As the concept and composition of families in South Korea undergo rapid changes, the notion of the “normal family” is becoming increasingly ambiguous. Therefore, this study aims to examine how the media reflects these changes in family structures ...
As the concept and composition of families in South Korea undergo rapid changes, the notion of the “normal family” is becoming increasingly ambiguous. Therefore, this study aims to examine how the media reflects these changes in family structures by analyzing the representation of family in news articles and the underlying ideologies within them. Based on the discourse strategies found in media articles, the study seeks to clarify how the normal family ideology is linguistically represented and how these linguistic representations are re-contextualized in accordance with historical shifts.
The general public, who cannot directly experience information, accesses external news through the media, and the content of these reports functions as a framework for understanding the world. In other words, the public tends to perceive the world only within the information provided by the media, and the information circulated and disseminated through the media becomes socially shared common knowledge. Therefore, if similar representations of the “normal family” continuously appear in news articles, the public is likely to form fixed and standardized images of family. However, most studies on the representation of family in the media have focused on fictional content in visual media, and there has been insufficient discussion on the ideological mechanisms at play in real-world media through detailed textual analysis. This study focuses on filling the gap in existing research by examining how the ideology of the “normal family” is re-contextualized over time in media articles. To achieve this, it compares and analyzes materials from the past (2003–2007) and the present (2019–2023) in a diachronic context, using the moment when the discourse on the “normal (healthy) family” was first introduced as a starting point. Additionally, to specifically analyze how ideologies, identities, and inequalities are (re)executed through texts produced in social and political contexts, the study adopts the perspective of Critical Discourse Studies. Methodologically, it employs a combination of discourse-historical, socio-cognitive, and multimodal critical approaches to overcome methodological limitations and enhance the validity of the analysis.
An analysis of past articles revealed that the linguistic representation of the “normal family” discourse is characterized by stereotyping, problemization, Dichotomization, and prejudicization. First, stereotyping refers to the way in which a specific family structure is set as the standard for what constitutes a family, while families that do not conform to this structure are either excluded or not represented in the articles. The process of stereotyping can be seen in two main ways: ① as a composition of the family, the “four-person family” is used as the norm, and ② as a member of the family, blood relations and heterosexual couples are set as the standard. This stereotyping effectively limits the concept of family to only a particular form, and therefore, it can be said that the subsequent problemization, Dichotomization, and prejudicization all fall within the category of stereotyping, as they all stem from this established standard of what constitutes a “normal” family. Second, problemizationrefers to the process of highlighting non-normative family forms, based on individual choice or freedom, as social issues or agendas. This involves framing atypical families not as individual matters, but as societal problems that need to be overcome or managed. For example, portraying divorce as the “catastrophic collapse” of the family unit or a “disaster” assigns a negative attribute, categorizing it as a problem family. Through this process, the emergence of new family types is framed as a social issue, which, in turn, justifies social or policy measures aimed at managing or addressing atypical families. Third, Dichotomizationinvolves creating a dichotomous structure of “us vs. them” based on a specific family type. The normative family structure becomes the standard, dividing family types into a simplified framework of “our family vs. their family,” which in turn leads to negative depictions of families outside the normative family category. This binary thinking can generate prejudice or discrimination toward out-group members, reinforcing a division between the accepted “normal” family and all other family forms. Finally, prejudicizationis the explicit manifestation of bias against non-normative families by assigning them negative attributes without sufficient evidence. Media articles that carry embedded prejudice contribute to denying the diversity of families while strengthening or distorting negative images of atypical families. Such prejudice can lead the public to perceive non-normative families in a negative light and justify their social exclusion or discrimination.
Based on the discourse strategies outlined above, an analysis of recent articles reveals that the ideology of the normal family is being re-contextualized in similar ways, while new family discourses that resist this are emerging. Although the existing ideology remains dominant, there have been attempts to reflect more supportive views of non-traditional family forms, such as divorce and singlehood, as well as changing values that diverge from traditional marriage norms. In the past, non-traditional families were depicted as negative or incomplete forms, but now there is an increasing perspective that interprets them as a matter of personal choice or freedom, gradually breaking down the boundaries of this binary categorization. However, despite these attempts, social acceptance of non-traditional families in Korean society remains limited. This suggests that non-traditional family forms may still be subjects of discrimination and exclusion, revealing the conflict between changing social values and the persistent traditional ideology.