A number of researchers have suggested that children learn their attitudes, skills and behaviour from their parents through family socialisation (Buijzen and Valkenburg, 2013; and Benson, 2013). Family socialisation literature indicates that different aspects of family communication patterns have an effect on children and adolescents, and their influence over family decisions (Kerrane and Hogg, 2013; and Bott and Spillius, 2014). Prochaska (2013) pointed out that parents are the most important socialisation agents, and therefore understanding the nature of family communication can help in understanding the differences
87
in children’s attitudes and behaviours. Prochaska reiterated that family patterns of communication with their children play a pivotal role in the socialisation process. The argument professed by the theorists, for example, Buijzen and Valkenburg (2013); and Benson (2013) cannot be distant from the truth, but other studies, for example, Lundgren et al (2013); Ogbu (2013); and Wisenblit et al. (2013) have pointed out that it is the kind of family rather than the family meal socialisation process that determines children’s attitudes, skills and behaviours. Therefore, undertaking a research to determine the primary cause of family meal social interaction behaviour is critical.
Two dimensions of parent–child communication in a family have been identified by Sigel et al (2014). Sigel et al suggested that the first is the socio-oriented communication dimension, which is intended to produce obedience from the child in order to foster family harmony. Sigel et al (2014) reiterated that this form of communication is based on monitoring and controlling the behaviour of the children and is motivated by social conformity. In this kind of communication, the children are taught to repress their feelings and not argue with adults. The second dimension, the concept-oriented parental communication dimension, in contrast, encourages children to develop their own view of the world through openness, discussions, controversy, and independent outlook. A number of studies, for example, DiSantis et al (2013); Nestle (2013); and Schiffman et al (2013) indicated that parents may consult their children at family meal times and value their opinions in purchase decisions even for products that are not for their consumption. Nestle (2013) posited that children in concept- oriented families are expected to exert more influence on family food preparation and purchase decisions compared with those in families with socio-oriented parents. The proposition by the theorists, including: DiSantis et al (2013); Nestle (2013); and Schiffman et al. (2013) that parents would consult their children at meal times is largely dependent on the kind of social groups or family the children are coming from and also on the social settings. Undertaking a study to clarify this argument is essential.
A number of studies, for example, Giddens (2013); and Trepper and Werner-Wilson (2013), have suggested that children and adolescents have more influence in democratic families where parents try to foster a balance between parents’ and children’s rights and valuing self- expression and autonomy. This construct is consistent with what was proposed in a recent study conducted by Hui et al (2014), who defined legitimate power, as the degree to which the person is perceived to have the right to exert his/her influence in a decision with personal
88
consequences towards him/her. Hui et al found out that legitimate power had a significant impact on parents’ perception of children’s influence at the dinner table. Burdelski (2014) noted that mealtimes are cultural sites not only for family eating, but also for communication. Burdelski emphasised that the determinant of who participates in which kinds of communicative practices during mealtimes is linked to historically rooted ideologies and practices in most families. Zbenovich and Lerner (2013) recommended that, in addressing children’s socialisation into family mealtime communication, it is always important to consider both the norms of appropriate mealtime communication and the social positioning of children in mealtime communication, which can be essential in integrating and making the children acceptable not only in the family, but enhances their chances of conforming to the general norms of the society. The view of Burdelski mirrors what is obtained in Sierra Leone, but an in-depth study is needed to unravel families’ socialisation processes at mealtimes. A number of studies have suggested that norms of communication may include the norm that all family members or social relations around the dinner table will largely remain silent during the course of the meal. For example, Henrich and Henrich (2013); and Anderson (2014) referenced the Matsigenka of the Peruvian Amazon, who are largely silent during mealtimes. In addition, Arnold (2014); and Roger et al (2014) posited that, in some families and communities, children are expected to generally remain silent while adults converse during family mealtimes, as depicted in the axiom, “children are to be seen, but not to be heard”. A study conducted by King and Fogle (2013) on New England family mealtimes found out that parents significantly dominated the conversation, with children producing only one third of the talk. In a similar study conducted on urban Swedish family mealtimes, John et al (2013), concluded that parents dominated conversation, with mothers providing more than half of all comments at the dinner table. Cooren et al (2013) noted that in families where children are expected to be silent or eat separately or are positioned as servers, minimal or no communication may be directed to them. Nonetheless, Cooren et al argued that they may acquire critical socio-cultural knowledge and skills of the family through observing, listening and overhearing the communication of elders. The arguments put forth by the various theorists cannot be distant from what is obtained in Sierra Leone, but an in-depth study is needed to assert their claims (Henrich and Henrich, 2013; Arnold, 2014; and Roger et al, 2014).
89
Bova and Arcidiacono (2013) stated that during communication activity at mealtimes, children are socialised through different communicative roles into norms for participating in different kinds of mealtime genres considered appropriate by the family. Bova and Arcidiacono stressed that children may assume different forms of participation when they sit with their parents at mealtimes, including acting either as an author (person who composes message), animator (person who speaks the message), principal (person whose views are represented), recipient (person to whom message is directed), or over-hearer (non-recipient who attends to communicative activity). Bova and Arcidiacono further noted that across families, expectations concerning children’s communicative roles always consider a child’s developmental competence as well as the semiotic activity at hand. In investigating children’s socialisation into mealtime communication, most researches focus on children’s participation in the construction of moral discourse (Gordon, 2013; and Poveda et al, 2014). Cohen (2013) pointed out that family’s cultural values or ethics are not only demonstrated at feasts and rituals, but also everyday family meals are rich cultural places for reaffirming moral sentiments of the family and community. Cohen reiterated that mealtimes are pervaded by talk-oriented towards reinforcing what is right and wrong both in the family and outside it. Mann (2015) noted that morality is socialised through grammatical markings of deference and authority, directives, assessments, justifications, excuses, apologies, prayers, storytelling, and other forms of communicative exchange in which children participate. The contradicted views of the theorists on family meal social interaction behaviour needs some thorough examination and in-depth study to clearly assert what is applicable in a specific setting and in specific social group (Bova and Arcidiacono, 2013; Cohen, 2013; and Poveda et al, 2014). A number of studies have pointed to children’s table manners at family mealtimes as a central focus of moral socialisation across historical times and social groups (De Backer et al, 2014;
and Palkovitz, 2014). A study conducted by Treistman (2014) documented how sixteenth- century manuscripts were dedicated to guidelines concerning how French, German, and Italian elite children were to use their napkins and utensils, receive offers of food, and cut and chew meat, and juxtaposed it with contemporary settings. They noted that in modern times families imbue children’s mealtime comportment with moral meanings. In another study conducted in a Northern Vietnamese village, families have been shown to chastise young children, especially girls, for lapses in their comportment, for example, for failing to use chopsticks correctly, sit still and attentively, eat fast with concentration, or otherwise fail to display respect (Shohet, 2013). A similar study conducted on Chinese children noted that,
90
they are socialised to display deference through eating every grain of rice in their bowl and not displaying a strong preference for certain favourite dishes by taking more than others (Ashkenazi and Jacob, 2013; and Ku et al, 2013). The comparison of historic family mealtimes by the theorists with modern day family approaches shows that there is a huge gap in the literature of family meal social interaction (De Backer et al, 2014; and Palkovitz, 2014). A thorough study that looks at family’s meal social interaction behaviour is needed to reduce the confusion highlighted by the theorists.
Ben-Ari (2013); and Chapin (2014) emphasised that an important component of children’s comportment within the family at mealtimes may involve displaying appropriate engagement in mealtime prayers. Hartley et al (2013) conducted a study in the United States and established that the children in certain families are expected to lead, join in, or say their own grace at the start of the meal. Burnett (2013) observed that usually the eldest child in the Irish family leads the grace as this genre was part of their mealtime practice. Burnett stressed that children may be sanctioned when saying grace inappropriately. A number of studies, for example, Conrad (2014); and Jacobson (2014) have shown that parents press their children’s hands together in prayer position and force them to re-join singing grace, which indicates that verbal and non-verbal manoeuvres appear to have a positive outcome. But a similar study pointed out that, in the middle of singing a Johnny Appleseed grace, a child in the family suddenly opens his eyes, throws a fork on the floor, and switches to the Beatles’ song “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” (Corwin, 2014, p. 174). There is evidently a huge contradiction in the findings of the various theorists and therefore conducting a study that helps to reduce this dichotomy is necessary (Burnett, 2013; Conrad, 2014; and Jacobson, 2014).
Duff (2014) proclaimed that for many social groups, family mealtimes are cultural sites for recounting narratives that convey moral messages, including exchanging accounts of personal or collective significance as a central facet of the meal, is just as important as the food consumed. Duff stressed that though in some cases, one family member dominates as narrator, in other cases, the narratives and the moral points they highlight are collaboratively produced by family members, including children. A comparative study undertaken by Bus and Neuman (2014) on Jewish American and Israeli family mealtime narratives, found that socialisation for storytelling in the Jewish-American families relies heavily on adult-child engagement in narrative events focused on child tellers (and heroes); while in the Israeli families, on the other hand, adults take up a larger proportion of narrative space, and hence
91
socialisation for narrative skills . . . relies more heavily on modelling and on allowing (narrow) participation in adult-focused stories. This discrepancy in the study of theorists (Bus and Neuman, 2014) needs to be evaluated to mirror exactly what is obtained among different social groups and in different settings, other than just the Israeli and American situations. Berg and Breheny (2014) reiterated that even when children are not the primary authors, animators, or principals of mealtime narratives in most families or social groups; this genre of communication constitutes a universal and powerful medium for socialising them into moral perspectives. In an earlier study, Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik (2013) suggested that in the United States, dinner is often the moment of the day when family members reunite after work and school, and that it is a cultural site for recounting incidents that transpired in the course of the day or in the recent past. Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik emphasised that telling such narratives often appears to be motivated by a desire not only to update others but also to solicit their sympathies for the teller’s moral stance. In a study conducted by Moore and Brainer (2013) in the United States found that family members of middle-class European American families frequently positioned themselves as morally superior to others. The idea that dinner is the assembly point for discussing what transpired from work or school in the life of each member of the family just reflects a fraction or portion of what family socialisation is all about, as several theorists, for example, Zhou et al (2013); Cicourel (2014); and Ilic and Leinarte (2015) have pointed to story-telling and the discussion of historic and cultural events as one of the drivers of family meal socialisation processes.
Parris (2015) pointed out that U.S. children often have difficulty garnering and maintaining their moral credibility when parents and siblings begin to probe their role in a narrated episode. Parris emphasised that mealtimes in many U.S. households turn out to be cultural sites for surveillance not only of children’s comportment at the table, but also of their past and projected activities as narrated during mealtimes. Consequently, some children come to regard dinnertime as a provocative, even unpleasant moment when they are subjected to interrogation and criticism (Ulanowicz, 2013; and Baker and Fine, 2014). Bova and Arcidiacono (2014) noted that in Italian family dinnertimes, on the other hand, parents almost always side with their children or position them as justified in their actions. This contradictions warrant a thorough research to unravel the underpinning factors responsible for children behaving the way they do at family mealtimes.
92