Normal Families
Michel Foucault was a French philosopher who studied power and how society shapes people's beliefs and behaviour.
If the so-called normal family is simply a social construct that upholds power structures, then isn’t it time we rethink what family truly means?
The concept of the normal family has heavily influenced social policies and cultural norms, particularly within the pro-family movement. However, much like the eugenics movement that came before it, this movement is rooted in racist ideas. The normal family isn’t just a typical family structure, it’s an idea designed to push a specific vision of society (Sear, 2021b). To uphold this ideal, efforts were made to encourage certain families to thrive while actively discouraging others (Eugenics and Scientific Racism, n.d.).
The shaping and defining of family ideals reflect larger systems of power and control that scholars have explored. Foucault explains that dominant ideas become part of everyday thinking and institutions, shaping behaviours (and policies) in ways that often go unnoticed (Michel Foucault, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022c). Through discipline and normalization, society encourages people to follow certain norms without needing force. His ideas explain how institutions and social expectations guide individuals to conform to specific ideas about family, reinforcing socially constructed ideals. In this family context, particular ideas about what a proper family looks like are not just personal beliefs but are reinforced by media, schools, policies, and cultural expectations (Key Concepts, 2023). Over time, people begin to internalize these ideas and believe them to be the right way to live instead of seeing them as socially constructed.
Eugenics was only practiced in Nazi Germany.
The phrase "smart people should have kids" reflects eugenic thinking.
The pro-family movement distanced itself from racism by focusing on social factors instead.
Immigration policies today are entirely separate from past eugenic ideas.
The shift toward recognizing diverse family structures (ie-LGBQT2+) is a modern development.
Key Concepts
Eugenics
Humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations (Eugenics and Scientific Racism, n.d.)
In the early to mid-20th century, various groups sought to shape societal ideals around family and reproduction by encouraging childbearing among those deemed intelligent and morally upright while restricting it for individuals labeled unfit, such as those with mental illness, criminal histories, disabilities, or behaviours that deviated from social norms (Eugenics, 2019; Cheung et al., 2021). The goal was to cultivate desirable traits while eliminating those considered problematic. As McWhorter (2009, p. 249) notes, these efforts aimed to ensure families produced “intelligent, hard-working, sane, temperate, and moral” children, reinforcing social hierarchies under the disguise of genetic improvement. “After all, it was not racism” (p. 249, par 1).
These beliefs were widely accepted across North America, leading to state intervention in reproductive rights. Both the U.S. and Canada implemented policies that resulted in the forced sterilization of individuals deemed unsuitable for parenthood, particularly people with disabilities and people with low incomes (Patel, 2017; McWhorter, 2009, p. 245).
In the early 20th century, beliefs about controlling population traits were widely accepted across North America. Laws in both the U.S. and Canada permitted state intervention in reproductive rights, including policies that led to the forced sterilization of individuals deemed unsuitable for parenthood, people with disabilities, and people with low incomes (Patel, 2017; McWhorter, 2009, p. 245).
Racial and Social Hierarchies
Different racial groups are situated at varying levels of power and privilege within society (Braveman et al., 2022).
The idea of the "normal family" has been historically influenced by racial and social hierarchies, favouring white, nuclear households while excluding those that did not fit this mold (McWhorter, 2009, p. 251). Eugenicist Paul Popenoe was instrumental in shaping this concept, tying family structure to notions of racial purity and societal control. He framed the family as a mechanism for maintaining white dominance (Ladd‐Taylor, 2001). As McWhorter (2009) explains, this ideal prioritized reproduction among those deemed "fit" while excluding racial minorities, single-parent households and same-sex couples (pp. 253-254).
For Popenoe and other eugenicists, the "normal family" was intentionally racialized (McWhorter, 2009, p. 255). The ideal family was constructed as white, male-dominated, and heterosexual, functioning as a mechanism for enforcing racial and social hierarchies. This ideology influenced policies that denied African American families, Indigenous families, and immigrants’ access to economic security and reproductive autonomy (McWhorter pp. 256-257). During the early 20th century, legal and economic barriers further prevented Black families from accumulating wealth, reinforcing whiteness as the defining characteristic of the "normal" family (McWhorter, 2009, pp. 253-254).
State Control
The government's authority to regulate and enforce policies over institutions and individuals (State Control - (AP US Government) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, n.d.)
The idea of the normal family did not naturally evolve but was deliberately constructed and enforced by the state to uphold racial, economic, and social hierarchies (McWhorter, 2009, p. 251). Through laws governing marriage, reproductive rights, and social programs, governments have actively shaped family structures to reinforce white, patriarchal, and capitalist ideals.
State policies played a large role in defining acceptable family models, with laws that banned interracial marriage, restricted reproductive choices, and limited financial support for families that deviated from the nuclear ideal (McWhorter 2009, p. 255).
McWhorter (2009) discusses how government intervention in family life was not just about social organization but a tool of systemic exclusion, embedding racial, gender, and class inequalities within legal and economic systems. While overt eugenic policies have somewhat disappeared, contemporary laws and policies still prioritize nuclear families, often placing marginalized groups at a disadvantage (Eugenics and Scientific Racism, n.d.) . The state's continued role in shaping family structures demonstrates the presence of these hierarchies in modern society (McWhorter, 2009, pp. 256-257).
A Dangerous Idea: The History of Eugenics in America
We recommend watching the entire video for a comprehensive understanding; however, 3:22 to 20:40 is particularly important. This section explores the history of eugenics in the U.S. and critiques how eugenics framed social issues as biological flaws. The history of eugenics is important in understanding the intersection of science, politics and systemic oppression.
⚠️ Content Warning: This documentary discusses the forced sterilization of marginalized women, particularly women of colour. Some stories may be distressing. Viewer discretion is advised.
Contemporary Examples and Connections
While some injustices and forms of exclusion may appear to belong to the past, they continue to persist in evolving ways, at times visibly, at others beneath the surface. These realities have not faded with time.
Click the links to learn more:
Although officially discontinued, forced sterilization programs continued well into the late 20th century and, in some cases, still occur today. These policies disproportionately targeted Indigenous, Black, and Latina women under the disguise of public health, economic responsibility, and social improvement (Washington, 2006). But who decides which lives should be controlled in this way?
In Canada, reports confirm that Indigenous women were subjected to coerced sterilization as recently as the 1970s, with evidence suggesting it continued into the 21st century (Senate Committee on Human Rights, 2021). Some were misled, pressured, or sterilized without their knowledge, decisions made for them by a system that saw their reproduction as a problem to be solved.
In the U.S., Black and Latina women were disproportionately affected by these programs, often without their informed consent (Stern, 2005). Mexican-American women in California and Black women in the South were sterilized under policies rooted in eugenics and racial control.
The consequences are deep and lasting: generational trauma, loss of bodily autonomy, and a distrust in medical institutions. Acknowledging this is about recognizing that reproductive rights should never be subject to debate, control, or convenience. They are not privileges to be granted, they are rights that should never have been taken away.
Restrictions on reproductive rights disproportionately impact women of colour, who often face barriers to healthcare, financial instability, and lack of reproductive autonomy, echoing earlier eugenic goals of controlling “undesirable” populations.
From 20th-century sterilization programs targeting Black women in the U.S. to the documented cases of Indigenous women in Canada being sterilized without consent into the 21st century (Senate Committee on Human Rights, 2021), these violations have shaped generations. Today, restrictions on abortion access and contraception disproportionately impact marginalized communities, continuing the legacy of reproductive control under new justifications (WLRC, n.d.).
Black and Indigenous families are disproportionately investigated and separated by child welfare agencies, continuing the eugenic policies that deemed them unfit parents. While these interventions are often framed as protecting children, they raise an important question: Who defines good parenting?
Historically, Indigenous children in Canada were forcibly removed and placed in residential schools, a practice that evolved into the modern foster care system, where Indigenous children remain vastly overrepresented (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). In the U.S., Black families have long faced surveillance and intervention from child welfare agencies at disproportionate rates, a reality rooted in racialized assumptions of neglect rather than actual harm (Roberts, 2002). Today, Black and Indigenous parents are more likely to have their children taken due to poverty-related concerns, rather than abuse, reinforcing cycles of state control rather than offering meaningful support (National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, 2021).
Summary
-
The idea of a normal family is not just a common family type but a social concept created to maintain power and control.
-
The pro-family movement has ties to eugenics, shaping policies to benefit certain families while limiting the rights and opportunities of marginalized groups.
-
Governments have reinforced this ideal through marriage laws, reproductive policies, and child welfare systems, promoting white, male-dominated, and capitalist family structures.
-
The focus on the nuclear family has excluded minorities, deepening social inequalities.
-
Eugenics still influence today’s policies, including restrictions on reproductive rights and child welfare practices that disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
Designed and written by Meagan Baranyk
References
Braveman, P. A., Arkin, E., Proctor, D., Kauh, T., & Holm, N. (2022). Systemic and Structural racism: definitions, examples, health damages, and approaches to dismantling. Health Affairs, 41(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01394
Cheung, B. Y., Schmalor, A., & Heine, S. J. (2021). The role of genetic essentialism and genetics knowledge in support for eugenics and genetically modified foods. PloS one, 16(9), e0257954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257954
Eugenics. (2019, October 28). History.com editors. https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/eugenics#forced-sterilizations
Eugenics and scientific racism. (n.d.). Genome.gov. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism
Key concepts. (2023, October 14). Foucault News. https://michel-foucault.com/key-concepts/
Ladd‐Taylor, M. (2001). Eugenics, Sterilisation and Modern Marriage in the USA: The Strange Career of Paul Popenoe. Gender & History, 13(2), 298–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0424.00230
McWhorter, L (2009). Racism and Sexual Oppression in Anglo-America: A Genealogy. Indiana University Press
Michel Foucault (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2022c, August 5). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. (2021). Child welfare and racial bias: The facts. Retrieved from https://nccpr.org/
Patel, P. (2017). Forced sterilization of women as discrimination. Public Health Reviews, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-017-0060-9
Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. Basic Books.
Sear, R. (2021b). The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the ‘traditional’ human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 376(1827). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0020
Senate Committee on Human Rights. (2021). Sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada. Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://sencanada.ca/
Stern, A. M. (2005). Eugenic nation: Faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America. University of California Press.
State Control - (AP US Government) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable. (n.d.). https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-gov/state-control
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Volume one, summary. James Lorimer & Company.
Washington, H. A. (2006). Medical apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from colonial times to the present. Doubleday.
Women’s Leadership and Resource Center (WLRC). (n.d.). Reproductive oppression against Black women. University of Illinois Chicago. Retrieved from https://wlrc.uic.edu/reproductive-oppression-against-black-women/