The other family theory is the family practise which is closely interdependent with the family discourse theory (Finch 2006, p 296). Discourse focuses on the formation of a family depending on the language whereas family practise explains the family or human activities included in making the family. Discourse has several meanings depending on the context or methodological structure in which it is used by social scientists. In this context of family meaning, discourse can be described as the structure of meaning that categorize the societal world and make a difference. Discourse as used in the definition of family discourse can be individualized so that the specific understanding fit in to an individual or they can be ethnically standardized so that the meaning is common to all members of a social group (Finch 2006, p 296).
Family discourse and Social Power; In this perspective, the individual investments in the family make them consistently perform for the family, for example the wish for to being a better parent may tie a person in to discourse and so contributes to wider method of managing and controlling, a system commonly referred to as "governance". Theorists have ascertained that most people in the general society are not forced to do what is right as regarded by the society but contrastingly many of them would want to do something that appears to be right and their personal ambitions are connected in significant ways to discourses. An example of discourse in parenting, with concerns for education and parenting, most parents tend to act in a way that would depict them as good parents who are giving the best to their children (Finch 2006, p 295). For this reason, the parental identity shapes against backdrop of discourses of family and this is referred to as familial discourses. Individual dedications and ambitions shape in familial discourses and have societal effects plus some individual's feeling of importance; they are a significant connection between family and systems of governance. The critical connection that makes the people strive to stop backdrop of institutionalized power and as a result people will aim to and enjoy doing thing in a way considered correct an would suffer from anxiety and guilt when they do not meet individual aspirations.
Competing Discourses; Since discourses are not determining, the consequences cannot be foreseen basically because of two reasons; there are competing discourses though some dominate; and individuals do not submissively agree to the strictures of discourses. They may choose to appeal to a specific discourse to represent on its ethical or emotional influence. People can create discourses too, as they socialize on daily basis. But these new discourses are not likely to be extensively recognised or dominate institutionally unless they also symbolize the meaning of influential groups (Finch 2006, p 297). For example, working men's groups may convey and devise certain types of discourse (e.g. about masculinity), but these might not become extensively recognized nor entrenched into policy or professional proficiency, unless via trade union manipulation.
Some other drawback include the two competing discourses; legal discourses that represent a biological perspective of