loss from her first marriage that was manifested in hypersensitivity about rejection, especially from her stepchildren. A second theme concerned Pam's expectations of family life. Pam fantasized about becoming the children's "good mother." She also overcompensated for fear of being viewed as, or labeled, a "wicked stepmother." Pam had given up her management position and was working part time to be home for the children. Not surprisingly, they did not appreciate her sacrifice, leaving Pam resentful. Finally, Pam's expectation that Dave's former wife, Lora, would "just go away" did not materialize. Lora continued to play a role in their lives, and Pam frequently found herself ruminating about Lora's looks and seemingly carefree lifest yle.

Through storying her experiences, Pam revised her definition of the problem. By the second session, the problem evolved from "my chronically depressed state of mind" to "needing more help around the house" and "my nonstop Lora videos." Having become aware of how much influence she was attributing to Lora, strategies were identified for exerting more control over these ruminations. This was also framed in terms of giving herself a "bigger part" in her story, and for Lora a more appropriate "bit part." Dave joined the next session and shared his dream of having a "great family," and with Pam they deconstructed what it meant to them to be a stepfamily. As these views were externalized, both spouses gradually revised their expectations and behavior. They were encouraged to consider and try other options for functioning as a new stepfamily as opposed to a nuclear family.

Over the course of a year, Pam and Dave developed a new family "script." Relinquishing her dream of becoming the mother the children never had, Pam returned to work full-time and reconnected with former friends. She also became less sensitive about being slighted or about what other people thought of her as a stepmother. She reported that she no longer had the "time or interest" to think about Dave's former wife. Dave cut back his work hours and took more responsibility for the children. With the realization that they were not likely to recreate a traditional nuclear family, Dave and Pam encouraged the children to spend more time with their natural mother. This relieved some relationship tensions and gave Pam and Dave more needed couple time. Several months after termination, Pam wrote, "it's not the one I had imagined, but I'm a lot happier with this story!"

Conclusion

Our nuclear-based family culture has been the dominant paradigm for life over many generations in U.S. society. Like most enduring stories this has served a useful purpose. It has advanced and supported the norms of parental responsibility and instilled a sense of family cohesion and identity. But, as with other privileged institutions that maintain the status quo, it has tended to marginalize other family forms.

Our societal preference for biological families is evidenced in family laws that are based on the premise of the nuclear family. These laws and policies often are not applicable to more complex stepfamilies, and reliance on them continues to foster a collective invisibility and a more limited family experience. In clinical practice with stepfamilies, adherence to a nuclear family paradigm may result in missed opportunities for new options and the creation of alternative stories. Narrative theory is relevant to the stepfamily experience because of its consideration of the relationship between dominant truths and social control, as well as its clinical applications. With its emphasis on multiple realities and alternative stories, a narrative approach affords stepfamilies and social work practitioners a framework that fosters flexibility and empowerment.

In contemporary U.S. society children grow up in a multitude of family types outside the range of the dominant nuclear family culture. Nearly 25 percent of all minor children live in a stepfamily, and many more are raised by single parents, grandparents, gay parents, and a host of other family arrangements. As a profession that endorses diversity and equality, social work needs to foster family stability, as well as social stability, by encouraging new family values. These are values that honor and respect kinship ties based on affection and moral responsibility, rather than biology alone. As individuals, this requires self-examination

of our own beliefs, biases, and values, and a willingness to move beyond the restriction of our own cultural and family experiences.

Original manuscript received October 18, 1999

Final revision received June 7, 2000

Accepted September 20, 2000

References

Bartlett, K. (1984). Rethinking parenthood as an exclusive status: The need for legal alternatives when the premise of the nuclear family has failed. Virginia Law Review, 70, 879-896.

Booth, A., & Edwards, J. (1992). Starting over: Why remarriages are more unstable. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 179-194

Bray, J., & Kelly, J. (1998). Stepfamilies: Love, marriage, and parenting in the first decade. New York: Broadway Books.

Brooks-Gunn, J. (1994). Research on stepparenting families: Integrating disciplinary approaches and informing policy. In A. Booth & J. Dunn (Eds.), Stepfamilies: Who benefits? Who does not? (pp. 167- 189). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Browning, S. (1994). Treating stepfamilies: Alternatives to family traditional therapy. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tailman (Eds.), Stepparenting: Issues in theory, research, and practice (pp. 175-197). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bruner, E. (1986). Ethnography as narrative. In V. W. Turner & E. M. Bruner (Eds.), The anthropology of experience (pp. 139-155). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bryan, S., Ganong, L., Coleman, M., & Bryan, L. (1985). Counselors' perceptions of stepparents and stepchildren. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32,279-282.

Bumpass, L., Raley, R., & Sweet, J. (1995). The changing character of stepfamilies: Implications of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing. Demography, 32, 425-436.

Chollak, H. (1989). Stepfamily adaptability and cohesion: A normative study. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.

Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. (1985). Remarriage myths: Implications for the helping professions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 116-120.

Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. (1987). The cultural stereotyping of stepfamilies. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 19-41). New York: Guilford Press.

Crosbie-Burnett, M. (1984). The centrality of the step relationship: A challenge to family theory and practice. Family Relations, 33, 459-463.

Fine, M., & Fine, D. (1992). Recent changes in laws affecting stepfamilies: Suggestions for reform. Family Relations, 41, 334-340.

Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Middlesex, England: Peregrine Books.

Holland, T. (1991). Narrative, knowledge, and professional practice. Social Thought, 17, 32-40.

Mason, M. A., & Mauldon, J. (1996). The new stepfamily requires a new public policy. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 11-27.

Neimeyer, R., & Mahoney, M. (1995). Constructivism in psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Press.

Norton, A., & Miller, F. (1992). Marriage, divorce and remarriage in the 1990s. Current population reports (Series P23-180). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Papernow, P. (1993). Becoming a stepfamily: Patterns of development in remarried families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pill, C. (1990). Stepfamilies: Redefining the family. Family Relations, 39, 186-193.

Ramsey, S. (1994). Stepparents and the law: A nebulous status and a need for reform. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman (Eds.), Stepparenting: Issues in theory, research, and practice(pp. 217-237). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Saleebey, D. (1994). Culture, theory, and narrative: The intersection of meanings in practice. Social Work, 39, 351-359.

Sluzki, C. (1992). Transformations: A blueprint for narrative changes in therapy. Family Process, 31, 217-230.

Visher, E., & Visher, J. (1996). Therapy with stepparents. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Wald, E. (1981). The remarried family: Challenge and promise. New York: Family Service Association of America.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W. W. Norton.

Wilson, B., & Clarke, S. (1992). Remarriages: A demographic profile. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 123-141.

Zill, N., & Schoenborn, C. (1991). Developmental, learning, and emotional problems: Health of our nation's children, United States, 1988. In Advance data from vital and health statistics (No. 190). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Anne C. Jones, PhD, ACSW, is clinical assistant professor, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina, CB No. 3550, 301 Pittsboro Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; e-mail: annejone@email.unc.edu. The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. Carol Swenson, Simmons College School of Social Work, for her support and guidance.