ALEXIS WALKER Oregon State University

Families and Social Change

As editor of the Journal of Marriage and Fam-ily, I read many fine manuscripts on topics thatwould fascinate anyone with an interest in fami-lies. Occasionally, however, I come across onethat stands apart. Margaret Nelson has writtensuch a manuscript, and I am delighted to giveyou an opportunity to read it in this issue.

Nelson challenges prevailing thinking aboutvariations in family structure, arguing that singlemothers negotiate their relations with their ownmothers—andwith their boyfriends and potentialhusbands—in ways that reflect the StandardNorth American Family (SNAF; Smith, 1993)ideal. Her provocative ideas intrigued reviewers,yet questions were raised about her work as well.Although her methodology is grounded in a long-standing qualitative research tradition, it is oneseldom seen within the pages of this journal. Re-viewers tend to be skeptical of methods withwhich they are not familiar, appropriately so.Here was an opportunity to draw attention toNelson’s exciting work and at the same timedemonstrate to less familiar readers the trust-worthiness of her method.

I sought comments on Nelson’s manuscriptfrom four scholars. Rosanna Hertz’s just-published book, Single by Choice, Mothers byChance (Oxford Press) focuses on a differentpopulation of single mothers from Nelson’s butengages with a related subject. Indeed, Nelsonbuilds on Hertz’s work in her article. Sheaccepted my invitation to situate Nelson’sresearch within its methodological tradition ofprocessual accounts and also points to its theo-retical contributions.

Andrew Cherlin, who has shown how singlemothers build and maintain social networks,points to the uniqueness of Nelson’s perspectivein demonstrating how single mothers createboundaries. Hewonderswhether race plays a rolethat cannot be seen in Nelson’s study, focused asit is on rural, poor, White women in Vermont. Incontrast to Nelson’s, his reading of the data sug-gests that these single mothers are creating decid-edly ‘‘un-SNAF-like’’ families.

Natalia Sarkisian, who studies variations infamily integration and kin support by race andgender, argues that the combination of structuraland cultural forces facing single mothers calls forattention to the boundary ambiguity, role ambi-guity, and intergenerational ambivalence in theirlives. She, too, problematizes Nelson’s statementsabout African American families, and she drawsattention to the cultural values behind theSNAF ideal as well as the special nature of themother-child bond for understanding these singlemothers.

Finally, Suzanne Bianchi, whose program ofresearch highlights the dramatic changes inwomen’s lives over the past 50 years, points tothe roles of gender and generation in Nelson’sdata. She also questions the idea of ‘‘doing fam-ily,’’ arguing that some family relationships,notably those of mothers and their children, seemresistant to ‘‘deconstruction.’’ She draws atten-tion to other potential influences on kin ties andechoes Sarkisian in pointing to intergenerationalambivalence as a useful construct for interrogat-ing the experience of these women. She turns,in the end, to the heuristic value of Nelson’swork.

Margaret Nelson responded to these com-ments graciously, with enthusiasm, and withsome new ideas as well. She welcomed the

Oregon State University, 322 Milam Hall, Corvallis, OR97331-5102 (walkera@oregonstate.edu).

Journal of Marriage and Family 68 (November 2006): 779–780 779

opportunity to speculate about issues raised bythese distinguished readers, such as the(relative) importance of maternal grandparents,ambivalence as an outcome of the conflictbetween structure and ideology, and the con-tinuing—and changing—roles of men infamilies. She ends her rejoinder with questionsthat should stir the imagination of familyresearchers.

If my synopsis has not peaked your curiosityabout these six papers, not to worry. A great dealof other interesting work also appears in thisissue, with much more to come in December.

REFERENCE

Smith, D. E. (1993). The Standard North American

Family: SNAF as an ideological code. Journal ofFamily Issues, 14, 50 – 65.

780 Journal of Marriage and Family