Focus on the Family: The Medium

Focus on the Family has a clear message: anything outside the heteronormative standard is immoral, today's culture is a destructive force that must be combated, there is only one logical choice when it comes to religion, and that abortion is a destruction of life. It is normal to want to place an inordinate amount of attention on the message when it has the tendency to scathe so many. When looking at the viewpoints of Focus on the Family, analyzing the emotional medium seems like a more apt approach to pursue. What emotional drives propel an organization of this sort to lobby against the issues it does? And furthermore, a look into the emotional medium of the message may allow a clearer glimpse into Focus on the family's motivation as well as the effects of its pursuits. There are very valid reasons behind disregarding the message while paying closer attention to its medium.

When we examine the emotional medium of a message we are better able to discern the factors that supersede the message in magnitude of importance. From Media as Media (2008) by Strate, “The medium is the message because content cannot exist without a medium.” (p. 5) Without emotional context as incentive to drive a message there would be no message. People rely upon their feelings to motivate them to action, and without this motivation Focus on the Family would have no message to convey.

As well the emotional medium behind the message determines the nature of the message.

From Media as Media (2008) by Strate:

And the different forms that they take determine what their meaning and impact will be. The words we think to ourselves seem different when we utter them out loud. The words we write down take on a permanence, distance, and impersonal quality in comparison to speech. (p. 5). Emotions drive a message in a manner similar to how a medium affects the nature of a message. The nature of the emotional medium used by Focus on the Family determines how it is interpreted, experienced, expressed. The emotional medium is works in a way very similar to how the physical medium carries the nature of the message.

Examining the emotional medium of the message gives us two important insights into Focus on the Family.

Tracy, Amy. "Collateral Damage? Children With a Gay Parent Speak Out - Focus on the Family." Focus on the Family: Helping Families Thrive. Web. 10 Dec. 2010. <http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/facing_crisis/my_spouse_struggles_

with_homosexuality/collateral_damage_children_with_a_gay_parent_speak_out.aspx>.

Strate, Lance. "Media as Media." 2008. Web.

Narrative Intolerance

Focus on the Family has been persistently set against the paragon of tolerance and acceptance when approaching perspectives existing outside their own. Evidence of this routine is potently perceptible in how the organization has handled people with an orientation outside the heteronormative standard. It is typical for Focus on the Family to lionize its cause while demonizing its detractors. And not always do people have to actively stand in opposition to Focus on the Family's goals to find themselves an obstacle to the organization's pursuits. When observing this kind of interaction by Focus on the Family, it is often difficult to discern what motivates their particular approach and the effects this approach has on those who unwittingly become the targets of it. The process of gaining a better understanding of the organization's motives and the effects of their actions lends itself to a narrative interpretation.

When observed on a narrative scale, it is much easier to segment and analyze the different aspects of Focus on the Family's agenda. This quality has a great deal to due with narrative's intrinsic and constant state of self-explanation.

In a chapter (2009) by Foss:

Narratives can be examined, as well, for what they reveal about an individual's or a culture's identity. Because stories "have to do with how protagonists interpret things, what things mean to them," they provide clues to the subjectivity of individuals and the values and meanings that characterize a culture. the stories told by a rhetor or group of rhetors, then, provide clues to their worldviews and thus to their motivations for action. (p. 401)

By observing Focus on the Family at this level it allows for a more appropriate approach to often abstract, metaphorical, and arbitrary ideas. While this method might serve to unveil the drive behind Focus on the Family, there seems to be the danger of either buying into or reversing the black and white characterizations that are a natural occurrence in narrative pursuits. The characters in a story are a generally astute place to start any examination of a narrative.

Observing the roles of the various characters present in Focus on the Family's narrative is vital. These characters or groups are more often than not ones that have adopted a polar opposite worldview than that of Focus on the Family. The breakdown on who these characters as I've chosen to cover are, are as follows: those with a orientation outside of heteronormative standards, those seeking rights in regards to same-sex marriage, supporters of abortion, and those who are not Christian. These characters stand in direct opposition to the ideological struggle Focus on the Family is working to protect and thus serve as agents of change. Their progressive stance is an agent of evil in Focus on the Family's worldview or vantage point. From the perspective of Focus on the family these characters are the antagonists to to their protagonist cause, and the organization has created many tailor made personal accounts that work to illustrate this precept.

Focus on the family features many supposed first hand accounts of individuals who have had to deal with those falling outside of the standard sexual orientation. Many of these accounts are negative or deal with situations that have been place under a negative light. One such account of an event that has been placed in this sort of light can be found on the group's webpage.

Dalfonzo (2010) from Focus on the Family's webpage:

When the new neighbors' girl showed up at Jonathan and Amanda Witt's door asking if their 11- year-old daughter could play, Amanda thought nothing of it. Amanda called her daughter and one of her sons and sent them out to get acquainted. The kids played all morning, had lunch together at the Witts' house, then went back outside.

But Amanda's kids soon came running in with an announcement. "Her mother is a lesbian," her 7-year-old son declared.

Amanda grieved not only for the partial loss of her young children's innocence, but also for the girl who brought this unwelcome knowledge into their lives. The girl had cried when she told Amanda's children about her mother, fearing that they would no longer be allowed to play with her. […]

[…] The Witts' story illustrates the difficulty of preserving children's innocence in a culture that seems eager to destroy it. (p. 3).

In looking at this quote it is simple to tell which roles the characters have been placed to play. The mother, Amanda, represents the protagonist fighting against the corruption of her children by a destructive and antagonistic outside culture which is represented by the mother of the 11-year-old girl. If given closer consideration, it may be deduced that the fears of the 11-year-old daughter are erroneously characterized as being the fault of her mother. The alternative reading, that the eleven-year-old girl and her mother have been the repeated victims of prejudice is overlooked entirely. Not only that but the potentiality that they will become the future victims of Amanda's prejudice seems to be a suggested outcome. It seems possible that in this situation the victimized has been distorted in interpretation through Focus on the Family's lens of perception into the role of the victimizer.

Focus on the Family's ability to turn the victimized into the victimizer is born out of the groups limited ability to see outside the perspective of their world view and ideology. Those who subscribe to doctrines that mirror those of Focus on the Family truly believe the evil in this tale lie in the hands of the 11-year-old girl's mother. This kind of constricted interpretation is not one of purposeful intention; it is the product of years of indoctrination. That is not to say it is less dangerous because it is an unintentional reaction to a very learned way of perceiving things. The inability of Focus on the Family to see from a perspective outside their own admits them to see events in a limited scope, letting them then reproduce a narrative that is imbued with a kind of naivety marked by extreme ignorance. One can muse upon the various effects this kind of one-sided storytelling can produce, and from where I stand I can accurately respond to the effects it has as an individual who has been directly affected by this kind of story telling.

From personal experience I have seen the kind of alienation and misunderstanding stories like this create. My first reactions when reading Amanda's story and the thoughts she carried away from the experience are of aversion and distaste. These feelings often prove arduous to set aside and complicate any attempts to create an objective analysis of the situation. When those carrying feeling that are the antithesis of Focus on the Family's read narratives of this variety, feelings of resentment emerge. The end result leaves little room for dialogue between this organization and the many existing outside their world view. The tendencies of Focus on the Family and groups with causes similar to theirs are highly polarizing and only work to widen the gap between them and their many detractors.

Focus on the Family does not just spend their time concerning themselves with the affairs of those falling outside the sphere of the heteronormative majority. Another group the organization directs a lot of its attention towards are those of different religions.

Moreland (2010) from Focus on the Family's webpage:

Hey, I gotta question!" yelled a student from the back of the room. I was sharing the claims of Christ at a University of Massachusetts fraternity house when he interrupted me. "Yes, what is it?" I queried. "I think Jesus is great for you, but I know Buddhists and Muslims, and they're just as sincere as you are. And they think their views are true just like you do. There's no way a person can know his religion is the 'right' one, so the best thing to do is to just believe everyone's religion is true for them and not judge anyone."

Ever heard something like this? It's hard to believe you haven't. What should we make of these ideas? How should we respond? I think there is a good response to this viewpoint [. . .]

[. . .] Are there objective principles to guide one in choosing a religion? Indeed there are. I believe the following four principles should be used to guide one in choosing which religion he or she will follow and, if properly applied, I believe they will point to Christianity as the most rational choice.

It is difficult not to view this passage as a sanctimonious utterance. In this instance the character of the student is less of an antagonist and more of a person in need of rescue. In the narrative above individuals of Focus on the Family are clearly positioned to take up an archetypal role of savior of the misguided. The student is set as an example of a person who's opinions are not valid and who needs to be argued against. His views are considered to not be the rational equivalent of those of Focus on the Family. In addition Focus on the Family makes a claim that can not be backed up on a factual basis; there is no objective principle that could prove one religion to be a more sufficient choice over another. As well as choices involving religion Focus on the Family believes it has the best choices when regarding personal affairs.

Focus on the Family is a vocal opponent of abortion. Its aversion towards the practice stems from its religious background and belief that life begins at conception.

Anonymous (2010) from Focus on the Family's webpage:

[…] I had my life together. However, I was in a sexual relationship that had crushed my faith. The decline was slow, but culminated in a date rape that left me feeling chained to a man I hated . […] And then it happened. I was pregnant.

The evening that I confirmed my pregnancy, my boyfriend was interviewing at a church for a youth pastor position. He knew that I was at home taking a pregnancy test. When he stopped by my house, all he could do was tell me about the interview. I knew then, looking at this man I despised, that I would not keep the baby. I felt that there was absolutely no question of what to do — which even now surprises me. We fought, cried, talked, etc. about what to do. But I knew. knew, too. This could not happen. […]

[…] The doctor was sitting with his feet on a desk, reading the paper and laughing. We went into a little room with Frankenstein-like equipment. I had never even been to a gynecologist before. After a prick, and noise, and a lot of fear, it was over. Fairly quick, fairly painless. In the recovery room, I saw a mother holding her daughter's hand, and I felt a pitiful connection with the four other women on cots. Leaving the building, I felt overwhelming relief. My nausea was gone almost immediately after the baby was taken. The first thing I wanted to do was eat.

The following weeks and months brought a myriad of emotions. My relief quickly turned to grief. I felt a debilitating isolation because no one knew what had happened but he and I. Life went on. I continued to work. Didn't miss a day. But I began to slip. […]

My relationship ended. Thankfully, I was more hopeful for the future. But the damage was done. I became promiscuous, drank and experimented with lesbianism. […]

Now, almost 10 years later, I still struggle with the consequences of my actions. I have lost a child. Weeping, I see my niece who is two months younger than my child. Sadly, I chose to turn away from God, and the choices I made will always be part of my life. […]

Thankfully, His faithfulness isn't dependent on mine. God's spirit has returned to my life now. Finally, I have found some measure of healing. Looking back, I believe that all of my previously understood arguments against abortion fell short because I didn't understand what God says: that every life is sacred — even a broken one.

This narration explicitly lays down a principle of Focus on the Family's doctrine, that principle being that abortion is a sin. As glimpsed from this story it can be deduced that the organization believes no extenuating circumstances exist that could negate this fact. The protagonist of the above story is faced with several realities. She is the victim of rape and burdened by a sense of guilt that binds her to the perpetrator. To exasperate this situation she is pregnant with the child of the man who raped her. In light of these facts, her final conclusion is that life is sacred. While espousing this belief she proceeds to refer to the life of which she feels burdened by as broken. When considering this, it is worrisome to see the protagonist's final conclusion. How is she supposed to raise a child if her perceptions are that she would be dealing with a damaged life?

The narratives of Focus on he Family give us a different way to perceive and interpret the organization's world view. It gives us insight we would not otherwise be able to gleam from news articles, interviews and other mediums. These stories allow us to walk away with a clearer look into Focus on the family's intentions, as well as the potential effects their actions elicit from the outside world. Knowing these facets admit us to gain a greater understanding into the mindsets and actions of this group, thereby equipping those who would wish to argue a point against them with greater ammunition to do so.

Foss, Sonja K., and Sonja K. Foss. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2009. Print.

Dalfonzo, Gina R. "Innocence Lost - Focus on the Family." Focus on the Family: Helping Families Thrive. Web. 15 Dec. 2010. <http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/protecting_

your_family/combatting_cultural_influences/innocence_lost.aspx>.

Moreland, J. P. "Choosin' My Religion - Focus on the Family." Focus on the Family: Helping Families Thrive. Web. 15 Dec. 2010. <http://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/christian_worldview/why

_is_a_christian_worldview_important/choosin_my_religion.aspx>.

Anonymous. "Life Is Sacred - Focus on the Family." Focus on the Family: Helping Families Thrive. Web. 15 Dec. 2010. <http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/love_and_sex/abortion/

life_is_sacred.aspx>.

Reflections on Falling Down a Flight of Stairs.

Apparently I had charcoal dust from UTD’s art department on the bottom of my shoes. At least that’s what it looked like. The stairs in the Johnson building are coated in this slick plastic, for God knows what reason. I somehow got away with just a bruised leg and a very painful bump on the back of my head. The bump being caused by a pleasant slam of my head into one of the steps. I’ve suddenly realized how great being alive is — and how much I hate stairs, though I hold no animosity towards escalators.

Lions, Tigers, and Body Scanners?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNFY-s_vLVA
I am a little bit perplexed by all these protests concerning body scanners. I am aware of the concerns, but I don't feel walking through one of these things is equivalent to stripping nude in front of airport personnel. And if people are concerned about an invasion of privacy, I wonder how many of them have ever stopped to consider the number of cameras out there that have already invaded their privacy. Oh, let me count the ways: cell phone cameras, shop cameras, roof top cameras, taxi cab cameras, random peeping toms, and etc. Your privacy is constantly being invaded; you're probably just blissfully unaware of it because of how "unintrusive" it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDyo_OQFdAc
Oh, the implications.

Culture Jam

There are organizations that presume to have the best interests of others in mind or that claim to have privileged knowledge pertaining to what is in everyone's best interest. Any organization or group that allows itself this kind of absolute certainty should be placed under a lens scrutiny and closely assessed. It would be prudent to examine any group claiming to have concocted a one size fits all formula to living life with suspicion and doubt. The organization Focus on the Family is a tax exempt evangelical Christian organization that asserts itself as having attained the ideal equation for the perfect family. In addition to this their mission statement “nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.” (Focus on the Family), offers further illumination into their incentives. As a method geared towards gaining some personal insight into and to educe the many possible facets of Focus on the Family's motivations, I détourned their logo. In doing this I hoped to shed light upon what I feel is and has been the organization's greatest negative impact upon families across the United States as well as the effects of their endeavors in counties halfway across the globe.

When looking at Focus on the Family's motto which is “helping families thrive”, one might assume positive things concerning their agenda. They are here to help, to do what they can to assist families in need and families in general. But when the time is taken to further investigate their actions, impact, and behavior towards different groups; a few questions come to mind. If they are here to help families, why do they exclude certain families and family members based upon the following criteria: sexual orientation, appearance, parenting choices, religious background, and personal decisions? As well, why does Focus on the Family frequently act antagonistic towards individuals they have chosen to exclude? If they are not acting antagonistic towards a group or persons, then Focus on the Family spends much of its effort attempting to alter the behavior of the excluded until those persons or groups better reflect their standards. Observing these mixed signals is enough to make one wonder what their actual intentions are. Do they mean to harm, to help, subjugate, or change people for the better?

When scrutinizing these perceptibly contradictory possibilities, it is important to remember that family is dependent upon acceptance, communication, respect for each other, as well as an understanding and dynamic not often observed outside of family. If an organization like Focus on the Family actively works to exclude or forcibly alter specific members of a family and by alter I mean change the character of who those members are, its efforts are indirectly or perhaps directly breaking down the basic structure of some families. It becomes difficult to decipher the intentions of a group that seems to hold so many contradictory aspirations, and if we examine it further, the irony of this obfuscated situation is that the lack of clarity in it appears to be an intentional construction. If the intentions presented by Focus on the Family contradict with the real-life actions they take and the ultimate consequences of those actions, then a different question must be asked. What motivates an organization like Focus on the Family to persistently behave in this way when the observable effects of their endeavors contradict their supposed cause of “helping families thrive”?

My détournement centered on Focus on the Family's long standing cause to alienate and discriminate against individuals who do not fit the mold for what they consider acceptable. For my culture jam I concentrated my efforts towards online groups holding anti-homosexual sentiments. The globally targeted agendas of these organizations mirror those of Focus on the Family. The efforts of these groups have proven to be damaging to individuals who have not willfully made life choices that merit them becoming the targets of such zealous animosity. The motivations directing these organizations appear to be propelled by intolerance and geared towards the estrangement of individuals deemed to be either unacceptable or undesirable from society. Focus on the Family's attempts as well as the attempts of these groups to legislate and proliferate their ideological stand point across the globe have produced detrimental consequences for many.

The emotionally damaging and erroneous ventures of Focus on the Family in pursuits like homosexual conversion therapy and lobbying against an anti-bullying bill simply because it mentioned (in brief) bullying that targeted homosexual students. Efforts of this sort can alienate individuals growing up and may often create very real and very negative impacts on people's lives.
In a news report (2010) by Goldman:
The Colorado-based organization says the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network has targeted thousands of school districts nationwide with literature. "Schools are only allowed to provide one message about homosexuality; that it's normal and should be embraced," Focus on the Family said of the gay group's message. (p. 2).
As seen above, Focus on the Family and its members show a marked degree of intolerance and inability to recognize their own antipathy towards those outside their ideology and worldview. The organization refuses to recognize the importance of noting of any differences that might potentially make young individuals more likely to become the victims of bullying. Focus on the Family shows an amazing amount of interest in preventing education that does not fit to their standards but has little problem providing education or more appropriately reeducation tailored to their needs.

If they are not commenting on how inappropriate mention of orientation outside of hetero-normative standards is, then they are busy reeducating those who fall outside of hetero-normative standards. In an interview (2008) by Draper, “Focus says the conferences started a national conversation on the origins of homosexuality and have nurtured thousands of troubled families and helped hundreds of former gays and lesbians 'escape the lifestyle.'” (p. 1). The emotional harm inherent in telling another that they are not alright as they are and that they can be changed is difficult to measure. Regardless of this, there is no denying that this kind of approach has destroyed families. This organization is unable to or unwilling to examine the impact of their behavior. The extent of Focus on the Family's desire to standardize this type of intolerance is far reaching.

The best example relating to the scope and impact of organizations such as this would have to be the situation in Uganda, where their impact is readily apparent. To be precise, the influence of such groups is easily seen in Uganda's anti-homosexual bill where people are threatened by the potentiality of receiving penalties as high as the death sentence for homosexual acts.
In an article (2010) by Gettleman:
“Now we really have to go undercover,” said Stosh Mugisha, a gay rights activist who said she was pinned down in a guava orchard and raped by a farmhand who wanted to cure her of her attraction to girls. She said that she was impregnated and infected with H.I.V., but that her grandmother’s reaction was simply, “ ‘You are too stubborn.’ ” (p. 3).
These are likely not the intended effects of these organizations, but their actions abroad have exasperated their occurrence. All these factors influenced how I approached my détournement.

When détourning Focus on the Family's logo, I had a specific purpose in how I reinterpreted the symbolism of the image. I manipulated the logo to elicit feelings of shame from the people viewing it. To do this I took the language and symbolism of the image subverted it and set it against its authors. I converted the message of familial bonding by turning that message inside out; specifically, I reappropriated the imagery by changing it into that which expressed a sense of loss. The logo as presented by Focus on the Family features a child whose hands are being held by two supportive parent figures. The gender of the parents, respectively, as male and female is seemingly implied by the proportional size differences of the hands located on either side of the child. The image is meant to evoke feelings of joy, personal satisfaction and contentedness. I used the iconography of Focus on the Family and warped it to evoke feelings diametrically opposite of the ones it was meant to provoke. I achieved this by taking the image and altering the placement of the hands until they were no longer holding the arms of the child. Through this manipulation I created a sense of abandonment instead of the feelings of support and bonding the logo was meant to present. To further the effect I placed fire surrounding the icon of the child as supplementation, adding connotations of abandonment as well as symbolic implications of the ideological concept of Hell.

After I had détourned the organization's logo I utilized it on a few Facebook pages and online forums. These pages included: Reinstate Proposition 8, Protect Marriage, and Million Against Same-Sex Marriage. My goal in my détournement was to induce strong feelings of shame and self-doubt. While I believe I was effective in visually creating an image meant to induce those feelings, the results produced by placing my détournement in the view of those supportive and receptive of Focus on the Family were frequently those of animosity and derision. The image was typically removed not long after I had posted it. The final outcome always resulted in my banning from these groups.

I believe these reactions were not evidence against the effectiveness of my détournement, but instead evidence  proving its effectiveness. The typical  response produced by those met with a perspective that does not mesh with their accepted standard of reality is denial of its validity and refusal to examine it objectively. While I had hoped to see at least one thoughtful response, I regret to say that I received none. Regardless, this did offer some insight into the intolerance present in and antipathy of individuals who subscribe to the doctrines espoused by Focus on the Family.


Draper, Electa. "Focus on the Family Focuses on Homosexuals - The Denver Post." Home - The Denver Post. Web. 12 Oct. 2010. <http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10788844>.

Focus on the Family: Helping Families Thrive. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.focusonthefamily.com/>.

Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push." New York Times. 3 Jan. 2010. Web. 5 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html>.

Goldman, Russell. "School Anti-Bullying Programs Push Gay Agenda, Christian Group Focus on the Family Says - ABC News." ABCNews.com - ABCNews.com: Breaking News, Politics, World News, Good Morning America, Exclusive Interviews - ABC News. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://abcnews.go.com/US/school-anti-bullying-programs-push-gay-agenda-christian/story? id=11527833&page=1>.

In Search of the Dallas Art Community or Where's the Door?

Working on it

This Whole Wiki Leaks "Fiasco"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPB9yy7IJ4
I find no small amount of personal confusion in how the United States intends to go about prosecuting a man that is not a citizen of the United States for doing something that is a protected right in the United States. This is no trifle. A large degree of hypocrisy is on display here. If there were greater degrees of transparency in governments (as well as any human interaction for that matter) across the globe, I can only imagine the improvement the state of human affairs would endure.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/12/14/tsr.moore.defends.assange.cnn?hpt=T2